Serious bible question

[lmwii]

by what standard do we judge the fulfillment? once again, you CAN NOT use the bible to prove itself! and as has been pointed out before in this thread, other ancient writings all have prophecies that have been fulfilled; does that make the whole of their texts and belief systems true?

[lmwii]

if ancient religious texts can be used as proof of themselves, wouldn't that make ALL of them true? the difference for bible believers is simply faith. faith makes it true for y'all.

 

quit trying to 'prove' anything. you cannot. the truth exists for you because of faith, not evidence.

[john82wa]

There is several things wrong with what Chip quoted and it is incredibly misleading in regards to what the texts are. But to the sounds of it Imwii, your argument states that the bible is irrelevant in its entirety. If you want me to explain what Chip put down I will or if you prefer I just PM him then I can do that. I don't want to ruffle the feathers of anyone so you decide. In regards to other religions and there prophecies, I would be inclined to ask how many prophecies came true of each said religion and compare between those of the christian faith. I think there would be an overwhelming difference but I am not well informed about them so I can't answer that. It seems your argument goes much deeper than a discussion and I wish I knew why. The bible does have significant evidence - your argument is how those things came to be (such as the Red Sea). The chariots are a piece of evidence without a doubt, but I know it doesn't 'prove' the story to be correct, but evidence nonetheless.

 

It is starting to sound a bit like a court room. It's like an innocent man going to jail and spending years in prison only to be exonerated because of a new discovery called DNA.

[lmwii]

you keep saying that prophecies from the bible came true, but what are you offering as evidence? more passages from the bible! you can't use it to prove itself, because that means that ANY other book can be used to prove itself too. do you see that?

 

you cannot prove the bible or god or christianity true, you have to take it on faith. some folks are willing to live that way, and some are not. i live by evidence and observation, you live by your faith and beliefs. that's really the end of the story.

Edited April 1, 2012 by lmwii

[chiplee]

There is several things wrong with what Chip quoted and it is incredibly misleading in regards to what the texts are.

 

Incredibly misleading when your interpretation includes the assumption that God is real and good and wise beyond our comprehension. Please explain how any of it is misleading when your interpretation doesn't include those assumptions. Believers like to say you can't quote any individual chapter & verse without considering the context of the entire document, but in a perfect text, this can't be true. In a perfect, divinely inspired text, every individual chapter & verse should stand up to scrutiny on its own, and contain some lesson or important knowledge.

 

But to the sounds of it Imwii, your argument states that the bible is irrelevant in its entirety. If you want me to explain what Chip put down I will or if you prefer I just PM him then I can do that. I don't want to ruffle the feathers of anyone so you decide.

 

You can't ruffle feathers with intellectually honest rebuttals. I would eagerly update my stance if you showed it to be in error. Please explain what I "put down."

 

In regards to other religions and there prophecies, I would be inclined to ask how many prophecies came true of each said religion and compare between those of the christian faith. I think there would be an overwhelming difference but I am not well informed about them so I can't answer that.

 

So you go from saying "what other religions have had prophecies that have been true?" which suggests that you think it's none or very few, to saying "Well, if we were to add them up I'm sure Christianity would win, but I don't know much about it."

 

I mean, you do understand how that sounds don't you?

 

It seems your argument goes much deeper than a discussion and I wish I knew why. The bible does have significant evidence - your argument is how those things came to be (such as the Red Sea). The chariots are a piece of evidence without a doubt, but I know it doesn't 'prove' the story to be correct, but evidence nonetheless.

 

It is starting to sound a bit like a court room. It's like an innocent man going to jail and spending years in prison only to be exonerated because of a new discovery called DNA.

 

Fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy that is found in the New Testament, could easily have been made up by New Testament writers, so when you limit your consideration of "fulfilled prophecy" accordingly, you're left with very few interesting cases, but there are problems with all of them. As Theodore Drange puts it, "if God were to put impressive fulfilled prophecies into the Bible, then he would use fulfillments that become part of secular history, and which would already be known about by those to whom the missionaries go to preach the gospel message."

 

Here we have a pointed rebuttal to Henry M. Morris, by Theodore Drange regarding the ever popular prophecy of the restoration of the Nation of Israel. You'll recall that we established Morris as a liar in previous discussions in this thread, but you took his analysis seriously enough to post it here before you looked into his record. Here we find that like most Christian apologists, Morris is just as willing to take biblical literature out of context as he is to take scientific literature out of context. Which should come as no surprise.

 

"Henry Morris takes the restoration of the nation of Israel in the twentieth century as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. [9] He cites Ezekiel 37:21 in which God says: I am going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. (Tanakh)

 

The obvious objection is that Ezekiel is not here talking about the twentieth century but is predicting the return of the Jews from their captivity, exile, and dispersal at the hands of the Assyrians (in the 8th and 7th centuries, B.C.) and the Babylonians (in the 7th and 6th centuries). That return occurred in 537 B.C., shortly after the book of Ezekiel was written. In itself, it is a prophecy that became fulfilled, though not a particularly remarkable one. The book was written during the exile, and there may have been good evidence available to Ezekiel that the exile would soon come to an end. Other parts of the prophecy, that the returning Jews would faithfully observe God's laws and that they would live in their restored homeland forever (Eze 37:24-28) were not fulfilled.

 

It is understandable why McDowell stayed clear of this alleged prophecy (being more intellectually honest than Morris), though it is sometimes cited by missionaries today. As a prophecy about an event 2500 years in the future, it would certainly be an impressive one if it could be adequately supported.

 

Undaunted, Morris cites Isaiah 11:11-12, which reads: In that day, My Lord will apply His hand again to redeeming the other part of His people from Assyria - as also from Egypt, Pathros, Nubia, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and the coastlands. He will hold up a signal to the nations and assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Tanakh)

 

Morris claims that Isaiah's use of the word "again" indicates that he is referring to the twentieth century, A.D., and that "the first time" would be the return from the Babylonian captivity. But there is a more plausible interpretation: that the word "again" is referring to what was then (at the writing of Isaiah) a future return from the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles and that "the first time" would be the Exodus (from Egypt, many centuries earlier).

 

Although I have not looked at all the alleged remarkable fulfilled prophecies, my conclusion is that none of them is what its advocates maintain. Many of them are not prophecies at all. Of the ones that are prophecies, almost all remain unfulfilled. And the few that are fulfilled prophecies are not remarkable, for one reason or another. Therefore, premise (1) of the Argument from the Bible has not been adequately supported and may reasonably be doubted."

 

Premise one of the argument from the Bible is, "The Bible contains a large number of prophecies of future events which have been remarkably fulfilled." Drange offers the following analysis of another one of these predictive prophecies.

 

"One writer who mentions historical-type prophecies is Josh McDowell. He discusses twelve cities that were prophesied to be destroyed. [6] The first of them is the city of Tyre, the destruction of which was prophesied in Eze 26:3-21. It was said that, after being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, Tyre would never be rebuilt and would never be found again (Eze 26:14,21, 27:36, 28:19).

 

According to McDowell, all of the prophecies regarding Tyre and the other cities he talks about were fulfilled in history. He goes on to say the following: We can then draw only one conclusion, and that is that God inspired the writing of every one of these prophecies. ... He has predicted multitudes of events to happen in the future. They have come true exactly as predicted, even though in some cases thousands of years were involved for the fulfillment. God has proven that He is our supernatural God with all wisdom. We have no alternative but to believe. [7]

 

I shall not try to deal here with all of the prophecies mentioned by McDowell... but let us look at some of the problems with the Tyre prophecy.

 

(1) Tyre had two parts, an island part and a mainland part. Nebuchadnezzar only managed to destroy the mainland part. According to historians, he failed to capture the island city of Tyre, despite a 13-year siege (585-572 B.C.). That was why Nebuchadnezzar was unable to pay his soldiers, as reported in Eze 29:18. [That in itself refutes the earlier prophecy. Ezekiel is in effect admitting its failure. He should have scrapped it before completing his book.] It was not until the attack by Alexander the Great more than 200 years later that the island part of Tyre was also destroyed. However, since Ezekiel did not mention Alexander, only Nebuchadnezzar, it is hard to see how that later attack fulfills any part of his prophecy.

 

(2) According to historians, Tyre recovered quickly following the attack by Alexander. In 64 B.C., it became part of the Roman Empire and prospered. It is mentioned in the present tense in the New Testament. [8] Christian buildings were constructed there in the Fourth Century A.D. and during the Crusades, but Muslims later destroyed them.

 

(3) Tyre still exists today. It is a city on the coast of Lebanon, to be found on any map of that country. It has been mentioned in recent times in connection with retaliatory raids upon Hezbollah forces in Lebanon by Israel in their ongoing warfare.

It does not seem, then, that Ezekiel's prophecies came true. He said that Tyre would "be no more" but that did not happen. Similar considerations could be raised in connection with all the other prophecies that McDowell and others have claimed to have been fulfilled in history."

Edited April 1, 2012 by chiplee

[Crazy larry]

Out A Control. just my thoughts

[chiplee]

The only true science is supported biblicly.

 

That should read, "The only science I'll consider true is that which is supported Biblicly."

 

There is no other science without desecrating the word.

 

 

But in many ways, the word desecrates itself.

 

More from Theodore Drange:

 

According to premise (4) of the Argument from the Bible, the Bible contains a convincing eye-witness account of the resurrection and subsequent appearances of Jesus of Nazareth. The gospels do describe Jesus's execution and subsequent burial in a tomb, and they do claim that the tomb was later found to be empty and that Jesus appeared to his followers in bodily form. The main reason for calling them "eye-witness accounts" is that in Luke 1:2 it says, "they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses." There are, however, several problems.

 

First, it is generally conceded that the accounts of the resurrection were not actually written down until more than thirty years after the alleged event had occurred and that, prior to being written down, they were, in effect, rumors or stories which had been spread orally throughout the region. It is easy for such rumors to become embellished over time. Changes tend to occur in oral messages, even when their conveyers make every effort to pass them on accurately. So even if the resurrection accounts are based on what are said to be eye-witness reports, there is much room for doubt regarding them. An analogy would be the report of some event in history, such as the explosion and burning of the Hindenburg Zeppelin over Lakehurst, NJ, in 1937. If the very earliest written account of that event were published in, say, 1967, then historians would be reasonably suspicious as to whether it really did occur, even if the account is based on alleged eye-witness reports.

 

Second, the event in question is supernatural or miraculous in character. That in itself makes it an event which calls for something more in support than just reports by a handful of alleged eyewitnesses. By analogy, if the explosion and burning of the Hindenburg Zeppelin were claimed to be followed by its miraculous reappearance out of nowhere, say, the next day, then historians would need far more than just some alleged eye-witness reports before they would include such an event (as an actual event, not merely a reported one) in their history books. Even if the alleged eyewitnesses were to show their complete sincerity, say, by passing lie-detector tests, that would still not sway historians. The event could still be some sort of mass hallucination or the product of the power of suggestion (as has been suggested in the case of the astronomical miracle at Fatima, Portugal in 1917). I'll add here that Christians are quite familiar and comfortable with this standard of evidence because they use it to dismiss the miracles and fulfilled prophecies of all other faiths on earth.

 

Third, those who wrote the accounts of Jesus's resurrection were not reporters or historians. They were all motivated to win converts to their new religion, which was at that time a kind of Judaic cult. Even Luke, who says, "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (1:3), was not a neutral investigative reporter, but a proselytizer for Christianity (mainly to the Gentiles). That is another fact about the writings which tends to cast doubt upon their objectivity and accuracy.

Fourth, the alleged resurrection appearances were only to Jesus's followers, not to his opponents. If the whole purpose of the resurrection had been for God to convey to the world the truth of the gospel message, as suggested in Mt 12:38-40, or at least the information that there is such a state as an afterlife, as suggested by St. Paul in 1Co 15:12-19, then the event was very badly staged. More people should have witnessed the crucifixion and certified that Jesus was really dead. [13] And certainly many more people than just a handful of his followers should have witnessed his return from the dead. This is a point made previously in the present book in connection with ANB.

 

Fifth, the Biblical accounts of the resurrection are not consistent and that tends to cast doubt on them. They contradict one another regarding such matters as how many women went to Jesus's tomb, whether it was still dark out, whether Mary Magdalene told people about the tomb, whether she went back to it with them, whether there was just one angel there or two, whether the angels were inside of the tomb or outside, whether they got there before the women and disciples, and what they looked like, whether there were guards at the tomb, whether Peter went there alone, whether Jesus appeared first to him (1Co 15:3-5), whether he appeared at all to Mary Magdalene, whether he appeared to her at the tomb, whether she was then alone, whether she recognized him immediately, and whether it was after the disciples were told, whether Peter went to the tomb before or after the others were told and whether he was alone, whether Jesus appeared specially to two disciples, whether they recognized him immediately, whether he later appeared to the others as the two were speaking or afterwards, whether he scolded the others for not believing the two, whether he appeared to the disciples just once or three times, whether the first appearance was in Galilee, whether they all recognized him immediately, whether he ascended to heaven right afterwards, whether he ascended from Jerusalem (Mark), Bethany (Luke), or Mt. Olivet (Acts), and whether he appeared to the Twelve, to over 500, and then specially to James (1Co 15:5-7).

 

Here are references to support the alleged contradictions involved in the Bible's account of Jesus's post-resurrection appearances:

Question Answers

1. How many women went to Jesus's tomb?

One - John 20:1-18 Three - Mk 16:1-8 Two - Mt 28:1-8 Many - Lu 23:55-24:10

 

(In what follows, the middle column supplies references for a "Yes" answer and the right-hand column supplies references for a "No" answer.)

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/contradictions.jpg

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/contradictions2.jpg

 

It is to be granted that Biblical inerrantists have tried to harmonize all of the various accounts of Jesus's post-mortem appearances in a way that would avoid the apparent inconsistencies. But the general consensus, I think, is that all such attempts have been failures. The topic of Biblical contradictions is of course complicated. Some apparent inconsistencies might be capable of being explained away by appeal to special interpretations. For example, Acts 26:23 seems to say that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead. (See also Re 1:5.) Yet we know there were many prior resurrections described in Scripture, [14] which implies an inconsistency. Perhaps the verse in question could be interpreted to mean merely that Jesus is the first to be resurrected following the atonement for mankind's sin, or something akin to that. It may be that some of the alleged contradictions listed above can be dealt with in some such fashion. But it seems unreasonable to think that all of them can be. I, for one, have never seen it done. As for premise (4) of the Argument from the Bible regarding a convincing eye-witness account of the resurrection, we have seen that there are many reasons of various sorts to doubt the accuracy of that claim.

Edited April 1, 2012 by chiplee

[SubZero]

if ancient religious texts can be used as proof of themselves, wouldn't that make ALL of them true? the difference for bible believers is simply faith. faith makes it true for y'all.

 

quit trying to 'prove' anything. you cannot. the truth exists for you because of faith, not evidence.

 

 

So believers, archeologists, scientists, historians are to roll over and die on the subject of prophecies just because you say prophecies are false?

What about the studies of architecture, language, tools, pottery, literature, art,.......investigations confirming biblical accounts?

Are all those investigations that agree with the bible wrong?

[Tim_C.]

No, I meant exactly what I said. There is no true science that isn't supported biblically. Period. There is a lot of good science that doesn't need to refute Scripture. I'm just saying if it does, then it is not science. I'm speaking about people making claims that aren't true. False claims are not bibilical of course.

One example is the transitional speices (formally known as missing link) of Lucy. It was a complete fraudulent attempt to gain more government funding by saying the skeleton walked upright, etc... The problem was THE SKELETON was found 2 miles apart and not even from the same individual. Things like that, that are inundated in the supposed 'scientific community', but not science at all. There are several skeletons like that, with artist renderings to make it look like whatever they want it to. They'll add toes to a bird if it supports their claim. That's the problem, their agenda needs support, so they get it any way they can including lie. True science uses evidence to draw the proper conclusions from. Not start with an agenda to find evidence for.

 

An inconsistency is not a contradiction. It just means the situation was different. All such attempts to identify either, are due to misinterpretation of the text. All have been easily explained. The hardest for most people, even Christians is the 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb. Even that has at least 2 good possibilities. Since the Bible doesn't explain the details of it, either could be true. That's really the only one that tends to cause unbelief when it comes to supposed contradictions. Again, all of the other examples are easily explained and not accepted as issues by most all theologians the world over. Historians too.

One also must recognize the books were written from different perspectives, but still, no contradictions.

Some things may have not happened like the historians today say it should have, like there wasn't enough people to say Christ really died there, etc... That just means either they are wrong, which is usually the case, or God didn't want it that way. However, even the Jewish believe he died on the cross that day.

[Tim_C.]

you keep saying that prophecies from the bible came true, but what are you offering as evidence? more passages from the bible! you can't use it to prove itself, because that means that ANY other book can be used to prove itself too. do you see that?

 

you cannot prove the bible or god or christianity true, you have to take it on faith. some folks are willing to live that way, and some are not. i live by evidence and observation, you live by your faith and beliefs. that's really the end of the story.

Like I said, you or anyone can prove God to yourself by asking for His confirmation. You are already getting it every day. Something happens to confirm all of it as truth, but your eyes are closed to it. You must open them to see. The same attitude was prevalent in Thomas and Jesus proved himself to him too. He will do the same for you if you let Him. God is a gentleman. He will not force you or me or anyone to believe and live the life he promises. We must allow Him to.

It only requires faith to allow the proof to come, not faith to think it is true. The truth will be undeniable and right in front of you in the form you will believe most, garanteed.

[lmwii]

 

 

So believers, archeologists, scientists, historians are to roll over and die on the subject of prophecies just because you say prophecies are false?

What about the studies of architecture, language, tools, pottery, literature, art,.......investigations confirming biblical accounts?

Are all those investigations that agree with the bible wrong?

give me a couple of examples of fulfilled biblical prophecies that are backed up by evidence other than accounts later in the bible.

[Tim_C.]

I can't remember the name of the king, but up until recent times, even the Jewish said he never existed until they discovered his name on tablets, wall writings, pottery, etc... With dates of his reign that coincided with the bibilical timeline. Those type of things are true evidence all over the world. I gave two before, the point of crossing the Red Sea (you don't have to believe it parted to believe they crossed there), and the true location of Mt. Sinai.

 

As for prophecies, there were many pertaining to Jesus that are positively identified as true by Jewish historians who sadly don't believe Christianity. I say sadly because the evidence proves he was their Messiah, but they don't want to believe it already happened. They're still waiting.

 

Usually, unbelievers in Christianity will believe in total gobly guke like Nostrildumas. There are many things like happenings that were pointed to as accurate as the very day, such as the 1967 war with the Jewish people. The Bible told of that to the day if I remember correctly. I saw the evidence pointed out by Chuck Missler. His 'Learn the Bible in 24 Hours" lessons with video and fully laid out time line, shows a lot of good mathematical stuff too. Like how it is just about all but impossible there isn't a God. One would have to have a lotta lotta faith to see the mathematical probablilites and still beleive there is no God. It is nothing less than God's fingerprint all over the Bible. In the section of Genesis where the trees are mentioned, there is the same mathematical formula that names every single tree thought to exist at the time. Hidden in the text the same way many other things are. No human could have performed that feat, especially using the Hebrew language. Nothing less than a miracle in itself in the actual writing of the text.

 

I humbly say that unbelief requires more faith than belief. Hands down, the religion of atheism requires a lot more faith.

 

Edit: I just realized you were specifically asking Renato. I'm sure he has better answers.

[chiplee]

No, I meant exactly what I said. There is no true science that isn't supported biblically. Period.

 

Fortunately for the rest of the world, your certainty of this has absolutely NOTHING to do with its validity. You are dead wrong, period. How about if you get to the business of explaining away the 30+ biblical contradictions I shared and provided references for?

Edited April 2, 2012 by chiplee

[lmwii]

there are accurate historical fact in the bible, that is indisputable. it doesn't follow, however, that other assertions made in the bible gain the benefit of that veracity.

[chiplee]

there are accurate historical fact in the bible, that is indisputable. it doesn't follow, however, that other assertions made in the bible gain the benefit of that veracity.

 

If only we had all been taught how to protect our minds from non sequitur logic, perhaps we could make progress.

[chiplee]

One example is the transitional speices (formally known as missing link) of Lucy. It was a complete fraudulent attempt to gain more government funding by saying the skeleton walked upright, etc... The problem was THE SKELETON was found 2 miles apart and not even from the same individual. Things like that, that are inundated in the supposed 'scientific community', but not science at all. There are several skeletons like that, with artist renderings to make it look like whatever they want it to. They'll add toes to a bird if it supports their claim. That's the problem, their agenda needs support, so they get it any way they can including lie. True science uses evidence to draw the proper conclusions from. Not start with an agenda to find evidence for.

 

Interesting, Tim. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. To you, the existence of many bad scientists means all of science is a lie, but the existence of many bad religious leaders does not mean that all of religion is a lie.Let's try this another way. For the sake of argument, let's just say that you are 100% correct about the examples you've provided. In fact, I will concede that there have definitely been scientists who have tried to make the data fit their "agenda". Whether or not your specific examples of this are the best ones is beside the point. The point is conceded. You are correct to say there are deceptive scientists in the world.

 

So, if that calls into question the entire field of science, then what do you make of deceptive theologians? In this very thread the writings of the late Henry M. Morris were offered as evidence against science and for faith. Morris is a documented liar and charlatan. There are countless similar examples of church leaders consciously twisting facts to support their agenda, and yet this fact doesn't cause you to question the whole of religion. Do you see your double standard?

[chiplee]

 

An inconsistency is not a contradiction. It just means the situation was different. All such attempts to identify either, are due to misinterpretation of the text. All have been easily explained. The hardest for most people, even Christians is the 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb. Even that has at least 2 good possibilities. Since the Bible doesn't explain the details of it, either could be true. That's really the only one that tends to cause unbelief when it comes to supposed contradictions. Again, all of the other examples are easily explained and not accepted as issues by most all theologians the world over. Historians too.

One also must recognize the books were written from different perspectives, but still, no contradictions.

 

Well don't just say they're easily explained. Explain them, or provide a reference. Historians absolutely do not accept the explanations you speak of, which I explained in my posts about biblical contradictions above. If you can't provide a point by point rebuttal then we should all consider the point conceded.

[john82wa]

It's like vomit but only worse

[chiplee]

It's like vomit but only worse

 

What is?

[DieHARDmitsu.]

 

Interesting, Tim. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. To you, the existence of many bad scientists means all of science is a lie, but the existence of many bad religious leaders does not mean that all of religion is a lie.Let's try this another way. For the sake of argument, let's just say that you are 100% correct about the examples you've provided. In fact, I will concede that there have definitely been scientists who have tried to make the data fit their "agenda". Whether or not your specific examples of this are the best ones is beside the point. The point is conceded. You are correct to say there are deceptive scientists in the world.

 

So, if that calls into question the entire field of science, then what do you make of deceptive theologians? In this very thread the writings of the late Henry M. Morris were offered as evidence against science and for faith. Morris is a documented liar and charlatan. There are countless similar examples of church leaders consciously twisting facts to support their agenda, and yet this fact doesn't cause you to question the whole of religion. Do you see your double standard?"

"There are countless similar examples of church leaders consciously twisting facts to support their agenda, and yet this fact doesn't cause you to question the whole of religion."

 

This is true and the same goes for many other religions around the globe. Most religion say "man should not kill" for various given reasons. Over time, man has twisted these "virtues" to suit his own selfishness or to simply make scapegoats of others. The religious extremists and the cruel nature of the Catholic church during the dark ages comes to mind. Also, the belief that certain faiths hold as "only the believers will go to heaven" or those who don't bow down to their way of God are "infidels" or we are "the chose ones" of God, not you.

 

Most of the old world religions have noted similar values in their texts; do good deeds, be compassionate towards others and not be destructive. Man on the other hand has interpreted these teachings according to his needs. Seems like evil is born when man takes the guidance and good teachings of religion and use it for other reasons; the downfall of religion and man's faith in it.

 

"I will concede that there have definitely been scientists who have tried to make the data fit their "agenda"

 

I also agree. And for that reason I don't allow science to be the source of my understanding of all things. I think that there are many missing links that lie between the past and present. As I've said earlier "if science were to uncover one piece evidence to prove otherwise" "will it bring it out into the open?"

Presently, science is the leading authority on explaining space, time and the physical world. Countless times science has ate its own findings. Science is also paid for by politic so...

 

 

All I can say is that people of the old world from various cultures weren't as dumb as science tells us. They were profound thinkers and held a different understanding of reality and the physical world.

 

 

Please look at this

http://www.kachmannm...tosFindings.pdf

 

 

 

 

The effects of 3000+ year old eastern prayers/mantra on H2o.

Edited April 2, 2012 by DieHARDmitsu.

[lmwii]

do you really believe what's in that PDF?

 

if you think that represents science, it's no wonder you don't trust it.

[DieHARDmitsu.]

That PDF is just a glimpse of Dr. Emoto's study of water. There are numerous links to his works on the net.

Although, I don't think his works have been confirmed by any of the "Experts" in the "Scientific Community" to be real.

Hell, its just like the effects of all that crude and chlorexic in Gulf of Mexico. We may never know... but shortly after, the beaches were open for business.

 

I'm only presenting this to see what others think on how one person is pursuing a possible connection between spirituality and science.

[lmwii]

i'm inclined to let the brick walls win; my forehead is starting to bleed.

[Metric-man]

Chip, when you say:

That's enough for now. If you fellas are able to explain these, I'll have about 500 more for you.

 

What this tells me is that one can prove to you a 1,000 prophecies to be 100% correct and you

would still not change your mindset.

 

What are the odds of just 1 prophecy to turn out 100% correct?

The bible is filled with fulfilled prophecies!

And yet it is still not enough to cause one to have faith that God exists.

 

Faith ( I believe even you said this before ) is born out need.

It takes a person to first recognize that they are sinners and need a savior.

Salvation is a gift from God, it cannot be earned by works.

 

This is a good example but you should add that according to a person’s belief since if you need to work to achieve faith then you should know it was your faith not your work that gave you grace, you should never discredit a person’s effort to gain forgiveness, redemption, or relive from pain and suffering .. in my eyes those are works that have the ability to let you see faith and once you have faith you are under grace and not under the law .

The law meaning the Ten Commandments (the laws of the old testment) and grace meaning the Sacrifice of God (the law of the new testament) .

 

In a Buddhist analogy that would be equivalent of the former teachings

Hīnayāna (lesser vehicle) or

Mayhayana (greater vehicle)

Where the lesser vehicle breaks down and does not accommodate everyone the greater vehicle carries more people and is better equipped to travel farther without repair.

 

So if scientists want to work at getting to an understanding where they need to find out for themselves through their own process, they are allowed to do so under grace, or the greater vehicle.

 

The scientific community recognizes Psychology –( science of behavior and mental processes)

How can you deny that religious belief does not gain that endowment?

 

Now how does that saying go...?

 

'There are no atheists in foxholes."?

[Chad]

Countless times science has ate its own findings.

 

When has religion ever eaten it's words? It's been proven false by science, and even by simple logic as well, but it won't yield, Why?