16 Jan 06
2 edits
There are plenty of people here who doubt that the Bible is accurate, or that God told the authors what to write, but lets consider the evidence.
Below I’ve listed 20 places where the author accurately wrote about things that were not known or accepted in his day. Might this indicate a divine connection?
A = What the author wrote. B = The belief that was commonly accepted during the author’s time.
A Blood is essential to life. Lev. 17:11-14
B Disease and spirits reside in blood. To cure disease, bleed patient.
A Both male and female possess "seed of life." Gen3:15; 22:18
B Male has baby in him. Woman = incubator
A Eating blood of animals forbidden Lev. 17:12,14
B Raw blood used as beverage.
A Don't eat animal that died naturally Lev. 17:15
B No restrictions on manner of death.
A Quarantine of certain diseases Lev. 13-15
B No isolation of diseased.
A Principles of avoiding bacterial contamination - one person to another. Lev. 15:19-33
B No rules of hygiene or isolation.
A Human waste products to be buried. Deut. 23:12-14
B Human waste left on ground.
A Human body can be opened for surgery. Gen 2:21
B First operations done secretly because populace threatened doctors.
A Washing/burning clothes, washing self after contact with deceased man or animal. Num. 19:5-22
B No recognition of contagion problems.
A Earth is round, day and night taking place simultaneously. Isa. 40:22 Prov. 8:27 (compass) Luke 17:34 (sun & moon)
B Earth is flat.
A Earth is not physically supported. Job 26:7
B Earth held up by four elephants or Atlas (a man), etc.
A The North is empty (Our North Pole points out of our galaxy). Job 26:7
B Seeing a few stars to the North refuted this idea until 1932.
A Space and stars are too large to be measured or counted. Gen. 15:5
B Attempts to number the astronomical bodies went on until 1932.
A The continents have floated away from a singular original land mass. Gen. 1:9 (all water connected) Gen. 10:25 (earth divided)
B Each continent was autonomous (until 1970)
A Lightning is produced naturally. Jere. 10:13 ; 51:16
B Gods throw lightning bolts.
A All men are blood relatives. Acts 17:26
B Men have different origins.
A The water cycle. Eccl. 1:7 Job. 36:27, 28
B God pours new water on land continuously.
A Use of genetics in livestock. Gen. 30:30-43
B No recognition of inherited physical properties.
A Snow and ice seen as valuable. Job 38:22
B Snow and ice seen as a scourge and waste.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressGot my rec....here is another....
There are plenty of people here who doubt that the Bible is accurate, or that God told the authors what to write, but lets consider the evidence.
Below I’ve listed 20 places where the author accurately wrote about things that were not known or accepted in his day. Might this indicate a divine connection?
A = What the author wrote. B = The be Snow and ice seen as valuable. Job 38:22
[b]B Snow and ice seen as a scourge and waste.[/b]
Prov 3:6-8
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
(KJV)
How did they know about the navel, not to mention marrow? A baby in the womb is nourished through the placenta...this verse implies that in a similiar fashion if you obey God you will be nourished as through the navel.(Spiritually speaking)
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI've heard that the Bible can be used to prove any point.
There are plenty of people here who doubt that the Bible is accurate, or that God told the authors what to write, but lets consider the evidence.
Below I’ve listed 20 places where the author accurately wrote about things that were not known or accepted in his day. Might this indicate a divine connection?
A = What the author wrote. B = The be ...[text shortened]... Snow and ice seen as valuable. Job 38:22
[b]B Snow and ice seen as a scourge and waste.[/b]
Now I believe it.
You've taken statements made in a certain context and applied them to fit
the contexts that you like. Sure, you can call it 'foreshadowing' but the original
contexts make sense and we could pull out dozens of similar statements to
show that God didn't know what He was talking about (when quoted out of
context).
Nemesio
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioContext is just a trick in itself. Not many people agree with your context, so believe as you will.
I've heard that the Bible can be used to prove any point.
Now I believe it.
You've taken statements made in a certain context and applied them to fit
the contexts that you like. Sure, you can call it 'foreshadowing' but the original
contexts make sense and we could pull out dozens of similar statements to
show that God didn't know what He was talking about (when quoted out of
context).
Nemesio
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by checkbaiterThanks for the rec and the passage. I'll add it to my personal collection.
Got my rec....here is another....
Prov 3:6-8
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be[b] health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
(KJV)
How did they know about the navel, not to mention marrow? A baby in the womb is nouris ...[text shortened]... miliar fashion if you obey God you will be nourished as through the navel.(Spiritually speaking)[/b]
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by checkbaiterHere is an example of what I mean.
How did they know about the navel, not to mention marrow? A baby in the womb is nourished through the placenta...this verse implies that in a similiar fashion if you obey God you will be nourished as through the navel.(Spiritually speaking)
The navel is where your stomach is. Obviously, to be physically fed, one
must attend to one's stomach.
Interestingly enough, modern translations use 'flesh' and not 'navel'
and 'bones' and not 'marrow.' These translations are striving to
communicate what was meant in the original and not to impose
some bizarre, prophetic statement on the nature of the placenta.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioSounds like typical bible rejectors cliche's. Can you be more specific?
I've heard that the Bible can be used to prove any point.
Now I believe it.
You've taken statements made in a certain context and applied them to fit
the contexts that you like. Sure, you can call it 'foreshadowing' but the original
contexts make sense and we could pull out dozens of similar statements to
show that God didn't know what He was talking about (when quoted out of
context).
Nemesio
16 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioHere is an example of what I mean.
Here is an example of what I mean.
The navel is where your stomach is. Obviously, to be physically fed, one
must attend to one's stomach.
Interestingly enough, modern translations use 'flesh' and not 'navel'
and 'bones' and not 'marrow.' These translations are striving to
communicate what was meant in the original and not to impose
some bizarre, prophetic statement on the nature of the placenta.
Nemesio
The navel is where your stomach is. Obviously, to be physically fed, one
must attend to one's stomach.
That’s right. Nobody had mouths back then, they just shoved it through their naval.
Interestingly enough, modern translations use 'flesh' and not 'navel'
and 'bones' and not 'marrow.' These translations are striving to
communicate what was meant in the original and not to impose
some bizarre, prophetic statement on the nature of the placenta.
And of coarse the more recent versions of the Bible are more accurate then the KJV. They’ve been edited far more so how can they be wrong?
Thanks for the context. 🙄
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou're being foolish. Do you really think that the author of the Bible is expressing
Context is just a trick in itself. Not many people agree with your context, so believe as you will.
a belief in Pangaea (Genesis 10:25)?
Let's review this 'claim.' It says:
To eber two sons were born: the name of the first was Peleg, for in his time the
world was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.
You think that this demonstrates continental shift? In the time of some guy
Peleg, the continents began to shift?
This would be rather remarkable, because it would entail that humans were around
long before any record of them -- or any creature even remotely like a man.
C'mon. Admit that this doesn't say anything about that 'he continents have floated
away from a singular original land mass.' It's not even talking about land masses,
it's talking about peoples' becoming divided from each other. The name Peleg is a
pun on ther Hebrew word 'niplega' which means 'was divided.'
The 'foreshadowing' doesn't even make sense in any context whatsoever. I'll bet
a study of most of them, or a bunch of quote from other parts of the Bible would
render half your list absurd.
Why can't you people just use the Bible for spiritual guidance, how to talk to God
and inter-relate with each other? Why do you have to insist that -- by pulling
isolated statements out of context, you show that 'God had this great plan.'
Why don't you work on some other projects, like building homes for the homeless
rather than posting nutty stuff like this?
Nemesio
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou gotta be kidding me, right?
That’s right. Nobody had mouths back then, they just shoved it through their naval.
Where does it say 'through' except in the body of your post?
Do you think that people didn't realize that when food was swallowed
after passing through their mouths, that it went to their stomach?
You are imposing a bizarre reading on this proverb, distorting its intent
to prove that God was providing a hint about placental nutrition.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Nemesio
EDIT
Originally posted by The Chess Express
And of coarse the more recent versions of the Bible are more accurate then the KJV. They’ve been edited far more so how can they be wrong?
When you learn some Hebrew and learn about translation techniques, you can
criticize interpretations of context. Anyone who thinks that this is talking about
a placenta has no place putting a '🙄' in response to a post questioning that
context.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressOne; Blood letting was extremely controlled, normally using leaches or similar. When all the 'patients' blood was let it was called crucifixion. The romans certainly knew the importance of blood. Indeed, blood letting still went on in the 17th and 18th Centuries, in Christian Europe, so bang goes your theory.
There are plenty of people here who doubt that the Bible is accurate, or that God told the authors what to write, but lets consider the evidence.
Below I’ve listed 20 places where the author accurately wrote about things that were not known or accepted in his day. Might this indicate a divine connection?
A = What the author wrote. B = The be ...[text shortened]... Snow and ice seen as valuable. Job 38:22
[b]B Snow and ice seen as a scourge and waste.[/b]
Two; The biblical notion could also be seen to be the same as the common belief. Man's 'seed' needed a fertile place to grow into a baby. In those days, as now, a baby cannot grow except inside a woman.
Three; eating of raw flesh forbidden? Drinking of blood? So what? What 'knowledge' have you proven? Are you choosing to forget that people in some cultures still drink animal blood for a number of religious ceremonies? What about people that eat sushi? Are they to be forgotten too? I like sushi. Also, blood is a great source of Iron, needed for the production of haem. The romans unbdoubtably knew of the health benefits of this practice.
Four; Don't eat animal that died naturally. Animals die for a number of reasons naturally. The fact that the romans may or may not have had cultural restrictions on this type of thing is immaterial - it is unlikely they would scrape the roadkill up and fry it for dinner. Again, no 'new knowledge' here.
Five; Quaritine of certain diseases. Well, the egyptians were using yeast to make beer long before the christians came along. There is also evidence they knew about bacterial contamination.
http://microbes.historique.net/history.html
Six; Prinicples of avoiding bacterial contamination. Again, see above point.
Seven; Human waste. This is just laughable! 2,800 years before Christ they had outside toilets in Orkney and knew about sewerage being bad for your health. The romans had aquaducts and sewerage systems, but had never read the bible. I suggest you go and read a non-fiction book for once.
Eight; pre-christian surgery. See this link for a nice selection of roman surgical instruments.
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/historical/artifacts/roman_surgical/
Nine; The romans knew all about the importance of keeping their clothes clean. They used the ammonia (from urine) to effictively sterilise their clothes. Urine is, of course, sterile when it leaves the body, and has such a high urea content microbes cannot grow in it.
Ten; The flat earth concept didn't come into existance until nearly 200 years after Christs death. Indeed, ancient greek philosophers even calculated the earth diameter.
So, ten refuted now. And ten tomorrow. Stay tuned Bat-fans!
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioLet's review this 'claim.' It says:
You're being foolish. Do you really think that the author of the Bible is expressing
a belief in Pangaea (Genesis 10:25)?
Let's review this 'claim.' It says:
To eber two sons were born: the name of the first was Peleg, for in his time the
world was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.
You think that [b]this demonstrates s for the homeless
rather than posting nutty stuff like this?
Nemesio[/b]
To eber two sons were born: the name of the first was Peleg, for in his time the World was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.
You think that this demonstrates continental shift? In the time of some guy Peleg, the continents began to shift?
This would be rather remarkable, because it would entail that humans were around long before any record of them -- or any creature even remotely like a man.
How do you know for sure that they weren’t?
It's not even talking about land masses, it's talking about peoples' becoming divided from each other. The name Peleg is a pun on ther Hebrew word 'niplega' which means 'was divided.'
This is the context that YOU have put it in. The KJV specifically uses the term “earth“, not “world“. Another case of a modern/Nemesio translation.
Why can't you people just use the Bible for spiritual guidance, how to talk to God
and inter-relate with each other? Why do you have to insist that -- by pulling
isolated statements out of context, you show that 'God had this great plan.'
Why don't you work on some other projects, like building homes for the homeless
rather than posting nutty stuff like this?
Why don’t you work on improving your relationship with God instead of discrediting his word?
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let dry land appear: and it was so.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioDo you think that people didn't realize that when food was swallowed after passing through their mouths, that it went to their stomach?
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Where does it say 'through' except in the body of your post?
Do you think that people didn't realize that when food was swallowed
after passing through their mouths, that it went to their stomach?
You are imposing a bizarre reading on this proverb, distorting its intent
to prove that God was providing a hint abo ...[text shortened]...
a placenta has no place putting a '🙄' in response to a post questioning that
context.
Do you think people didn’t realize that they had mouths? And that still doesn’t explain how the authors could have known about bone marrow.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressBecause no-one ever broke their arm before Jesus! Man, I've heard it all now!!!
[b]Do you think that people didn't realize that when food was swallowed after passing through their mouths, that it went to their stomach?
Do you think people didn’t realize that they had mouths? And that still doesn’t explain how the authors could have known about bone marrow.[/b]
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWhatever bud, these claims are so outlandish, I'm not going to waste my time
[b]Let's review this 'claim.' It says:[/b]
To eber two sons were born: the name of the first was Peleg, for in his time the World was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.
You think that this demonstrates continental shift? In the time of some guy Peleg, the continents began to shift?
This would be rather remarkabl eaven be gathered together unto one place, and let dry land appear: and it was so.
trying to explain just to have you say that I am discrediting the Bible.
That insult is so ironic, it's beyond funny.
Nemesio