Is Jesus A Prophet According To The Old Testament?

[eanassir]

You and Al-Hilly know even less about evolution than MHz does. Someone who claims, as Al-Hilly does in that essay you linked to, that evolution says man came from monkeys, doesn't know enough to be worth taking seriously on the subject.

Al-Hilly did not graduate at any school and did not learn even the Arabic grammar; so he used sometimes to give me or others the haorndwriting of his books to check it grammatically before publishing his books.

Al-Hilly wrote his book that I translated as Retorting the Atheist, at about 1947 or later on (before about 60 years ago) and mentioned in it something about the Evolution theory depending on some local Arabic books available at that time.

So Dexter, I thought today an idea: If we suppose that the Evolution theory is correct about one kind of plant or animals; will it be correct about all these organisms: millions of creatures with mrvelous structures and wisdom about all their organs and systems: it can't be any logical.

See the leaf of any tree, and the tissues of animals, and see the long muscle of the shark that moves it in the sea, and the eye of the owl and the eye of the sea gull ...etc etc. So did all these come by the natural selection? It can't be; and who is that governs such supposed natural selection so that it moves so systematically; I say clearly: all such claims cannot be any logical, whatever they give it the science cover.

 

[big]

So did all these come by the natural selection? It can't be; and who is that governs such supposed natural selection so that it moves so systematically; I say clearly: all such claims cannot be any logical, whatever they give it the science cover.

The God of monotheism died with Jesus.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Al-Hilly did not graduate at any school...

That's perfectly obvious.

So did all these come by the natural selection?

Yes.

 

[AnnaG]

Thank goodness there are safeguards like yourself out there.

Someone has to tote around a little good sense. I am happy I can help by adding my share.

What are the last 3 things somebody wanted you to swallow?

That gods care, tea, and that global warming is a myth. Why?

BTW what does swallowing have to do with hearing and internal sorting?

Metaphor:

a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity

Princeton U. Press

Pronunciation: \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English methaphor, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear — more at bear
Date: 15th century
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare simile
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol 2
— met·a·phor·ic \ˌme-tə-ˈfȯr-ik, -ˈfär-\ or met·a·phor·i·cal \-i-kəl\ adjective
— met·a·phor·i·cal·ly \-i-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Merriam-Webster

• noun 1 a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable (e.g. food for thought). 2 a thing symbolic of something else. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] from Greek, from metapherein ‘to transfer’.

Oxford dictionary of the English language

 

[AnnaG]

Just to pick one example:

Like I said, what you think you know about evolution is wrong. There's no volition involved.

Actually, I think we can put an end to life on this planet (at least in our own instance). Ending life would pretty much mean resisting evolution.

 

[AnnaG]

Biology will never be able to explain how come a fetus-like species like Homo sapiens has more destructive power than any (other) catastrophic event.

Balogna. The answer is inside our skulls and weighs about 2% of body weight (average about 1350 g). The science of biology has known about the human brain for a long time.

 

[AnnaG]

Al-Hilly did not graduate at any school

That's obvious.

and did not learn even the Arabic grammar; so he used sometimes to give me or others the haorndwriting of his books to check it grammatically before publishing his books.

Al-Hilly wrote his book that I translated as Retorting the Atheist, at about 1947 or later on (before about 60 years ago) and mentioned in it something about the Evolution theory depending on some local Arabic books available at that time.

So Dexter, I thought today an idea: If we suppose that the Evolution theory is correct about one kind of plant or animals; will it be correct about all these organisms: millions of creatures with mrvelous structures and wisdom about all their organs and systems: it can't be any logical.

See the leaf of any tree, and the tissues of animals, and see the long muscle of the shark that moves it in the sea, and the eye of the owl and the eye of the sea gull ...etc etc. So did all these come by the natural selection?

Yes.

It can't be;

Wrong.

and who is that governs such supposed natural selection so that it moves so systematically;

It doesn't matter who or what does.

I say clearly: all such claims cannot be any logical, whatever they give it the science cover.

That's an illogical statement.

 

[MHz]

Biology will never be able to explain how come a fetus-like species like Homo sapiens has more destructive power than any (other) catastrophic event.

They won't have too, we might be the only species ever that can read and write, when we are gone who is going to care. Wolves don't care if the meal is Christian or Jew.

That gods care, tea, and that global warming is a myth.

So what are you saying, all the broadcasts about climategate are lies? Those are the same ones you believe about 911 (for example only). You had to be taught to swallow tea? Ever eaten crow?
Since God hasn't shown you He cares about you, or anybody else basically, why should you believe He exists? For those that want to wait for proof that's fine, they will get their wish, in time for it to do some good .

 

[eanassir]

That's obvious.Yes.

Yes indeed :lol:

Wrong.

No, correct.

It doesn't matter who or what does.

It does matter.

That's an illogical statement.

No, it is logical. Thank you :lol:

 

[In Between Man]

Not really. Specifically contradicting Paul wasn't my motive, I don't recall thinking of him when I wrote that, I said it because I think it's true. "All things to all people" is just a sort of catch phrase that's come into the common consciousness because of the Bible's pervasive influence, but I'd bet most people couldn't identify the source.

You can't love everybody except in the abstract, and you can't even be all things to one person, that's a dysfunctional co-dependency. What Paul described as being all things to all people is nothing of the sort, he was interested only in proselytizing about his interpretation of his seizure and hallucination on the road to Damascus. His message is actually apocalyptic, as was Jesus' message. Both of them expected the Second Advent and the end of the world as we know it to occur very soon after Jesus' death, Scripture reports them both as clearly saying so several times. Paul certainly expected it within his lifetime, and that strongly coloured much of the advice he offered. Because he turned out to be wrong about that, much of his advice is bad. There are a lot of earnest Christians around expecting the apocalypse of Revelation 19:11-18 to come to pass (that's where Jesus comes back and kills off all the unrighteous) within their lifetime, that thread has run strongly through Christianity from the beginning. Nobody's been right yet.

This could be an good discussion, but you still need to agree to the terms first.

 

[eanassir]

That's perfectly obvious.
Yes.

OK, all these organisms came to existence by the natural selection as you say, but then go and see the details of the cells of the tree leaves, the cells of the animal and human bodies, then go and see more details of the nucleus in the cell and the genetic chromosomes and the minute structures inside the cytoplasm and other parts of the cell; all this came by the natural selection?

Then see the different cell walls, the specialized cells serving different functions; all this came by the natural selection? the things that are till now ambiguous to the intelligent man: all this came by the natural selection?

And this is impossible that all this harmony and relation between all this creation came by the natural selection: what such a possibility that if the natural selection created a certain organism: it created its female or created its internal organs and created the specialized tissues and created the cells and created the detailed structures inside each cell.

This can never be any natural selection; it is the marvelous creation of God Almighty and Most Wise and All Kowing whatever the atheist denies.

Retorting the Atheist

<http://www.quran-ayat.com/retorting/index.htm#Natural_Factors_>
​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

This could be an good discussion, but you still need to agree to the terms first.

Well, as you say there, you're in no position to impose terms, and those terms require me to accept as fact things that are not known to be facts. The terms are not acceptable.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...then go and see the details ... all this came by the natural selection?
Then see the different cell walls... all this came by the natural selection?
And this is impossible...
This can never be any natural selection...

Just because you don't or won't understand the evidence and the arguments doesn't mean it's impossible. The failure is in your comprehension, not the theory of evolution. Evolution is one of the widest-ranging, most successful, parsimonious, unifying, and best-attested scientific theories we have, nothing in biology makes sense without it. You'll have to do better than the argument from authority and the argument from incomprehension fallacies to bring it down.

 

[eanassir]

The God of monotheism died with Jesus.

Explain it but without jerking. :angryfire:

 

[Cliffy]

Natural selection can be viewed like the Darwin Awards. Someone enhances the human gene pool by removing himself from it, like some moron strapping on a bomb and blowing himself up in a crowded market place. Now that is evolution at its finest.

 

[eanassir]

So you see your answer is not to the question, and you started to make composition only.

Just because you don't or won't understand the evidence and the arguments doesn't mean it's impossible.

This is applied against you more.

The failure is in your comprehension, not the theory of evolution.

This is reversed against you: The failure is in your comprehension: you don't want to consider the might of the Creator.

Evolution is one of the widest-ranging, most successful, parsimonious, unifying, and best-attested scientific theories we have, nothing in biology makes sense without it.

I know you admire the theory of evolution; but this will not avail against the fact that it is false.

You'll have to do better than the argument from authority and the argument from incomprehension fallacies to bring it down.

Leave about any authority; once I adopted this opinion it then is my opinion and my belief, and I asked the question, but you did not answer.

And the argument from incomprehension is applied to you; because you did not try to comprehend what I said and what has been said to you in the link of :

http://www.quran-ayat.com/retorting/index.htm#Nature
<http://www.quran-ayat.com/retorting/index.htm#Natural_Factors_>​

 

[Cliffy]

Understanding comes from having an open mind. Once a person decides that this or that is the truth, then learning stops. The mind is closed to new ideas or to at least allow others the right to their own beliefs. It is this state of not wanting to understand the other that leads to wars.

Whether god exists or not is a matter of individual opinion. There is never one way to view any topic. There are as many ways to view it as there are viewers. Thus, as in the old story, one blind man thinks an elephant is a scrotum and another thinks it is a trunk. Who is right? Both are from their perspective, both are wrong from another perspective. But is it worth fighting over? I don't think so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

MHz, if you bring the evolutionist every evidence, they will not accept it. :smile:
unless they see with their own eyes the creation of Adam by their own eyes, the thing that is impossible. It may be they will say then: there is some trick.

Sure evolutionist will accept any evidence, eanassir. Any scientific evidence, that is not some religious mumbo jumbo.

And if I see creation take place before my very own eye, I will think it is some kind of trickery, so will every scientist. If such a creation can be demonstrated in a reproducible sort of way (do this and this under such and such condition, and you will see creation of such and such animal), then scientists will accept it and will try to study it.

But even then scientists will not accept the Biblical (or Islamic) account of creation, Book of Genesis or the Intelligent Design theory (which is really The Book of Genesis in sheep’s clothing).

If somebody can come up with a mechanism explaining how Creation takes place, work out all the details and demonstrate the validity of such a theory, then scientists will accept Creation. But by then Creation will have ceased to be a miracle, it will be a scientific theory.

So with scientists, you really cannot win if you try to force religion into science. Religion does not belong inside science.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Dexter, if you see the creation of some mice or some other animals: or they are in the stages of creation, will you believe then?

<http://www.quran-ayat.com/retorting/index.htm#I_Saw_with_My_Own_Eyes_>​

So while this is not everyday observation, then why don't they search about such observation and take this into consideration: the appearance of new species in some unexpected regions?

I think some atheists then may say there should be some other explanation. It may be they demand seeing God with their own eyes and He is doing the creation with His hand; which cannot be; so it is merely a matter of guidance.

That is anecdotal evidence, eanassir. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. For science to take such a thing seriously, it has to happen before their very eyes, and repeatedly. It also has to be certified by a group of magicians that it is not some kind of trickery, or at least they cannot reproduce the trick. After all, scientists are human beings like everybody else and can easily be fooled by a magic trick. But magicians themselves cannot be fooled.

Until then, it is just something somebody saw somewhere, it means nothing.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

By the time of Jesus, the great moral principles God had given to Moses in the Ten Commandments had been turned into hundreds of ceremonial rules. People thought they were living holy lives if they just obeyed all those rules. But many people found enough "loopholes" to obey all the rules and still live wicked and greedy lives (Matthew 23:23-28).

Seems things have not changed to much today, wonder how we would be if we had just followed the 10 basic Commandments. Looks like they had lawyers back then also another similarity to today, and people used them to manipulate religion as we do today.

Which Ten Commandments, ironsides? Catholic? Protestant? Jewish? They are all different, in case you are not aware of the fact.