Speaking in 'tongues'

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.

No doubt relying on the good Revd. Collett's 1909 pronouncements to rebut what current science actually does have to say.

I just feel sorry for you. Really.

I suppose if this nonsense makes you happy and you're never allowed near the vulnerable minds of the young to spout it you're harmless enough, but even so - how on earth can someone alive at the time of iPhones and gene therapy actually genuinely believe this stuff?

Wow. Just wow.

[~TW~]

TW,

Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.

No doubt relying on the good Revd. Collett's 1909 pronouncements to rebut what current science actually does have to say.

I just feel sorry for you. Really.

I suppose if this nonsense makes you happy and you're never allowed near the vulnerable minds of the young to spout it you're harmless enough, but even so - how on earth can someone alive at the time of iPhones and gene therapy actually genuinely believe this stuff?

Wow. Just wow.

 So how long have you been throwing away the bananas and keeping the skins.Another fact is I knew you could not post the mistakes in Genesis are you floo in disguise.

          ~YTW@      I cant be bothered with your mt promises.

[Outrider]

https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll                                  try page 261 educate your self

                ~TW~

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."

No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.

That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

So how long have you been throwing away the bananas and keeping the skins.Another fact is I knew you could not post the mistakes in Genesis are you floo in disguise.

          ~YTW@      I cant be bothered with your mt promises.

I wish you well in your efforts to prove all of modern science to be wrong armed with your trusty 1909 religious text and your personal incredulity. Really I do. Given your previous effort of "the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible" you'll understand I hope if decline the offer of educating you on the ground that you are in fact entirely uneducable.   

In the meantime, stay away from sharp objects and keep wrapped up well this winter won't you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."

No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.

That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.

But but but..

... hang on a mo - what about the Revd. Collett back in 1909? You know, the one who prefaces his book by telling us that the world is 6,000 years old?

Are you saying that he got stuff wrong?

That modern science has long-since worked this stuff out?

That poor TW has been duped?

Aw no, say it ain't so - I guess you can't trust anyone these days eh?

[Sassy]

TW,

Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.

No doubt relying on the good Revd. Collett's 1909 pronouncements to rebut what current science actually does have to say.

I just feel sorry for you. Really.

I suppose if this nonsense makes you happy and you're never allowed near the vulnerable minds of the young to spout it you're harmless enough, but even so - how on earth can someone alive at the time of iPhones and gene therapy actually genuinely believe this stuff?

Wow. Just wow.

SARCASM alive and well, I see...

[~TW~]

Outy,

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."

No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.

That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.

But but but..

... hang on a mo - what about the Revd. Collett back in 1909? You know, the one who prefaces his book by telling us that the world is 6,000 years old?

Are you saying that he got stuff wrong?

That modern science has long-since worked this stuff out?

That poor TW has been duped?

Aw no, say it ain't so - I guess you can't trust anyone these days eh?

 So BHS you failed as floo fails you could not put anything up .I notice JP may have done and as of yet I have not looked.As regards what the book says you were told to read one page 261 and that is in total harmony with science and the bible which was  stated  a bit before your science.

So next bhs learn back up your statments with action. Don't get like floo the complete drip.

  ~TW

[Outrider]

Outy,

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."

No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.

That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.

But but but..

... hang on a mo - what about the Revd. Collett back in 1909? You know, the one who prefaces his book by telling us that the world is 6,000 years old?

Are you saying that he got stuff wrong?

That modern science has long-since worked this stuff out?

That poor TW has been duped?

Aw no, say it ain't so - I guess you can't trust anyone these days eh?

 So BHS you failed as floo fails you could not put anything up .I notice JP may have done and as of yet I have not looked.As regards what the book says you were told to read one page 261 and that is in total harmony with science and the bible which was  stated  a bit before your science.

So next bhs learn back up your statments with action. Don't get like floo the complete drip.

  ~TW

Uh... perhaps you missed my rebuttal of the blatant errors of p261?

O.

[Spud]

It seems to me that you are claiming that Mark invented most of his gospel by using passages from the Old Testament.

Yes and no. Look at Mark in depth and it is obvious that Old Testament stories form the basis of his stories. But what is the purpose of it? To create a work of fiction? No, (NB: jargon approaching) Mark wants us to believe that a real man called Jesus has, by dying and rising again, accomplished a real rescue, like the Exodus but of a spiritual nature, to bring people from all nations out of slavery to sin and into fellowship with God. The miracles he did vindicated his claim to be the Son of God, the Old Testament God who did similar miracles for Israel to bring them into fellowship with Him.

[Spud]

An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.

Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.

As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!

Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.

Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?

We will have to look at Isaiah and Jeremiah and their predictions of the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah 42:9 says, "See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."

[Gordon]

We will have to look at Isaiah and Jeremiah and their predictions of the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah 42:9 says, "See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."

So, with what degree of precision are these prophecies clear and unequivocal?
 

[jeremyp]

I notice JP may have done and as of yet I have not looked.

No, JP has done and would certainly appreciate your thoughts. Several scientific inaccuracies in Genesis have already been cited and so far your responses are conspicuous only by their absence.

[jeremyp]

It seems to me that you are claiming that Mark invented most of his gospel by using passages from the Old Testament.

Yes and no. Look at Mark in depth and it is obvious that Old Testament stories form the basis of his stories.

I agree, so how can people call it history?

But what is the purpose of it? To create a work of fiction? No, (NB: jargon approaching) Mark wants us to believe that a real man called Jesus has, by dying and rising again, accomplished a real rescue, like the Exodus but of a spiritual nature, to bring people from all nations out of slavery to sin and into fellowship with God.

Yes he does but is it legitimate to persuade people by inventing a story based on older scriptures? I'd say it is dishonest.

The miracles he did vindicated his claim to be the Son of God

Yes if he actually did them, but we are agreeing that the gospels are (at least partly) made up based on the OT.

[Spud]

Jeremy, it wouldn't be dishonest if that is what he also believed. He's using the old testament to make his point, about God rescuing people.

[Gordon]

Jeremy, it wouldn't be dishonest if that is what he also believed.

Have you considered that a) he could be mistaken or b) he didn't believe what he said because he was telling lies? Both of these are clear risks.

He's using the old testament to make his point, about God rescuing people.

Perhaps so, but that also includes the possibility of using the OT to bolster fictitious propaganda.

You seem to have a problem in even considering that the Bible may be flawed in some respects. 

[Spud]

We will have to look at Isaiah and Jeremiah and their predictions of the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah 42:9 says, "See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."

So, with what degree of precision are these prophecies clear and unequivocal?

Hi Gordon,
Whereas Isaiah's prediction of Cyrus allowing the captives to return home is explained by skeptics as being written down after the event by someone other than Isaiah, Jeremiah's prophecy of the captivity lasting 70 years (Jer. 25:11-12) cannot be post-dated, because Jeremiah died, in Egypt, long before the captivity ended.

Jeremiah was an old man when he proclaimed this prophecy. He lived to experience the destruction of Jerusalem, the fulfillment of the first part of the prophecy. However he died shortly after that in Egypt. There is no way this prophecy can be post-dated. The Jewish scribes who lived seventy years later were aware of the prophecy, attributed it to Jeremiah, and regarded it as being fulfilled in their time. Only an anti-supernaturalist would dare to post-date this prophecy.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/james_price/proph-response.html

[Spud]

See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy, it wouldn't be dishonest if that is what he also believed.

I'll concede that point on the grounds that Mark never makes the claim that his story is meant to be accurately biographical.

[jeremyp]

See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.

The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.

[BashfulAnthony]

See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.

The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.

Why bother to post that? An body could have copied it from Google themselves!

[jeremyp]

See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.

The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.

Why bother to post that?

Spud made a post that was in error. Are you saying we should just let mistakes stand?

An body could have copied it from Google themselves!

Clearly Spud would have benefited from a bit of Googling, so as to avoid basic mistakes.

[Leonard James]

Spud made a post that was in error. Are you saying we should just let mistakes stand?

You are not allowed to find fault with Christians ... it's not cricket!

[Spud]

If you were referring to Daniel 11:36-45, we've discussed this before. Have a squiz at http://tinyurl.com/cbpfr6t
Here is an interesting bit, concerning Daniel 11:35:

Beginning with Mattathias' leadership of the rebellion against Antiochus IV, the rule of the Hasmoneans (named after Mattathias' grandfather, Asmoneus) lasted from 168 until 37 BCE. The words "until the time of the end" refer to the end of this second period of Jewish sovereignty. The "appointed time" refers to the 70 weeks of years that Gabriel had earlier told Daniel about (Dan. 9:24-27), which led to the appearance of the Messiah.

If you scroll down to the above paragraph and read on, the link explains how 'the king' in verse 36 is Herod the Great. "...the king of the South is Mark Antony and his ally Cleopatra (the last monarch to occupy the Egyptian throne). The king of the North is Octavius, who as the official representative of Rome, was ruler of the former Syrian empire of the Seleucids."

If you still think that these verses refer to Antiochus IV, can you explain what you think is meant by 'the time of the end'?

[DaveM]

See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.

The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.

Why bother to post that? An body could have copied it from Google themselves!

My own view on Daniel 11 is that the section dealing with Antiochus IV ends at verse 35 and the circumstances of his death are not dealt with.  An important clue is given in verse 36. "The king will do as he pleases".  By this stage of his rule Antiochus IV was not able to do as he pleased.  The Romans had become far to powerful for that, as witnessed by the way they foiled his plans in Egypt (the ships of Kittim).  From verse 36 on Daniel has moved on to describe a new and far more powerful individual than Antiochus.   

[jeremyp]

If you were referring to Daniel 11:36-45, we've discussed this before. Have a squiz at http://tinyurl.com/cbpfr6t
Here is an interesting bit, concerning Daniel 11:35:

Beginning with Mattathias' leadership of the rebellion against Antiochus IV, the rule of the Hasmoneans (named after Mattathias' grandfather, Asmoneus) lasted from 168 until 37 BCE. The words "until the time of the end" refer to the end of this second period of Jewish sovereignty. The "appointed time" refers to the 70 weeks of years that Gabriel had earlier told Daniel about (Dan. 9:24-27), which led to the appearance of the Messiah.

If you scroll down to the above paragraph and read on, the link explains how 'the king' in verse 36 is Herod the Great. "...the king of the South is Mark Antony and his ally Cleopatra (the last monarch to occupy the Egyptian throne). The king of the North is Octavius, who as the official representative of Rome, was ruler of the former Syrian empire of the Seleucids."

If you still think that these verses refer to Antiochus IV, can you explain what you think is meant by 'the time of the end'?

Your link is wrong. Historians even use Daniel as a primary source for the Maccabean revolt because its author clearly witnessed the events.