The Bible is true

[BreezeWood]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

 

[irosie91]

I am Christian because I want to be. I am also Christian because I worship Christ. The bible is a book, it simply is believing it or not doesn't change that it is. I don't think that it's the word of God, that isn't what is required to be Christian.

That is great that you claim to be a Christian, but it appears that you know little about Christianity. The Bible is the only way that you will get to know Christ better to help you live like a Christian, because the Bible is the only book that tells you what Jesus was like and what He expects of his followers. And, the fact that you have such a negative view of the Bible is sad because Jesus is "The Word".

John: 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John is probably not a person----but simply a nom de plume ----used as attribute for the writings of several people who never met Jesus. The writings called "john" are based on prior sources----and very ---"philosophical"<<< sorta

anybody here know what "the word" was "in the beginning"???

John was a person. And, you obviously have not done any research on the Bible to make such statements. And it is right there in the statement itself...."In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God". The word is Jesus.......He was there from the beginning, He was with God and He is God.

It is not prudent to argue with people that have not done any research or have no knowledge of the Bible.....they are going to make statements that are nonsensical and require a lot of time to explain, and they will not bother to try and understand the explanations, so I won't be responding to any of your or anyone else's nonsensical statements.

I am referring to the "JOHN" of the book of john------not every other john-----like John the Baptist who was a person. From what city was JOHN of the book of John? ------did he have have anything more of a name? Like who was his father? You have some facts on that "JOHN"????

Okay....there has been controversy over who wrote the book of John, but many experts have given their opinions and believe that it was indeed the disciple John, who wrote it.

Who wrote the Gospel of John is a question that remains unanswered, though noted theologians throughout the ages maintain that it was indeed the disciple John who penned the famous Biblical book.
Gospel of John Commentary Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It 8211 Biblical Archaeology Society


However, two significant factors point to the identification of John as the author. First, the book itself identifies the author as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This description likely pointed to John for three reasons: the author had to be one of the twelve disciples because he was an eyewitness to the events in the gospel (John 21:24); he was probably one of the inner circle of three disciples (James, John, and Peter) because he was among the first Mary told of the resurrection (20:1–10); and this disciple is distinguished from Peter in the book, while James died too soon after the resurrection to be the author.

The second significant evidence for John’s authorship is the unanimous testimony of early Christians, among them the second-century Christian Irenaeus, who declared that John was the disciple who laid his head on Jesus—the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (13:23)—and the author of the gospel.


Book of John Overview - Insight for Living Ministries

none of the "points" you brought up come close to proving
that there was a single john who was a companion of
Jesus and that the same guy wrote the book of revulsions---
nor do they refute the theory that "john" was used as a convenient name for attribution for people who compiled
the New Testament. People in those days were usually
more identified than "a guy named john" I do not make this stuff up. Luke never met Jesus either and did not even speak aramaic

 

[Vandalshandle]

The guy who wrote Revelations was clearly insane. I have no idea why they included it in the bible.

 

[koshergrl]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

 

[irosie91]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

 

[irosie91]

The guy who wrote Revelations was clearly insane. I have no idea why they included it in the bible.

Mystical is not necessarily "INSANE" --------the issue with that book seems to me to be that it is difficult to know the writer's
imagery and its meanings. ---------that seven headed monster with the whore on top --------????? There is no question that
Babylon had a bad name--------Abraham said so

 

[koshergrl]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

 

[irosie91]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

 

[Penelope]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

 

[koshergrl]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

Brilliant observation!

Never mind that every learned historian and archaeologist in the WORLD disagrees.

I'm sure you know more than they do.

 

[Skylar]

The Bible Can We Trust It

The Bible is not the worst Book I have ever read. People like to draw attention to himself. That's why somebody claims war to the Bible. The Bible has sense and logic while Qoran or Torah don't. I don't see the reasons why people shouldn't read it. But trust or not. It is a personal choice.

I've always found the Bible to be a strange book. As its old Testament and New Testament have a very strange relationship, that if pulled out of the context of the christian tradition would have most Christians laughing and pointing.

It would be like taking Buddhism and slapping Hinduism on the back end of it. Buddha was prince and of the warrior caste of venerable tradition of Hinduism. Buddha had his own epiphanies and preached non-violence, meditation, self reflection and an abandonment of attachment. Many students of Buddha wrote down his teachings and compliled them into books.

The Bible would be akin to folks AFTER buddha's death insisting that Buddha was actually a reincarnation of Vishnu. And thus, all of Vishnu's commandments for war, violence and retribution in the name of God put forth in the Bhagavad Gita were what Buddha really meant. And slapping the two together as an 'old and new' testament of Buddha's revelations.

The Bhagavad Gita was a completely different religious tradition centered around a completely different religious figure: Vishnu.. It has almost nothing to do with the teachings of Buddha, and in many cases explicitly contradict it. Just as the Torah and the Teachings of Christ are from two different religious traditions, and overwhelmingly contradict each other. With Yahweh killing people left and right. And Christ calling for love, forgiveness and non-violence.

Its just....odd. I tend to take the 4 Gospels together as representing Christianity better than the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

The guy who wrote Revelations was clearly insane. I have no idea why they included it in the bible.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a popular form of literature at the time. If one knows the Old Testament, one can easily see parallels of issues and matters that were familiar to the Jews of that time. Revelation was an encouraging message to early Christians, partially encoded, assuring them that God would prove victorious over Roman persecution of the early Church.

John was anything but insane, very clever in fact. The problem is that he was using allegories, very familiar to people of the time, but not all that familiar to people centuries later.

I tend to get a little frustrated when people have John writing about the future, when Revelation was directed to people in his own time and about events that occurred two thousand years ago.

Where Revelation is apropos to Christians of all times is that we will all have our trials, but God will ever prove victorious over evil that comes upon us.

 

[irosie91]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

the book of Revalations appears in the New Testament and
is attributed to JOHN . There is a huge difference between being intoxicated on psychostimulating mushrooms and being senile. Considering the SKILL of the writer----he was clearly not senile. Senile persons write very poorly Some people write very well when
"HIGH" (perhaps you should try it some time----the situation
for you cannot get any worse) The "last name" of moses is
BEN AMRAM. Gee----you are an utter dimwit. He could have also carried the name MITZRI----ie the Egyptian. Jews have a kind of nickname for moses which
also identifies who he is "moshe rabeinu" If you had a
brain you, too, could learn how names are arranged in semitic languages

 

[irosie91]

The Bible Can We Trust It

The Bible is not the worst Book I have ever read. People like to draw attention to himself. That's why somebody claims war to the Bible. The Bible has sense and logic while Qoran or Torah don't. I don't see the reasons why people shouldn't read it. But trust or not. It is a personal choice.

I've always found the Bible to be a strange book. As its old Testament and New Testament have a very strange relationship, that if pulled out of the context of the christian tradition would have most Christians laughing and pointing.

It would be like taking Buddhism and slapping Hinduism on the back end of it. Buddha was prince and of the warrior caste of venerable tradition of Hinduism. Buddha had his own epiphanies and preached non-violence, meditation, self reflection and an abandonment of attachment. Many students of Buddha wrote down his teachings and compliled them into books.

The Bible would be akin to folks AFTER buddha's death insisting that Buddha was actually a reincarnation of Vishnu. And thus, all of Vishnu's commandments for war, violence and retribution in the name of God put forth in the Bhagavad Gita were what Buddha really meant. And slapping the two together as an 'old and new' testament of Buddha's revelations.

The Bhagavad Gita was a completely different religious tradition centered around a completely different religious figure: Vishnu.. It has almost nothing to do with the teachings of Buddha, and in many cases explicitly contradict it. Just as the Torah and the Teachings of Christ are from two different religious traditions, and overwhelmingly contradict each other. With Yahweh killing people left and right. And Christ calling for love, forgiveness and non-violence.

Its just....odd. I tend to take the 4 Gospels together as representing Christianity better than the Bible.

you are clueless about both the bible and the Baghavad Gita---clearly you never read any of the ancient scriptural writings----I read the bible, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Gita and
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA, Try it some time. Siddhartha
(Buddha) was VERY MUCH a hindu. Jesus was a
Pharisee jew and like the Pharisee jews of the time based
his teachings on HILLEL. I find it amazing that the only
Christian I ever heard of who understood that fact was
Ross Perot (of all people)

for the record----of course, I also read the
kama sudtra (all time fave)

 

[Mertex]

none of the "points" you brought up come close to proving
that there was a single john who was a companion of
Jesus and that the same guy wrote the book of revulsions---
nor do they refute the theory that "john" was used as a convenient name for attribution for people who compiled
the New Testament. People in those days were usually
more identified than "a guy named john" I do not make this stuff up. Luke never met Jesus either and did not even speak aramaic

Nothing I give you is ever going to come close to proving to you that there was a person who wrote the book of John. Books don't get written by other than persons. And, you will never accept the word of experts in theology and other historians who have given their opinion that it was indeed John, the disciple of Jesus, who was the author of the book.

That is why I'm not interested in debating or discussing this further with you.....you are the skeptic who will always say "yes, but". I believe theologians are way more credible than you, since they have studied and researched the events mentioned in the Bible, but all you can do is make nonsensical statements.

People in Bible times did not have "last names" like we do. Anyone with any bit of sense would be able to recognize that or at least have done some research before making such an inane comment such "people in those days were usually more identified than 'a guy named john'". And such consideration has been given by theologians in coming to the conclusion that the book of John was written by non other than the disciple John.

Wiki:
While given names have been used from the most distant times to identify individuals, the advent of surnames is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone.By 1400, most English and some Scottish people used surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later.Henry VIII (1491–1547) ordered that marital births be recorded under the surname of the father.

Many cultures have used and continue to use additional descriptive terms in identifying individuals. These terms may indicate personal attributes, location of origin, occupation, parentage, patronage, adoption, or clan affiliation. These descriptors often developed into fixed clan identifications which in turn became family names as we know them today.


People were often given names like John the blacksmith or Saul the tailor. In fact, that is where many modern last names like Smith and Tailor come from. On other occasions, the Bible might mention who a person’s dad was. For instance, Numbers 11:28 talks about “Joshua the son of Nun.” By telling the father’s name, it sets Joshua apart from others who might be named Joshua.
Apologetics Press - Why Don t the People in the Bible have Last Names

You are only interested in demeaning Christianity and calling people who believe "stupid". If you don't want to believe, that is your choice, but basing it on such shallow assumptions do not give you the right to call those who differ stupid, especially since most of us have provided links and sources to back up what we say and you have offered up nothing except your word.

I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out references. There will always be people who believe that our world and universe came from nothing, and those who choose to believe that there is a Devine Designer...that the "orderly" form of our world did not come about from the disorder that is chance. Even scientist cannot come up with an answer of "something" being created out of "nothing"......so there you are.


Similarly, if all the physical laws had been explained and proved (known as the Grand Theory of Everything) – which is a million miles from the case – our understanding of the actions of God would not be one whit greater: his existence and his actions are of a different order.

Most particularly it would not touch the question of how something existing comes out from nothing. That is a question which science cannot answer, and will never answer, because nothingness is not within its domain. Hawking apparently does not address this question – which is the true and ultimate Theory of Everything. But what philosophy can teach us is that neither he, nor you, nor I will ever explain creation, except through faith.


CatholicHerald.co.uk Stephen Hawking still can 8217 t explain how something came from nothing

 

[irosie91]

PS ----the most sublime book of the combination of OT and NT is----GENESIS

 

[Penelope]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

the book of Revalations appears in the New Testament and
is attributed to JOHN . There is a huge difference between being intoxicated on psychostimulating mushrooms and being senile. Considering the SKILL of the writer----he was clearly not senile. Senile persons write very poorly Some people write very well when
"HIGH" (perhaps you should try it some time----the situation
for you cannot get any worse) The "last name" of moses is
BEN AMRAM. Gee----you are an utter dimwit. He could have also carried the name MITZRI----ie the Egyptian. Jews have a kind of nickname for moses which
also identifies who he is "moshe rabeinu" If you had a
brain you, too, could learn how names are arranged in semitic languages

Moses was at most a general kicked out of Egypt or from what I've read led some leopards out of Egypt. He set up a military society and the laws he took from Egypt as he was brought up in Egypt, if there even was a Moses as the exodus as displayed in the Bible has been disproved.

The John , fourth gospel , was not the same John who was said to of wrote Rev. which almost did not make it into the NT, but one must have a good ending, the battle of good and evil, good winning out.

You haven't been around too many senile people who are highly religious have you? They see things and imagine things, but your right, it was wrote with a reason behind it, it was wrote for a specific reason. They were not ignorant, even back then they used religion to control the populous

 

[irosie91]

none of the "points" you brought up come close to proving
that there was a single john who was a companion of
Jesus and that the same guy wrote the book of revulsions---
nor do they refute the theory that "john" was used as a convenient name for attribution for people who compiled
the New Testament. People in those days were usually
more identified than "a guy named john" I do not make this stuff up. Luke never met Jesus either and did not even speak aramaic

Nothing I give you is ever going to come close to proving to you that there was a person who wrote the book of John. Books don't get written by other than persons. And, you will never accept the word of experts in theology and other historians who have given their opinion that it was indeed John, the disciple of Jesus, who was the author of the book.

That is why I'm not interested in debating or discussing this further with you.....you are the skeptic who will always say "yes, but". I believe theologians are way more credible than you, since they have studied and researched the events mentioned in the Bible, but all you can do is make nonsensical statements.

People in Bible times did not have "last names" like we do. Anyone with any bit of sense would be able to recognize that or at least have done some research before making such an inane comment such "people in those days were usually more identified than 'a guy named john'". And such consideration has been given by theologians in coming to the conclusion that the book of John was written by non other than the disciple John.

Wiki:
While given names have been used from the most distant times to identify individuals, the advent of surnames is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone.By 1400, most English and some Scottish people used surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later.Henry VIII (1491–1547) ordered that marital births be recorded under the surname of the father.

Many cultures have used and continue to use additional descriptive terms in identifying individuals. These terms may indicate personal attributes, location of origin, occupation, parentage, patronage, adoption, or clan affiliation. These descriptors often developed into fixed clan identifications which in turn became family names as we know them today.


People were often given names like John the blacksmith or Saul the tailor. In fact, that is where many modern last names like Smith and Tailor come from. On other occasions, the Bible might mention who a person’s dad was. For instance, Numbers 11:28 talks about “Joshua the son of Nun.” By telling the father’s name, it sets Joshua apart from others who might be named Joshua.
Apologetics Press - Why Don t the People in the Bible have Last Names

You are only interested in demeaning Christianity and calling people who believe "stupid". If you don't want to believe, that is your choice, but basing it on such shallow assumptions do not give you the right to call those who differ stupid, especially since most of us have provided links and sources to back up what we say and you have offered up nothing except your word.

I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out references. There will always be people who believe that our world and universe came from nothing, and those who choose to believe that there is a Devine Designer...that the "orderly" form of our world did not come about from the disorder that is chance. Even scientist cannot come up with an answer of "something" being created out of "nothing"......so there you are.


Similarly, if all the physical laws had been explained and proved (known as the Grand Theory of Everything) – which is a million miles from the case – our understanding of the actions of God would not be one whit greater: his existence and his actions are of a different order.

Most particularly it would not touch the question of how something existing comes out from nothing. That is a question which science cannot answer, and will never answer, because nothingness is not within its domain. Hawking apparently does not address this question – which is the true and ultimate Theory of Everything. But what philosophy can teach us is that neither he, nor you, nor I will ever explain creation, except through faith.


CatholicHerald.co.uk Stephen Hawking still can 8217 t explain how something came from nothing

wrong again-----lots of biblical scholars agree that the writings in the BOOK of John are a compilation of several
different authors and they cannot identify the "JOHN" who is
supposed to have been a disciple------also---I am correct in saying people in those days were NOT identified by a single
given name---------they were identified by the names of their
parents and the places from which they came-----by the "tribe" of which they were a member etc etc . Even if
you read only translations and do not know a word of Hebrew or Aramaic or greek----or even Arabic------you should have been able to figure that out by ADULTHOOD Try looking
in the books again

 

[irosie91]

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

the book of Revalations appears in the New Testament and
is attributed to JOHN . There is a huge difference between being intoxicated on psychostimulating mushrooms and being senile. Considering the SKILL of the writer----he was clearly not senile. Senile persons write very poorly Some people write very well when
"HIGH" (perhaps you should try it some time----the situation
for you cannot get any worse) The "last name" of moses is
BEN AMRAM. Gee----you are an utter dimwit. He could have also carried the name MITZRI----ie the Egyptian. Jews have a kind of nickname for moses which
also identifies who he is "moshe rabeinu" If you had a
brain you, too, could learn how names are arranged in semitic languages

Moses was at most a general kicked out of Egypt or from what I've read led some leopards out of Egypt. He set up a military society and the laws he took from Egypt as he was brought up in Egypt, if there even was a Moses as the exodus as displayed in the Bible has been disproved.

The John , fourth gospel , was not the same John who was said to of wrote Rev. which almost did not make it into the NT, but one much has a good ending the battle of good and evil, good winning out.

You haven't been around too many senile people who are highly religious have you? They see things and imagine things, but your right, it was wrote with a reason behind it, it was wrote for a specific reason. They were not ignorant, even back then they used religion to control the populous

Penelope-----give up------you do not even know what the word "SENILE" means------In general it has been used in
common parlance to refer to cognitive decline in old age-----
it is a general kind of word that has no real meaning other than ------"getting old" in medical parlance. For loss of cognitive ability----the word is DEMENTIA-----lots of idiots like you imagine that the word "dementia" means "insane"
or "psychotic" or even "intoxicated" -----it doesn't -----

it is silly of you to use words you do not understand. If I remember correctly ----you once claimed to work in "Health
care"--------yeah RIGHT!!!!! Find a sympathetic nurse and
ask her to define the words for you. NEVER try to explain
anything about the patients to their family members-----
you don't know how

 

[irosie91]

fret not fellow posters-------PENELOPE knows all about TWO DIFFERENT "JOHN"s in who appear in the New Testament----she is going to tell us all about them-----"the other john" is the john who wrote "REVELATIONS"----
For the record----JOHN is "yochanan" and means
"GOD IS GRACIOUS". There are lots and lots of "yochanans"------John the Baptist is ANOTHER JOHN---he is
has a parentage and even a place of origin and-----he is called
YOCHANAN HaTOVEL referring to his habit of immersing
people in water -----he became I kind of preaching itinerant
TRAVELING TOVLER who annoyed some people