Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/radioc ... egion-calibration-inaccuracies
Published: Jun 6, 2018
Author: MIKE MCRAE
Post Date: 2018-06-06 21:41:38 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 48037
Comments: 248
One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result. The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon- 14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years. That may not seem like a huge deal, but in situations where a decade or two of discrepancy counts, radiocarbon dating could be misrepresenting important details. The science behind the dating method is fairly straightforward: nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere hit with cosmic radiation are converted into a type of carbon with eight neutrons. This carbon – which has an atomic mass of 14 – has a chance of losing that neutron to turn into a garden variety carbon isotope over a predictable amount of time. By comparing the two categories of carbon in organic remains, archaeologists can judge how recently the organism that left them last absorbed carbon-14 out of its environment. Over millennia the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere changes, meaning measurements need to be calibrated against a chart that takes the atmospheric concentration into account, such as INTCAL13. The current version of INTCAL13 is based on historical data from North America and Europe, and has a fairly broad resolution over thousands of years. Levels do happen to spike on a local and seasonal basis with changes in the carbon cycle, but carbon-14 is presumed to diffuse fast enough to ignore these tiny bumps. At least, that was the assumption until now. "We know from atmospheric measurements over the last 50 years that radiocarbon levels vary through the year, and we also know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the Northern Hemisphere," says archaeologist Sturt Manning from Cornell University. "So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating." The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries. Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years. The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations. One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov. Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world. "Our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region," says Manning. Collecting additional data from different geographical areas and taking a closer look at historical climate trends could help sharpen calibration techniques, especially in hotly debated regions. For the time being, archaeologists covering history in the Levant are being advised to take their dates with a pinch of salt. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-93) not displayed.
.
.
.
#94. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
You calling me a liar and the other lies you said do anger me. I don't like being lied about.
Project much? You listen to an old man who calls himself gods title of holy father. Who has so much wealth horded. You pray to a dead sinner who never heard one syllable of your so called prayers.
You need help. Go see someone about your brain damaged. Have your head scanned.
Elaborate head case.
Hey asshole you said god doesn't heal anyone. Then you say he heals you. Which is it you hypocrite asshole? You said the below deceiver. Why are you such a prick liar? Or are you just brain damaged and cannot see the hypocrisy and ollogic in your bizarre statement. You won't address this because your a litttle worm puss of a person. Christ does not treat Chrsitans' diabetes or cancer. He let's them bear that cross, die, and come to him. Similarly for starvation. Christ lets hundreds of millions of Christans starve to death. They bear their cross to the end and have their reward in the next life. Christ never promised health and happiness in this life - in fact, he promised that those things won't be found here. So you're right - I have absolutely no belief at all that Christ will reach down from heaven and protect Christians from any diseases, or marauding enemies, or starvation, or natural disaster - because he DOESN'T protect us from any of things, and never said he would. Our reward for staying true to him is found on the other side, in the afterlife, not HERE. If you have diabetes here, praying to Christ will keep you faithful to him to the end and win you the afterlife, but you're still going to lose your foot in THIS life, because Christ isn't going to lift a finger to protect you from the natural law, or from the marauding of other men. You have to help yourself in this life - Christ holds out the promise of happiness in the afterlife if, in the process of helping yourself in this one you don't do great evil, and you remember him and try to do what he said. That's the deal. That Christ substitutes for human government in this life is impiety. It is ignoring what he really said, and adding nonsense to it that he never said. Christ will not govern your country. He won't save you from malaria, or hurricanes, or earthquakes, or Nazis. He will have compassion on you, and receive your soul when they kill you, but he won't stop them from killing you, he won't drive off your diseases if you drink contaminated water, and he won't make hurricane Irma spare your life. He might on a one-off basis, but Christians at large get no pass, at all, from natural law. Christ's deal is not about here.
You have a terrible reading comprehension problem, and a terrible anger management problem. You read your book to tell you to go out proselytizing. The litany above is a classic example of this in action. It's why your religion is dying, and why God doesn't talk to you. The day will come that you die and have a life review. This will be part of it. You will be abashed, because at that moment you will realize that I was always telling you the truth. I would tell you truly that you represent God very badly. What could you learn from me? Primarily, care about the poor. Care about the weak. Not hate people for thinking differently from you, as long as they aren't oppressing and killing people. Once upon a time, your approach to religion ruled the day. The Catholic Church tortured and executed "heretics" and "witches". A messenger of God, Joan of Arc, was tried and burnt alive by the Catholic Church. The Lutherans burnt 50,000 witches. The Anglicans killed recusants and Catholics. The Presbyterians waged violent war on all who thought differently, and burnt 20,000 witches in a tiny little country. The Baptists upheld slavery, oppressed millions of blacks, and upheld racial segregation based on their read of the Bible. What a bunch of evil lunacy! All of it. I'll stick with the God who pulled me out of the lake and raised that mouse and that lizard from the dead, who flew the dove into my face to drive off the demon, and whose son embraced me. That's God. Your presentation of that God is horrific. Who could possibly be persuaded to follow your religion, based on rage and taunt? People just like you. Which is why your church has acted that way over history. Which is why people like me won't follow it now, and have stripped away all of its political power, and fenced it off, far, far away from the levers of political or judicial power. You do what you do. Part of that is rail at me. Your jealousy is palpable. Anyway, nothing to be done about it now. When you die, you will see. Then you'll finally get to know him. He's better than you make him out to be.
F*** you ass wipe.
You still never answered why God heals you but no one else did you ass wipe hypocrite.
What a nice Christian thing to say. Have you renewed your moderator license lately?
The asshole started attack8ng me from the start of the thread. What do you think of his delusional raising of mice and lizards from the dead. Head case.
If you say so. I avoid religion discussion threads for the most part. I haven't been to church/Mass in several months. Will I burn in Hades?
Christ does not treat Chrsitans' diabetes or cancer. He let's them bear that cross, die, and come to him. Similarly for starvation. Christ lets hundreds of millions of Christans starve to death. They bear their cross to the end and have their reward in the next life. Christ never promised health and happiness in this life - in fact, he promised that those things won't be found here. Are you so stupid you cannot see that these comments cannot both be true? That is why you are an asshole. You lie and puff yourself up. You really are that stupid aren't you. God doesnt' heal. God healed me. God doesn't heal. God healed me. Get your head out of your arrogant ass ok asshole.
No. In general, God does not seem to intervene, but sometimes he does. I haven't speculated as to why that may be so. I merely observe that it is so.
Changing your story buddy.
Nope. Simply stating the obvious truth. Lots of people have illnesses and infirmities, and many cry out to God for succor. Many don't appear to get it. Perhaps they get it on the other side. But some do. I did. Both of those things are true. Most don't. But some do. That's not changing a story, it's two parallel stories, both of which are true, with opposite results. God decides who lives when and who dies when, and of what, whom he saves from death in this life at one point (before killing him at some later point), and whom he sends into Paradise, whom he sends into Gehenna, who passes final judgment, when it comes, and who fails it. He does not explain himself fully. He does as he pleases. That's always been the story, and still is. It is both no and yes, at the same time, depending on God's choices at any given moment in time.
You're not telling the truth. You said the above also in that post of yours. And many other things to reinforce it. Just admit what you said was incorrect. Or keep spinning and digging.
Just admit what you said was incorrect. Or keep spinning and digging. I have always been telling the truth about these things. You either have a hard time with reading comprehension, or have a learning disability, or like to play at being a bad investigator or lawyer. In any case, we're not really discussing anything here it at all. You're trying to play a jejeune game of "gotcha" by showing me my past words, which I read, and don't see a contradiction. You don't seem to be able to grasp complexity. And so our conversation devolves, once again, into a said/didn't say back and forth, which is pointless. I don't concede anything, because you're essentially dredging up me saying the same things, in slightly different words and from different vantage points, going back years and years. You say that I am contradicting myself and lying, but I read what I wrote, and I see a remarkable consistency over the course of years and years. Do you know why that consistency is there? Because I'm writing from true memory. Liars have to be good at remembering things, and they fail, and they say different things at different times. But I don't do that. Sure, you can go back and find me going postal with anger and talking about napalming cities, or whatever - I don't pretend that I am a fine human being when I get filled with wrath. But when the discussion turns to God, what God has done, what God does - when a calm discussion is being had - I refer back to the miracles I have experienced, because they are the foundational points of my entire life, the most important things that ever happened to me, to moments where everything changed forever. And my recollection of them is clear, so what I say is consistent with that. Now, how I analyze what that means varies from time to time, depending on what is being discussed. The core meaning is that God is, God thinks, God controls nature. That's true. From those core facts, other things can be extrapolated by reason. I do that, and sometimes I change my mind about the implications of something. What does not change is the underlying fact set that drives what I say. That is what you directly assault when you call me a liar, when you mock me for the lizard, when you say I bumped my head. No, I am not lying. The lizard was dead and God brought it back to life. I did not bump my head, I broke my neck and was paralyzed and drowning. The demon was there, the dove flew into my face. God grabbed my face and my arm and talked to me. These are the core facts of my direct encounters with my creator. They are why I know God. When you attack me for those particular things, you are charging straight at facts, and you sound desperate, mean and crazy. You scream at me that I am a liar, when I am telling the truth. Any investigator who pulled up the last 17 years of my writing about these things, from in different places, would find a remarkable consistency - the sort of consistency that liars cannot maintain. I don't have to remember the lies I've told to make them consistent, because I'm reporting actual memories. So if asked off the cuff by a stranger in the dark, the stories I would tell would be the same as if one pulled any of the e-mails from the past 17 years. Slap me on a lie detector test for verification, and you will find the machine loves me, and the recounting is consistent. Now, my interpretations of what it all MEANS have varied, just as anybody's theology grows and changes with maturity. What does not change is the facts, because the facts are WHY I'm sure about what I believe. You attack me for the facts, and that's about the worst thing you can do, because you sound like a crazy, belligerent drunk, raging with anger, and I hear you, know I have been telling the truth all along, and judge your religion based on your willingness to try to scream and bully the truth into silence. It doesn't work, because I'm not the fool here, and I know it. I also know that all I have to do is to calmly repeat what happened to me and what I have seen, and you will hit the ceiling like a puppet on a string. Truth is, your religion COULD accomodate and englobe what happened to me, it DOES affirm basic things about Christianity. But you're so hellbent on attacking my "lies", that are actually true, that you reveal a fundamental insecurity at the heart of your faith. You have decided, through bad reasoning, that if what I am saying is true, that your religion would therefore be false, and because you don't believe that, "therefore" I must be lying. But I'm not.
You do said God doesn't heal in this life he does the opposite so that makes you a liar.
I have proof and fossils from my front yard that prove otherwise. Crustaceans in limestone rock in Kentucky. You need to get off of teh Donald's calender, and onto God's calender Fred.
I said that God healed me. I also said, as a general principle, that God doesn't heal people in this life. This does not make me a liar at all. I observed the general case, one that you yourself attested to at ferocious length, how God doesn't heal diabetes, doesn't prevent Christians from starving, etc. That is indeed the general case. But then I noted that God DID heal me of a fatal injury. Those two things are both true. There is no lie here. So, given those two things in juxtaposition, what one must say is that God almost never heals anybody, but that rarely, he does. Because that is the truth. You and I can both look around and see that he doesn't do it, generally. That's why these things are called miracle. But when I look in the mirror, I see a living man who would be dead but for a direct divine intervention, a major healing miracle. So I cannot state as an absolute prospect that God NEVER EVER heals people. God doesn't heal people, hardly ever, except when he does. That's a fact. There's no lie here. You throw the word "liar" around a lot. It's a pretty serious accusation, considering that lying is a mortal sin. Trouble is, you haven't "caught me in a lie" here. You're having trouble with reading comprehension. There is indeed a very dramatic tension between the two statements - and that's the point: a general rule, and a startling exception. How can you possibly even begin to understand that Bible in which you place all of your trust if such a simple literary device as I used throws you. Example: The Bible says that all Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John. But that is obviously not literally true. The Sanhedrin didn't. Pilate and the Romans didn't. The high priest didn't. The people who executed Jesus almost certainly didn't. If it were me having written that Biblical passage with the "all" in it, you would be screaming at me that I am a liar, because "all" is not literally true.
Your long winded swill doesn't change the fact you are lying. Liar.
You didn't say two things in your evil rant. You specifically said it doesn't happen it's the opposite. And you say I have reading comprehension problem liar.
Another lie liar. That is not what it says. Like the heretic Pope's who removed the second commandment for Catholic non thinkers you deceive leave out words in an attempt to change the meaning. None of your long wonder swill changes those FACTS.
www.novinite.com/articles...enced+Deluge+-+Scientists Such a cataclismic event could well have been the story that was ancestral to the Biblical account. People do have a way of inventing explanations for things they do not understand, and the less they understand things, the more likely they are to chalk it up to the will of a divine entity. And the ancients understood very little about the world. Interesting link, btw...thanks. The Black Sea geography and investigative dynamics are fascinating. Yes, I suppose the version of The Great Flood account could have been construed/explained by locals to have been a matter of the Black Sea over-flowing the strait of Bosporus and flooding the entire area/"world". Case was...that the Great Flood caused the Black Sea to over-flow. And the original location become inundated for flood waters. Coincidence that it occurred at about the same time as the Great Flood? Whether they were in fact referring to what we now call dinosaurs is speculation. Could they not have been referring to present day alligators & Komoto dragons and such? Although, yes, alligators and Komoto Dragon are "dinosaurs" (it's really just modern semantics, isn't it?), these "Dragons" seemed to be different physically, at least according to world-wide paintings and "legend". Sorta "dinosaur-like". It's the only documentation we have. Besides many recent findings and cases of dino-bone with still not-yet deteriorated tissue. That my friend seems to point to "thousands of years-old" deaths, not "millions" -- even virtual oxygen-deprived scenario.
Yup.
More accurately, if carbon-14 dating were to be recalibrated or revised in such a way as to show dinosaurs bones being much, much younger than it currently does, then that evidence would still need to be corroborated with other evidence showing they are the present age. The age of the dinosaur fossils is generally based on geological dating methods, and any carbon-14 revisions would not mean that a fossil encased in hardened stone dated by other methods to be millions of years to be automatically redated to a few thousand. In that example, if carbon-14 said such a bone was 5000 years old, but the geologic dating method said the stone was 70 million years old, the next task would be to find out which was right and which was wrong. Science is always in flux, by it's very nature. Bone/stone and tissue react differently to C-14 dating. Sure, science could "move the goalposts"... Right -- your suggestion to compare and contrast the C-14 vs other dating methods seems to be a no-brainer. Problem is, across the board all dating methods are consistently inconsistent. We've all seen and heard of kooky instances (akin to the example you posed) of recent material items have been "dated" as in the thousands or millions of years old. Since there are no obvious eyewitnesses documentation of history (other than ancient texts, Biblical, legend), we're still left with educated guesses and estimates (and wishful thinking whims of the agenda-driven). BUT fortunately new technology that can help us better measure, map and more refine our earth-forensic exams. Earth Science must abide by todays's physical law. But I think a major issue "flux"(especially in the case of C-14) is being affected by past changes in magnetic fields, radiation level, air pressure, and that whole cataclysmic event(s) of the Great Flood, evidence suggesting total planetary "do-over", a re-calibration of geography, climate/weather, DNA, etc -- which some theorize (some of which we can only theorize of course, but others -- like the plethora of past plant and animal life as well as MUCH larger specimens of ALL flora and fauna even in places like Antarctica IS proven science.) And just because new/revised carbon-14 understanding might make us change what we now believe about it would NOT mean that those revised understandings would then be firm science. Next year someone might come out and say, "Hey, when we said we were wrong about carbon-14 and decided dinosaur bones were just a few thousand years old, we were actually wrong about what we thought we were wrong about because of xyz, and so those bones are still likely to be much older than 50k years. Sorry for the confusion". Hmmm...That might be the honest thing to say/do. And actually garner across-the-board respect for amending fleshed-out scientific truths. But since the "Science" Communitah elites have become a hardened political-religious organization, its high priests never want to admit wrongs. Even in the case of "Global Warming" hoaxing. They see it as undermining *all* of its orthodoxy and portrayed infallibility of "Papal" Science. btw, ever read up on Antarctica recently? Seems some weird eerie stuff from past and present is being sandbagged. So you wonder in the end -- *IS* Science even interested prioritizing the truth of any given matter? Or, just advancing an agenda?
Pass the bong ;-) Ok, I get it (after a couple minutes...) The only option other than dictating to certain righteous men and Prophets His divine account of Beginning, Middle and End, many ask of this, "If God IS God, why couldn't He just show up and make a Big Announcement in person: "Ok everybody -- I want you to know THIS is how In-The-Beginning all went down; THIS is the deal with dinosaurs;THESE are my Rules For Getting Into Heaven (now that Adam and Eve blew it for you all), and "Here is a Tour of My Kingdom and Hell -- choose wisely"... BUT...He didn't. He chose for His own reason and purpose to challenge the course our respective mind, spirit, our heart take. And obviously, free will and faith. If I were to nitpick about death existing before sin, the human body experiences cell death as a normal function of healthy human living. Hair, for example is dead tissue. If no death existed before sin, would this mean that before the fall, Adam and Eve either had no hair, or if they did, it was living tissue? Hair isn't a "live being". Taking another angle, I would submit that what *would* indicate the "death" of hair might be either balding (dying hair follicles), the graying of hair and degradation of quality, i.e. thinning. Still another angle, if Adam and Eve were designed with absolute physical perfection, and the re-generation of all human tissue was forever, then how could hair be considered "dying"? Adam and Eve's DNA would have been perfect before The Fall.
Some of us are just riffin' thoughts, exchanging ideas. Ok, so we might not agree, but sometimes conversations and disagreements are just that. This wasn't an "inflamed" ping to you. Nor a hostile ping. I wasn't "hectoring" you, just restating and contrasting your position and belief on Genesis with those who believe that Genesis is also as much the inspired word of God and Authority as anything Jesus was recorded to say. One of my points with respect to Genesis is that...If Jesus Himself quoted it (and we know that you believe Jesus is Lord who came as God in the flesh), then the logical question is wondering how it can then be untrue or illegitimate a text? Or..."poetry"? Just saying. (you don't have to answer)
I guess that depends on defining the word of notion of "complete". And exactly what might fulfill its completion. If you believe there are errors in scripture, can you specify which verses they are? Are they verses that could be construed as ambiguous?
What's the lie? That the Bible says all Jerusalem went out to see John and be baptized. It does. Or that everybody did indeed go out? They didn't.
Fair enough.
When it comes to matters of God, it is much more complicated. To speak of God is to speak of matters of life and death, of all of one's wealth, all law, all politics, everything: what one believes about God, and the intensity with which one believes it, determines all of those things.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
Under the Newton model, there's really no reason for God to do this for the simple reason that our acamedic head knowledge is of about no importance. What is important is our own growth: The embellishment of virtues and overcoming of vices, so any understandings about the age of the universe or the exact mechanics of how we came to be are of no spiritual value to us.
I guess I was taking an issue with Stone's statement about there being no death before the fall. I should have pinged him. It was a challenge on the notion of "no death" in this context, as on a cellular level, it's hard to imagine there being no death in a perfect world. Even eating food involves digestion of plants & fruits, both of which were either alive when consumed or died prior to consumption, either of which involves death. So you say. Hair and fingernails that never die. Does it stop growing then? Honestly, this just doesn't work. At least for me.
You directed to Vic, but I'll answer. Passages that state God gets angry & jealous. To me it's wholly contradictory to other passages about him being all wise, all powerful, all knowing, all loving etc. I see those passages as "anthropomorphism", which is a literary technique of ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity, in this case, God. When a respected leader tells his people that God is angry, it gives that leader great power to tell his people they must do some bidding, as people will act out of fear. So there is a very human political motive for ancients to propagate the idea that God can get angry, and it was certainly done in many, if not most or all other cultures throughout history.
I see those passages as "anthropomorphism", which is a literary technique of ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity, in this case, God. I don't subscribe to the "contradictory" notion of God's "anger and jealousy"; It seems you've explained why Scripture describes this technique in your following quote of, "anthropomorphism". Doesn't any parent run that same gamut of emotion as they watch their child grow up? After all, we are just extensions of God the Father. We may even know beforehand that our child WILL fall, but the child must learn. Then we pick him up. God's "anger" and "jealousy"-- again, in human relate-able terms. Maybe this analogy works for you; Say your child has joined an evil, kooky cult and appears to be embracing it. One emotion might be repulsiveness, others anger, disappointment, and..."jealously" in the sense that you can't believe he/she would choose cultist-enslavement over freedom. Back to the language used in scripture -- Why wouldn't God explain language so we could understand it in "human" context? Somewhat analogous -- Germans and French both have words for things that don't exists for the English equivalent and vice versa. When a respected leader tells his people that God is angry, it gives that leader great power to tell his people they must do some bidding, as people will act out of fear. So there is a very human political motive for ancients to propagate the idea that God can get angry, and it was certainly done in many, if not most or all other cultures throughout history. I'm not sure how your interpretation of an interpretation is construed as scriptural "error". There IS such a thing as "righteous anger", no doubt. As far as any "bidding" that's done -- I assume from your perspective, "in the name of God" -- you're going to have to be more specific about just what "political motive" and action your refer to.
Yes, I construed that same statement as having supported Stone's "no-death-before-the Fall." Based on that claim, technology those plants Adam and Eve ate would have kept on living as they continued baring fruit, no? I agree -- it IS hard to imagine a world in which death is no more. But that's exactly what we re told was the world before the Fall...and within the Kingdom of God after the First Death. Hair and fingernails that never die. Does it stop growing then? Honestly, this just doesn't work. At least for me. Hair follicles wouldn't have died; neither would have nail beds. "Death" = End of Regeneration. Food for Thought: There is much evidence that Planet Earth pre-Flood was a MUCH different world. In that world, ALL living things grew to extreme size (perhaps because everything lived much longer.) The fossil record proves it. Scripture records also attest to a much longer human lifespan. For whatever reason(s) it seems the DNA of all life was re-calibrated after the Fall, then again, after the Great Flood. I appreciate your honesty. I can't obviously convince you of things that might not work for you or for things of which you have doubts. Sincere question: Do you apply the same sense of critical analysis and assessment of plausibility and authority for your current belief system?
To speak of God is to speak of matters of life and death, of all of one's wealth, all law, all politics, everything: what one believes about God, and the intensity with which one believes it, determines all of those things. I agree on all counts. God's Laws and faith are interwoven into all facets of life...or rather should be. Blessed are those whose "intensity" and hunger for faith and the word grows...before it's too late.
But God is all knowing, so he would believe it, and even anticipate it. So why would it result in divine "anger". Ah, but is not the Bible "truth"? Are you suggesting the Bible might convey an impression about God that is not, in fact, true, but somewhat short of that just so that we would "understand" something even though that which we then think we understand is, in fact, a misunderstanding? If you take the position that the English language, due to it's limitations, cannot possibly capture the meaning of God's divine Word, then what you basically end up doing is aligning with Vicombe's position, probably, that the Bible is, to an extent, imperfect. Political motives? That's easy. When you put the literal fear of God into a population, and are able to cast yourself as a spokesman for God, then you have strong control over those people. I understand it was Constantine that formally declared reincarnation a heresy. Certainly if people believe they only have one life to live, then they are much easier to control, as no one wants to go to hell for all eternity for disobeying the church, which became a partner to the state. Well, you may find this notion of God capable of being angry (even "wrathful") and jealous reasonable in spite of His also having infinite wisdom, love & knowledge, but I do not, and it's one element that, for me, favors the Newton model of at least the Old Testament depiction of God, if not the contemporary Christian depiction. Truly, under the Newton model, God has, in my opinion (if not outright objectively speaking) complete majesty. He has all of the wonders that Christianity claims he has, but without any of the shortcomings such as being capable of anger and jealousy. God is better complemented and revered as a higher standard than in the Judeo-Christian model. It's my contention that the old testament is a collection of ancient writings that, rather than being divinely inspired, are instead a collection of highly refined writings that are ascribed divine origin status. That ascription has taken on a life of its own in the form of both the Jewish faith as well as, of course, the Christian faith which is an extension of it. Under the Newton model, everything works perfectly, frankly, in terms of divine love and patience, and our purpose. Christianity simply doesn't work perfectly, which which I'm sure you'll strongly disagree. But the bottom line is, under the Newton model, no one is left behind with the possible exception of those who choose to be left behind. And under Christianity, people can go to hell for all eternity because someone never shared the gospel with them when they had the chance to. On it's face.... that's a point scored for the Newton model.
Comments (134 - 248) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYour rage is misplaced.
#95. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
It is outrageous, to you. It makes perfect sense, of course: I'm listening to God, and you're listening to men
#96. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
jealous man. You do all of the things your idolatry requires, but God doesn't talk to you. And here's a guy who does not have your religion, and God heals him, shows him miracles, and talks to him.
#97. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
You laugh at me, but I have the greater prize,
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
#99. To: A K A Stone (#98)
#100. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
#102. To: A K A Stone (#100)
F*** you ass wipe.
#103. To: Fred Mertz (#102)
#104. To: A K A Stone (#103)
#105. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
I'll stick with the God who pulled me out of the lake and raised that mouse and that lizard from the dead, who flew the dove into my face to drive off the demon, and whose son embraced me. That's God.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#105)
Are you so stupid you cannot see that these comments cannot both be true?
#107. To: Vicomte13 (#106)
#108. To: A K A Stone (#107)
Changing your story buddy.
#109. To: Vicomte13 (#108)
Christ never promised health and happiness in this life - in fact, he promised that those things won't be found here.
#110. To: A K A Stone (#109)
You're not telling the truth. You said the above also in that post of yours. And many other things to reinforce it.
#111. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
#112. To: Fred Mertz, Exodus 12, 1-2 (#2)
#113. To: A K A Stone (#111)
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
#115. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
#116. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
Example: The Bible says that all Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John.
#117. To: Pinguinite (#70)
There's speculation that the story of the "great flood" may have originated with the flooding of the Black Sea by a failed land bridge that separated it from the Mediterranean Sea, which seems occurred within time frame of ancient civilization.
#118. To: Pinguinite (#71)
All [crocodiles,alligators,or lizards] of which are, essentially, dinosaurs.
#119. To: Pinguinite (#72)
"It really could be that, year, these animals (a dinosaur is, after all, just an animal) died much more recently. That would mean that the orthodoxy about all of the dinosaurs going extinct at a certain time would not be true..."
#120. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#74)
Though it's a claim that the Genesis timeline is "God's Timeline" as opposed to a timeline of man that is purported to be God's.
#121. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#75)
I have seen the messages and am thinking about my response. Religious passions are inflamed here, and I have a different viewpoint than all three of you so, given that this is not an area of passion for me, I have to think through the degree to which I'm willing to endure the inevitable hectoring when I say something contrary to somebody else's belief system.
#122. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
The bible is not the complete word of God and is not without error.
#123. To: A K A Stone (#116)
Another lie liar.
#124. To: Liberator (#121)
Some of us are just riffin' thoughts, exchanging ideas.
#125. To: Liberator (#121)
Some of us are just riffin' thoughts, exchanging ideas. Ok, so we might not agree, but sometimes conversations and disagreements are just that.
#126. To: A K A Stone (#116)
you are lying. Liar. ... liar ... liar ... Another lie liar.
#127. To: Liberator (#120)
The only option other than dictating to certain righteous men and Prophets His divine account of Beginning, Middle and End, many ask of this, "If God IS God, why couldn't He just show up and make a Big Announcement in person: "Ok everybody -- I want you to know THIS is how In-The-Beginning all went down; THIS is the deal with dinosaurs;THESE are my Rules For Getting Into Heaven (now that Adam and Eve blew it for you all), and "Here is a Tour of My Kingdom and Hell -- choose wisely"...
BUT...He didn't. He chose for His own reason and purpose to challenge the course our respective mind, spirit, our heart take. And obviously, free will and faith.
#128. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#120)
Hair isn't a "live being".
Taking another angle, I would submit that what *would* indicate the "death" of hair might be either balding (dying hair follicles), the graying of hair and degradation of quality, i.e. thinning.
Still another angle, if Adam and Eve were designed with absolute physical perfection, and the re-generation of all human tissue was forever, then how could hair be considered "dying"?
Adam and Eve's DNA would have been perfect before The Fall.
#129. To: Liberator (#122)
If you believe there are errors in scripture, can you specify which verses they are?
#130. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#129)
(If you believe there are errors in scripture, can you specify which verses they are? )
You directed to Vic, but I'll answer. Passages that state God gets angry & jealous. To me it's wholly contradictory to other passages about him being all wise, all powerful, all knowing, all loving etc.
#131. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#128)
I guess I was taking an issue with Stone's statement about there being no death before the fall. I should have pinged him. It was a challenge on the notion of "no death" in this context, as on a cellular level, it's hard to imagine there being no death in a perfect world. Even eating food involves digestion of plants & fruits, both of which were either alive when consumed or died prior to consumption, either of which involves death.
#132. To: Vicomte13 (#125)
When it comes to matters of God, it is much more complicated.
#133. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#130)
God's "anger" and "jealousy"-- again, in human relate-able terms. Maybe this analogy works for you; Say your child has joined an evil, kooky cult and appears to be embracing it. One emotion might be repulsiveness, others anger, disappointment, and..."jealously" in the sense that you can't believe he/she would choose cultist-enslavement over freedom.
Back to the language used in scripture -- Why wouldn't God explain language so we could understand it in "human" context? Somewhat analogous -- Germans and French both have words for things that don't exists for the English equivalent and vice versa.
There IS such a thing as "righteous anger", no doubt. As far as any "bidding" that's done -- I assume from your perspective, "in the name of God" -- you're going to have to be more specific about just what "political motive" and action your refer to.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]