Fare enough. But my point in being so blunt ("...not a genie..blah, blah") is to bring to the forefront a (false) assumption that both camps use to compete against each other; the same false assumption that your camp (merely said for descriptive purposes) attempts to prove a non-existance, while the other camp (in delusion) also attempts to prove existence...when it has ALWAYS been more complicated/responsible than that.
But that was my point. This question is not a silver bullet designed to disprove all concepts of god. It does however, put to rest certain other concepts of god - namely, the kind of god that heals people.
Well, the question as framed - and the conclusion drawn from the given answer to the question - doesn't attempt to disprove "certain other concepts" of god, but specifically "the concept of god himself", by disproving that god heals people. I appreciate your "meaning" (and we can agree on your meaning), but the actually question and answer were indeed framed as an attempted silver bullet (collectively).
From the beginning there were always rules to follow with this deity to even gain access to such gifts, and not everyone gains the same gifts (and I hate using the word "gift" because in our society such a word brings to mind "magic").
Of course it's magic. What else would you call it? So many models of magic are based on some obscure, minor godling and making sacrifices to it in exchange for power. And that is precisely what prayers etc are intended to do - to reshape reality through mystical and arcane rituals rather than conventional methods of hard work.
Well if you consider it "magic" then you limit yourself, as one can pick any form of modern medicine or technology and use a time machine (hypothetically) to show it to earlier man and they will most definitely call it magic or sorcery for no other logical reason than the fact that they can't explain how it works, right? Absent of explanation doesn't lend itself to absent of existence (of particular knowledge)...and that's not to say that if they are educated in it they can't eventually understand, correct?
No atheist can EVER pray, even an endourance prayer - for a selfish motive no less - just to prove or disprove this point (hence my characterization of a genie being summoned from a lamp)...At the same time, no xian can associate every natural healing phenomena to this deity,...
Missing the point. Please go back and reread. Let me know if you need any clarifications.
Ok. I will...but my
point is "(a) the very basis of a prayer - any prayer (as framed) - that is directed towards 'self' will fail, and (b) any prayer that lacks the principal foundation of 'faith in the existence of Yah (to even hear the prayer)' will fail, and (c) any prayer to Yah from someone who's not first "right" with Yah (i.e. obedient to his instructions & in his presence) will fail. These qualifications disqualify both the [cafeteria] xian (and most xians - like 90% - are such) and the atheist (100%).
You should read the construction of the temple of Solomon. Solomon married an egyptian woman to gain access to the knowledge of constructing sand-hydrolic machines (of pyramid history).
1. Are these machines detailed in solomon? By detailed, I mean, specifications, engineering drawings, stress calculations, bill of matierials, etc that would allow me to construct them and explain how it works.
2. Chapter and verse, please? Where in the bible are the specs for these alleged machines? That was your whole claim - that the bible contained mechanical engineering.
3. Shouldn't the hebrews have already known how to do this since they allegedly were the slave labor that built the pyramids in the first place?
This contruction went into the development of the Temple, particularly to hide the ark in case of envasion (2 Chronicles 3:17 also talks about it: Boaz & Jachin = Base Fulcrum).
Link? Evidence? Frankly, Mike Rood has little credibility as an archaeologist (or anything else). If he has had any of his work confirmed through peer review, please cite it.
From the responses it would seem that you didn't watch the series (as the series does give book, chapter and verse of the designs (on screen) along with supported archaeological proof)...but then you attempt to discredit the person referencing the book, chapter and verse, which is a little dishonest. It's all there sir. Please take the time to watch the entire series from the beginning with access to any online bible (if but to disprove anything).
I don't assume anyone on this forum would want to be spoon fed, especially when a reference was given to be researched on one's own. Interestingly, it seems as though we both failed each other: I failed to correctly read one of your responses, and you've done the same with proving the content given by these youtube videos.
Several times in scripture it's quoted that a day is not a day but like thousands of years. The passage of time is relative for each person experiencing it
Actually, that does not say time is relative to each person experiencing it. It is in reference to yhwh. And that does not answer my question. This kind of poetic, hyperbolic language is of no practical use to anyone. You said it was "advanced time measurement". Explain what is advanced about it. Explain how it tells us anything of practical use. I do not see it as anything but hyperbole as an ignorant writer gushed about his local god.
...and yet most (on both sides) assume (whether to prove or disprove) that creation occured in 6 of our "human" days. They were truly 6 days, but not "days" from human perspective.
That makes no sense. First of all, what specifically do you mean by "creation"?
Second of all, human days are from a human perspective. It is the amount of time the earth in its current state takes to complete one revolution. We can get more specific than that, for example, by defining a second by how many times a quartz crystal of a given size, at a given temperature vibrates when subjected to a specific electrical potential. To simply say "a day is a thousand years to yhwh" is meaningless.
If "creation" was created in 6 human days, but not from a human perspective, what does that mean? How long did creation take?
Hmm..? No, I
said time was relative for each person experiencing it, and while the verses do reference to Yah, (the faith believes) Yah IS a person
. Time is a concept and (itself) ISN'T
practical except to those who use it in such a way. But to clarify, I first stated that there was evidence of "ATM" in scripture (after which you asked for proof/location)...now you ask to "explain what's 'advanced' about it"...ok so let's explain what's "advance" about this time measurement...:
1. We measure time on 1 dimension/plane (some call it the 4th); it's linear and from our perspective (using our units of measurement).
2. However, since we weren't "there" at the beginning of this linear plane (nor will we be there at its end) we can't conclude that our perspective (units of time) is constant, but that - indeed - they [units of time] are variable...but "by how much", we can't know.
3. The Bible's most used unit of time measurement is "days", but the word used is not "day", but accurately "Yom".
Ok, well what's a "Yom"?
4. A "Yom" is a perspective (unit of measurement) of time, which can mean either "day" or "year" or "group of days" or "group of years", depending upon the person
using the measurement. In scripture, "yom" has been recorded to mean "time", "age", "day", "full year", "days", "length", "fate", "years", and even "chronicles".
5. Then we're told several times that "a day [correctly a 'Yom'] is like a thousand years
(not correct translated either...more correctly 'millenia'), and a thousands years is like a day" to Yah.
With "yom" having so many meanings, it's truly a discredit to the authenticity of scripture when it's translated into simply "day".
6. Now, assuming Yah exists for a moment (that he is a person), it is recorded that Yah created the world and the fullness thereof in 5 "Yoms"...and then the beasts & man in the 6th "Yom" (resting on the seventh). But science knows that the world has existed for billions (thousands of thousands of thousands) of (our) years...
Realizing that we're measuring time from our scientific perspective (units)
, is the SAME timeframe discredited if measured from another perspective? No. Time is relative to persons.
In Gen 2:17 we read, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." ...and yet scripture details that Adam lived until he was 930 years old
(gen 5:5). Well wait a sec!? Was Yah lying? Is this an error in scripture? No, this is scriptural proof that time is measured on a more advanced level than our own; Advance Time Measurement.
Adam is recorded to have died 930 years old from the day he ate the forbidden fruit, and based on the scripture that "a yom is like millenia and millenia is like a yom, to yah", Adam died within the "Yom" (thousand years) he ate the forbidden fruit.
7. The words "Seven" and "week" are two different English words used to determine "quanitity": Seven = 7 of [anything]; Week = quantity of [days] (whether "business week" or "regular week")...But the Hebrew word used in scripture for BOTH seven AND week is "Shavua".
Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city..."Question
: From what we now know, is "seventy weeks" an accuracte rendering? No.Question
: Is "Seventy Sevens" (Shivim Shavuim) a measurement in days, years, or weeks of years? The answer is "could be All three" (and in fact this is in this case) because a measurement of time depends upon (a) the person giving the measurement
and (b) the person receiving the measurement
. In this case an angel of Yah gave the measurement and Daniel received it. This passage even plagued Sir Isaac Newton until his death because he bound himself to our perspective (units of time).
You see...if you gave me a measurement in time, it's ok because your perspective is the same as mine (because we are two persons who are similar lifeforms) and it would be safe to assume that I could directly relate to that unit of time. But if (let's say) Yah gave you a measurement in time, your perspective is not the same as his (because you are two persons who measure time differently) so you couldn't simply relate to it on a human level.
Another example is "Lifetime". A "lifetime" is another measurement of time, but how long is it? Well we can try to give a standard but this measurement of time is even moreso relative to the person or thing experiencing it.
Cicadas only live for two (of our) weeks once they're adults, but is that any less a lifetime from their perspective? No. We have a more advance measurement of time as different lifeforms compared to them. So can we really disqualify a similar temporal relationship between we and a (supposed) higher lifeform scientifically who would be more advanced? No. As Einstein said, "time is relative".
Well to be fair, we all believe in the concept of owning people, right?
To be fair, no. I sure don't. I think most people would also disagree with you.
I give you more credit than this. This isn't an intellegent way to respond. Respond to any of my points in full. Don't snag this quote out of context (c'mon dude?).
Here's what I mean: if you take out a bank loan, car note or pay income taxes you believe in people owning a portion of you (at least for a time)
Incorrect. They do not own any part of me. I am not collateral. When I take out a loan for a car,the car is collateral, so the bank owns the car, not me. If I do not wish to continue to pay for the car and I stop paying the bank, they take the car, they do not take me. If they tried, not only would I have firm legal ground for killing them, they would also be subject to criminal charges and a rather lucrative civil suit.
As far as taxes, I am not owned. As a part of a civlil society where I enjoy the benefits of roads, bridges, police protection and laws, I am responsible to contribute.
I am afraid, Joshua, that your perspective has been perverted by idiots who do not have your best interests at heart.
With respect, the bank does NOT own the car
when you ask for a car loan (or mortgage or personal loan). YOU agree to forfeit the car (the house or thing) if YOU can't pay the cost of borrowing money from the bank.
They don't own the item until you break the first part of the agreement...they don't even give any money to you or the dealership but simply agree to "owe [credit]" those entities (like magic lol). So banks own or give NOTHING of collateral in the ENTIRE deal. YOU are the collateral who agrees "to work" to pay them money for money they agreed to "owe [credit]" you or another. Please read "Modern Money Mechanics" as published by the Federal Reserve.
INCOME Taxes: NONE of the things you've mentioned are because of "income tax" payments. Income taxes go DIRECTLY to the Federal Reserve as INTEREST payments for the LOAN of The Federal Researve Note, because - yes - every note in circularion is a loan to the government from this PRIVATE bank.
...and because "income taxes" is not based on any priveledge (like those you've mentioned) but on the right to HAVE this money, we pay to work. This is the SAME concept instituted by Egypt towards the Israelites: they PAID dues for the privedge of working for Pharoah. At least back then, slave owners clothed and housed their slaves. Today, the slaves are required to also cloth and house themselves.
Someone has been lying to you.
...and you agree to work hard for them until you're freed from that bond...but are you every free from it?
Yes. When I pay off the loan, I am free from that bond.
"Balloon Payment"'...."Refinance"..."Trade in"..."lease to own"..."credit extension"...
When is when? Are you ever free from the bond? You see, the 'illusion' is when you look and see that you've got different 'stuff'; it feels like one has started anew, but - no - it's the same debt with a new label.
Israel was always meant to minister to the world as the priest nation of the nations.
No they were not. Isreal never ministered to anyone. They thought (and still think) they are an exceptional people and to this day continue to prevent others from attaining their status as "favored".
Note that I said Israel, but from your response it sounds like you're thinking of the current "Nation of Israel" (which is only the descendants of Judah [the Jews]). Israel (of biblical history) was scattered. These are who were meant to minister, but I never said they did...merely that they were meant to.
(a) 1 John 5:8 ...and before the mercy seat[/b]:")
I have no clue what you are talking about. I know this was in response to you having "scientific evidence" of the existence of a god. This post is about the furthest thing I can imagine from scientific evidence.
Please go to youtube and watch the rest of the parts from the youtube video series I provided above.
Absolutely not. It is lazy and inconsiderate to even suggest it. If you have a point, please make it in your own words.
There are 11 parts altogether so I didn't want to crowd this forum with them.
Good man. Thank you for that. But I am afraid there is no way I am going to watch 11 parts of mike rood.
Again, I source references but you don't want to venture a watch. Start from the beginning (part 1) and you will find your scientific proof I promise...unless you're nervous that it actually will make sense (I josh)?
Are you a jehovah's witness?
In Jerusalem, there was a solar eclipse for 3 hours upon the death of Yahshua ...
Even if there was an eclipse, it is speculation on your part that it coincided with the death of jesus H. This is not scientific. And it does not explain the zombies rising from the grave that were mentioned in Matt 27.
There's no speculation if the event actually happened...stop dodging the proof. And (lol) it doesn't say zombies rose from the grave.
Look, just because it may mention actual places or events does not mean the whole preposterous story is "scientifically proven". Harry Potter books mention London, the North Sea and other places in Europe. That does not mean they are real stories. And it certainly does not make it scientific evidence.
It could not be any clearer that you'd rather say "it can't be proven" (and maybe you don't want it to be), than to take your time and study the proofs I've offered even to disprove them.