22 Apr 15
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipThat is an interesting question. What would the DNA of a virgin birth look like? I assume it would only include female type DNA and no male. I don't know if there was ever any such thing ever happening, that is to say, some kind of DNA analysis of one THOUGHT to be born of a virgin. That would be more like a clone. But even a clone would have male DNA so perhaps DNA analysis would show nothing. This is above my pay grade for sure🙂
I don't know if I watched this particular video. But I got yesterday a good dose of Ron Wyatt videos on archeology.
I think you should realize that as soon as some atheist scientist can get his hands on the DNA from some cloth, he will come up with equally persuasive reasons why it cannot be the DNA of someone born of a virgin.
You know that RJ.
...[text shortened]... convince the world, that and the testimony of our living.
See [b] Second Peter 1:16-21. [/b]
It would be somehow like making a viable human out of just the female egg with no sperm.
Has that ever been done in the labs? No idea. Maybe a google search...
Found this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html
They actually found some kid with no male genes but he had some kind of malformation of his head. Don't think you could call that viable even if he lives.
Hinds: This is how science works. I didn't just poo poo the idea of a virgin birth outright because I don't believe in the bible god.
If evidence comes up that supports you, it is there, we believe it. We are not stuck in the young Earth creationist groove forever like you.
Originally posted by divegeesterI am saying that it has not been demonstrated to me by using scripture that the Shrould must be a hoax and that the video gives reasons why not. 😏
It has been demonstrated to you using scripture that the shroud must be a hoax. Are you now suggesting that this YouTube clip is of higher authority than the Bible?
Originally posted by sonhouseDNA Proves JESUS born from VIRGIN mother
That is an interesting question. What would the DNA of a virgin birth look like? I assume it would only include female type DNA and no male. I don't know if there was ever any such thing ever happening, that is to say, some kind of DNA analysis of one THOUGHT to be born of a virgin. That would be more like a clone. But even a clone would have male DNA so pe ...[text shortened]... s there, we believe it. We are not stuck in the young Earth creationist groove forever like you.
Amazing story about Jesus' Blood that was found on the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant by Ron Wyatt.
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/12/25/the-christmas-miracle-scientific-evidence-of-the-virgin-birth/
Originally posted by divegeesterSonhouse says the following:
What part of sonhouse's post of scripture is it that you either don't agree with or don't understand?
There is that damning note from the 1400's saying he saw the red 'blood' added to the image.
The guy couldn't have seen anyone add red blood to the image because the scientists say the blood had to be on the cloth when the image was formed. This proves the guy was making stuff up in an attempt to discredit the Shroud as being the true burial cloth of Christ.
Sonhouse also claims the cloth was treated with some unknown substance to allow the image to be painted on the cloth and it also prevented the blood from penetrsting the cloth.That is not true because the scientific team that examined it say there was no paint pigment on the main body of the Shroud and that the image was not a painting. The photographer for the scientific team says that they were expecting it to be a an artist's painting, so they took all scientific instruments that would detect the presents of paint and any other process that might be used by an artist to make the image. So that idea is also a bunch of rubbish.
Besides that, the note was never signed from what I have heard.
Science Proves Shroud Is Jesus BEST NEW VIDEO!
23 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, sonhouse quoted you a scripture from the Bible which clearly states that the burial cloth was in two parts. Why are you deliberately ignoring it? Do you deny the veracity of this scripture?
Sonhouse says the following:There is that damning note from the 1400's saying he saw the red 'blood' added to the image.
The guy couldn't have seen anyone add red blood to the image because the scientists say the blood had to be on the cloth when the image was formed. This proves the guy was making stuff up in an attempt to discredit the ...[text shortened]...
Science Proves Shroud Is Jesus BEST NEW VIDEO!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MMOAV-xYFs
Originally posted by divegeesterThe following is the only quote I saw sonhouse quote concerning the burial cloth:
No, sonhouse quoted you a scripture from the Bible which clearly states that the burial cloth was in two parts. Why are you deliberately ignoring it? Do you deny the veracity of this scripture?
John 20:7
as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen
The cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head is now called the Sudarium of Oviedo because it has been in Oviedo, Spain from about the seventh century.
https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
23 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo who's face in on the shroud? Or are you conveniently saying that both of these old rags were actually wrapped around his head?
The following is the only quote I saw sonhouse quote concerning the burial cloth:John 20:7
as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen
The cloth that [b]had been wrapped around Jesus' head is now called the Sudarium of Oviedo because it has been in Oviedo, Spain from about the seventh century.
https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm[/b]