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?
So you are saying yhwh's powers are not magic, but actually advanced technology? I have heard the quote
that sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic to a less advanced culture. But I have never heard yhwh's powers characterized that way. If it is not magic, what is it?
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%).
I fail to see what this has to do with our conversation at all.
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)
I make it a policy to not watch videos in lieu of conversation or in debates. If there is information I need to support one of my points, it is incumbent on me to provide it. Not to tell you "oh, it's in this book. Go read it." Imay
on occasion watch a video to supplement a conversation, but usually not, because there is a pattern of them just wasting my time.
If it is not important enough to you to go through the video(s) yourself to let me know the verses and chapters, then that is your prerogative. I consider the point sufficiently unsupported as to call it defeated. There is no mechanical engineering in the bible.
...but then you attempt to discredit the person referencing the book, chapter and verse, which is a little dishonest.
Just because I did not watch your videos does not mean I did no research. I do not find him credible. I found no credentials that would make him credible as an archaeologist. This site
details some other problems with his credentials as a scholar. I have no idea whether that site is valid, so take it with a grain of salt.
Hmm..? No, I said time was relative for each person experiencing it,
What specifically do you mean by that?
Time is a concept and (itself) ISN'T practical except to those who use it in such a way.
Just like food is not practical except to those who eat it. I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate to me here.
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...:
Let's just be clear - there is no moving of goal posts on my part. My original question:
As for "advance time measurement", please explain how it is that and not hyperbole. I am curious how you know it is "advance time measurement", what the conversion is and how it is useful.
I ask for it all there. If I keep asking, or ask in different ways, it is because your answers seem to indicate you misunderstand what I am asking.
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).
What do you mean by "from our perspective"? What other perspectives are there?
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.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.
4. A "Yom" is a perspective...
Why on earth would you conclude that this represents "ATM" and not a paucity of language? Why would anyone think this has anything to do with
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.
Or it was just crappy writing by unsophisticated iron age goatherds? I see no reason to believe there is anything advanced about this. You propose a unit of measure that is changes arbitrarily and in meaningless ways. You propose no conversion factor and no reason to use this measure. Your statement should be dismissed out of hand.
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.
Say you were god of some bacteria. And say you gave them a time reference. Would you give it to them in a way they could understand, or would you give it to them in a way only you could understand?
Why anyone would worship a god too stupid or inconsiderate to speak in terms they can understand is beyond me.
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.
1. why on earth would god speak in "lifetimes" and mean cicadas when talking to people?
2. you still have not shown how it is more advanced.
As Einstein said, "time is relative".
This does not come within shouting distance of what Einstein said. I'll let the people here who understand relativity better address that, though.
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?).
In what way is it out of context?
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.
You are being pedantic and arguing against things I have not said.
When you take out a loan, the bank owns the thing that is collateral until the loan is paid off. If the thing is a house, they hold the deed. If the thing is a car, they hold the title. The bank owns the thing. You pay the bank. When you have been paid, you get the deed or the title or whatever. YOU are not owned.
They don't own the item until you break the first part of the agreement.
No, that is just when they take it.
Someone has been lying to you.
I am sure someone
has. However, it is not the people you think.
"Balloon Payment"'...."Refinance"..."Trade in"..."lease to own"..."credit extension"...
Irrelevant. Those do not make you the property.
There's no speculation if the event actually happened...stop dodging the proof. And (lol) it doesn't say zombies rose from the grave.
It is not a proof. Nor was it a dodge. I am not arguing whether an eclipse happened. I am saying, it is not proof of anything other than an eclipse. As for the zombies, others have addressed it.
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.
I've told you, I am not going to go watch your videos and I've told you why. I consider it a concession on your part that you will not provide the information and keep telling me to watch an 11 part video.