lol It isn't apparent.
Point taken. I'll modify my comment to say that you have little understanding of biological sciences (among others).
My ego is not nearly that fragile, sorry.
Why? It's history that I am not interested in so I left it back there. I probably once did have an opinion, but no longer. Either way, you are the one that claimed I had an opinion on it.
Is that a prerequisite for evolution? No. That's not a species change.
Nope. Species are species. Phylum are phylum. Classes and Orders are Classes and Orders. A Mammal cannot become a Mollusc or a Reptilia or vice versa. The DNA can't change like that.
I said the book is full of nonsense, not just cherrypicked little bits of it.
I don't have a religion. At least not in the sense that you do.
How would you know what I have investigated or not?
It's another supposition. I have investigated this book of yours. I simply dropped it long ago. What I discovered obviously led me to think of it as I do.
Ah, so your version is the only correct version? What you believe is the only correct belief? And I could never discover the correct version? riiiiiiiiiiiiight
Life's a bitch or a beach depending upon what I make of it.
lol Go ahead and thank it.
Lots of things are said that you ignore. Like scientific fact, for instance.
Like I said, I am no longer interested in what the Bible has to say unless I spot holes in it.
I'm also not interested in impressing you.
Why? You aren't interested in evidence, especially unbiased; I am. Your book contains it's own "evidence" and is its own reference and it was entirely written by humans. There's no evidence that is demonstrably verifiable in it.
Nooooo. Evolution promotes there being one origin of life. After that origin, life took many many paths.
Violence and destruction is a part of life. Sometimes because of environments, sometimes for other reasons.
More evolution. Superbug, super-fast evolution
lol Forgetting the genetic factors involved again. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692212/pdf/VY4TM28HK2B4GKT5_353_207.pdf
The difference being that science uses evidence that indicate what hypotheses are likely most accurate. The Bible uses itself to fill in gaps. The trouble with that is that it can say anything it likes in order to back up anything it likes. There's very little that is actually verifiable. Science deals with new evidence constantly, so it is always amending its hypotheses to fit the evidence in order to reach conclusions. Religions do not accept evidence readily, especially when it contradicts their hypotheses. There's usually a whole lot of scrambling to make the evidence fit their hypotheses. And that is fundamentally regressive.
I'd say never. That's not just a species change, that is a change in class. Biological classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same change in reverse.
Not necessarily it doesn't. Mostly it results in change of subspecies. A wolf isn't the same as a dog even though there was a common ancestor. For that matter, a Chihuahua isn't the same as a St. Bernard with shorter legs. A Tazmanian wolf isn't the same as a grey wolf with stripes. A beaver isn't the same as a rat with a flat tail even though they are both Rodentia. Different genetic makeup. Jeeeez
You still don't have proof that fish, birds and 'other flesh' ever had one single ancestor. If the theory is something hitched a ride on a comet or something then it is possible that more than one form of bacteria made it's way here if that was the case. How many different bacteria would it take before 'evolution/theory of life' would have to be 'redefined?
Sounds like there is a chance your memory isn't correct.
If everything alive has one common ancestor then those changes had to take place through a common 'cousin'.
Since addressing that issue would require an examination of all the 'little details' I'm not sure what your point is other than you have refused to examine any passage that might dislodge your currently held beliefs. I can live with that but I hardly see where it allows you the right to lecture me on what my opinion is on those same references you choose not to comment on. Having a blank mind could be your reply but you would never let on, that is your ego at work. Vanity is what stops you from looking at the relative passages, you can't read 24 passages and not have an opinion of what they say, again for you that is a area of silence.
So how does that relate to your opinion of the Bible being more accurate than mine is. I think you would have a hard time referencing any subject and being able to point to 3 passages that shed light on the subject. Did the writers of prophecy in the OT know that the last Scripture Scribe was going to also use the term Babylon in his works or did the Revelation writer know the OT so well that he could spot a place to 'insert a Babylon' into his prophecies. No Christian or Jew has ever done a study like that and published the results. That little 'fact' has odd that are against it being able to happen with just men 'at the wheel'.
True, but you would also have an objection to 'refreshing your memory' to make sure the words that affected you back then hold true today. Especially in something like me giving you a lead-in for who is the ones being 'talked to' in Isa:65, if you don't read the actual chapter (takes about two minutes or less) then as far as I'm concerned you gave up the right to say anything about 'my version' being wrong and any reference to my mental capacity is just you and your wishful thinking because then you would have 'it wrong'. It takes less energy for you to defend the old thinking than it does for you to come up with a 'list of changes' that result from from 'new/updated' information.
If you actually read the chapter you might have an answer to if my version could be 'correct', right now all I was asking was what was your current view, you don't have one, neither did Dex, or you would have posted it. If you won't do one exercise and it would take about 10 such exercises to get a good grasp of 'my view' then you are judging using something other than 'facts from my view that are in error according to some passage'.
In this case dodge.
I did when I typed it, didn't you get a 'Thank God' sign go flashing across your mind?
Not everything passed off as 'a fact' is really one though, no matter how much you brag up science. Facts don't need re-writes and Science does many re-writes.
You have, as somebody full of opinions about a book he hasn't looked at in a long time while admitting his memory is far from being 100% accurate as far as recall goes.
Why wouldn't I be, searching for answers to all the various 'conflicts' and 'open holes' show that your theory above is not correct, no matter how much you want it to be. It might be better applied to your reluctance to read a few words in the Bible. If at some point you agree then that is a step forward in knowledge isn't it. Your advice for that chapter is 'don't read it and don't read any other part of the Bible.
I got that part, something like all people being related to Adam and Eve and therefore we are all 'related'. How many in that time have been the same and since no two people have ever been 'identical' then 'changes' take place in one family in one generation that has many off-spring, that may as well be used to define evolution of man and the universe would be modeled after that example. No matter how long their kids keep having children they will always be 'mankind', they won't evolve into being a plant or a bird (or a new classification)
That is adapting to a changing environment. The same will happen to GMO crops, the pesticide will create bugs that are resistant to it that are not resistant to it now, Monsanto doesn't have anything that will kill the new bug. In the wild nature would come up with something to attack the bug simply because it would be a food source for something new in the predator category. Oxygen breathung lifeforms came after plant lifeforms as that is what created the 20% oxygen atmosphere, we developed to take advantage of the plant's 'exhaust/garbage'. In the lab do the strains adapt or do they go extinct in most cases and a new strain is the one that is a step-forward in evolution'?
At the moment that is the evolution in question, were there 'after their kind' or not. Evolution says that terms is not applicable as everything evolved from 'one parent'. It doesn't matter if smaller adaptations take place with those groups if the basic question isn't answered, Did life have diversity in the beginning, science says no, the Bible says yes.
Key word 'most likely' and if the Bibles fills in it's own gaps then there were no gaps to begin with, we just hadn't found the righ place for a certain piece of knowledge.
Still part of 'the scientific view in the theory of life.
That isn't the adaptation that interests me. The view is they were once cold-blooded fish with a spine that moved in the opposite direction. If there is a lizard around today that us evolving by turning into a snake. If it is to take 3 1/2M years just for that little creature to change that much the, at that rate how long for a fish to come out of the water and the first classification of a species that is a 'modern whale'. If I dropped a bird into the water and fed it so well it couldn't fly could it ever adapt into a whale, it already has the spine moving in the right direction and it is warm blooded and it breathes air rather than water. How much faster in my example?
I can live with there being many varieties of 1,2,3,4,5 toed/fingered creature and I'm willing to say that for each adaptation covers all that various types and not all can mate with each other. My point is those groups stay in those same groups Evolution say everbody with any toes has a common ancestor, that many/may not be true. I'm not convinced that plants and flesh share the same DNA, they did co-evolve together on their separate paths and their interaction could have altered the path for both at various times in the past.
Well, proof is proof. That requires facts leading to a definitve conclusion. There is evidence leading to hypotheses, but they are based upon evidence, not wizardy. I think it's probable that there were multiple copies of the same source of life. There are a few ideas on the source of life. How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time At any rate, it's increasingly unlikely that any complex forms of life such as plants and animals simply appeared out of the blue as the Bible indicates.
Correct? If I don't remember stuff I don't remember it. There is no "correct" or "erroneous".
I suppose you could consider those nucleic acids, enzymes, and whatnot to be "cousins" but it seems a bit silly.
Without evidence, whatever is written in the Bible is pure speculation. History is dependent upon the point of view of whomever relates it. Any scientific claims require evidence. What's left? Parables and suggestions on how to live life, and as I said, there are many books about that and plenty of those are a lot clearer.
lol The Bible is its own source of "evidence". Christians and Biblical scholars can't even agree on a lot of things in the Bible so whether you or I think our respective versions are more correct than the other is purely opinion.
I doubt I would change my mind. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Different viewpoints won't change that.
Yup. And that judgement is based upon the extreme improbability as well as a complete lack of evidence of gods existing. So that leaves whatever is written in the Bible to be concocted by humans without "divine guidance".
More like "dismiss".
No. I don't think in terms from religious sources.
Right. Facts are verifiable. Science simply uses them to support hypotheses and theories. But, you have a point. Science does need updating as new evidence comes along. That's the really neat thing about it, it is self-correcting. Religions, however, simply claim things whether there is evidence or not and the only explanation they give is stuff like "the gods work in mysterious ways". Or at least try to until science comes up with rational explanations, anyway.
Oh. Well, it's up to you whether you are impressed or not. Like I said, though, I can remember that I've seen the proof that 1+1=2 without having to remnember the proof. So I can remember that I dismissed the Bible for good reason without actually remembering details.
Oh, I have no doubt that you'll accept anything that shows me to be wrong. The trouble is that you ignore or twist pretty much anything that shows me to be right.
Like I said, lack of evidence is lack of evidence. There's absolutely nothing that says the Bible is any more true than Dr. Seuss's Cat In The Hat, for instance. So any passages in it are mere conjecture.
Well, there were different and separate lines of homonid subspecies. It was definitely not a linear progression. And the farther back you research into human evolution, the more you realize that humans couldn't have originated with names. Even Neanderthals could only communicate in simple terms to do with basics. There's evidence that they could not speak in terms of abstracts but could speak in terms of tangible things. But yes, humankind will likely always be humankind.
Adaptation can cause evolution yes, but it is not evolution in itself. Same for a mutation that recurs and becomes a standard genetic trait in a population. Evolution is a genetic change in a population whatever the cause.
Yup, but the fact still remains that whatever the bugs become, they are genetically not what they were.
Some evolve, some die off. Same as in the outside world. The ones that survive are a new evolution, yes.
Again, it's quite possible that there were multiple copies of the same source but there was most likely only one source; that of the substances I mentioned.
The Bible can say whatever it wants to fill in whatever gaps there may or may not be. It is still based purely on supposition without evidence.
I doubt anyone can give you much of an answer. Someone might be able to give you a ballpark idea.
No. A mutation like that can't occur.
The genetic structure is vastly different. If it was at all possible it'd take a kazillion years and what you'd end up with would probably not be anything like a whale anyway.
I have no idea.
Plants and animals don't share the same DNA. The nearest subspecies to humans there ever was were the Neanderthal and their DNA differed from ours by about 0.5%. But that 0.5% did not make them any less or more human. They were just different. And apparently at least some could interbreed with some of the homo sapiens subspecies to produce offspring.
If I told the flood story that said liquid water fell as rain and stayed where it fell for about 150 days that would be 'wizardy' but if I said the conditions meant rain fell as a liquid but turned into a solid when it hit the ground at higher elevations. That would still leave there being 40 days of rain to begin with and all the other stuff that goes along with the parable.
So would that make it the only source of life in the universe, perhaps it was the first one here and it's 'takeover' prevented other forms from getting the foothold so they never 'took-over'. Does 'probable' mean it is short of being 100% fact? Bear in mind that if a few 'roots' were the reality then I'm promoting that the Bible had it right in that life on earth by the end of day 6 was pretty much as we see it today. Getting from the end of day one to the end of day 6 was earth going from having water in vapor and liquid form would create 'damp rocks/ground' and that is where 'molds' would first appear , molds still existed at the end of day 6 but the first division is when trees were dropping their seeds as fruit. All the 'forest activity' that exists today would have existed back then, trees were the important part of day 2, creepy crawly things are not important to day 6, they are mentioned last there so they get mentioned rather than 'forgotten'. The first of those may not have come along until there was oxygen in the area that they were growing in, the ones that crawled around a tree that had fallen over. I'm pretty sure the Bible is making us put that much together on our own just so the size of the book is as small as possible.
I wasn't promoting a 'poof event', that doesn't mean the actual text is wrong, our way of reading it is via our own preconceived ideas gives us the wrong vision of the text..
When people come across something they can't remember they often go and 'refresh' their memory. In the case of Isa:65 you wouldn't remember, my point is could two writer who do not know each other be able to make a connection that is made between revelation and Isaiah in a 'subtle way'. A similar term is used in two passages that describe an event that is promoted to be a one time event. That would point to one author knowing what to include in both books so that 'we' had a chance of making that connection and gaining the knowledge that comes with it. (it doesn't make a doctrine it adds some fine detail to one important one though, the day of return. Just as the start of Isa:65 needs to connected to the ones who die by Jesus's sword at His return the verses for the new earth need the lead-in that the ones called the servants live inside a city called New Jerusalem so the ones outside with the 'beasts of the field' have to be the same group that gets killed by Jesus's sword.
Darwinism promotes that when creation covered by Genesis 1 is the time-line involved. In particular plants becoming fish becoming land animals becoming whales is promoted and I see that as being 'silly'.
The Bible says in the 'time of the Gentiles' when 'faith without proof' (here in person) is a marker then finding proof of God is unlikely to happen in that magnitude. Wouldn't that also 'spoil the return' in that when there is that kind of proof available certain prophecies about living forever in a sinless world come into play?
How about starting from scratch and divide the Bible into passages that deal with the two bruises of Ge:3:15 or 'other'.
That's true, if I have to use a passage to describe each phase my version goes through does that mean it adheres to the original text is my version going to be 'more accurate'. You don't have to be a believer to decide if Isa:65 says what I promote (with a few verses lead-in) It will either be 'I can't see that' or not. You may even have an answer that changes my mind. For some time I thought of the 'shepherds' in Isa:56 and Jer:25 as being Church leaders but somebody comvinced me that the ones given authority in the NT was the Governments of the Nations as described in Romans 13. From then on that is who I sat the 'shepherds' are, church leaders/members are in Re:2 and 3. It didn't alter anything drastic but it did demand that changes be made.
Prophecy is actually quite detailed, if you built a model when you were a kid does that mean the instructions you read back then can be applied to everything that comes with instructions? A solid doctrine would last a lifetime, the Bible is either solid or it isn't. Your view at the present is that it isn't, my view is more in the other direction but my reasoning may not be what is found in the 'accepted doctrine' which is why it is useful to post the actual passage with my outlook included. To be as convinced as I am you would also need a few more references, which I do have for most 'specifics'.
That isn't my objective, I'm after getting the 'dummy' label removed that come with 'Christian belief' and showing the Bible promotes just one theme is about the only avenue that is open. One verse could put an end to the pre-trib rapture doctrine as being 'sound', that is about 30M people in just the US. A larger number doesn't mean you are correct.
If you can show the Bible is too involved for separate writers to have put it together because the information about certain things is so scattered about in the book. Revelation fits in some important times that are only hinted at in the OT references. In Isa:65 the sword would be the start of the 1,000 year reign do that is how long the servants would be rejoicing and how long the ones killed would 'be suffering'.
Like Trivial stuff like Mary M. and Susanna and Joanna being named in relation to being followers rather than what they were doing while in sin? That's just being 'a good friend' isn't it?
Close enough.
So with the further explanation do you 'see the picture'?
Facts are 100% certain, once you get into the other areas the 100% vanishes. With the Bible you should be able to 'do a circle' by starting off with one 'theme' and running through all the references to it, if nothing else at least they support each other.
I was never a big fan of that excuse. If enough Scripture was there to show the beloved Disciple was a woman shouldn't all the Churches acknowledge that instead of giving a cock and bull story that floats around today for who the writers were. They aren't ever going to 'update anything', as far as topics the Bible is still intact as far as the words being kept the same, if the meaning got twisted in the past them it has to be 'untwisted', that requires explanations here and there.
Science can be manipulated also as in climategate.
The things that impress me aren't the same things the unimpressed you, or at least the same version.
I haven't done that with anybody yet, my version can change with the flow of information.
So is the big bang theory. The Bible is a finite set of words, if one combination makes more sense than another then you have to go with that. The verses below point to knowledge being here and there in Scripture.
Okay
If everyone has a slightly different DNA the adaptation is taking place all the time that is not evolution because no 'modifications are made that set them 'apart'.
Noting as a fact though.
If I can show that the way the prophecies are written means they were meant to be meshed into a single story. If the only way the 'story' can be meshed is by using a computer to look through the many books. A group of men may have a chance of doing it with just the literal texts but it would take them a very long time and the odds would be against it being right. It makes it easy to verify the original statements and it takes a few seconds to look it up so if you don't it isn't that important to you. That isn't a big deal as far as God is concerned anyway. It is only important that everybody be saved by the end of the end.
Wouldn't the existence of the question mean that some areas that are vital to the story are 'blurry'.
When man went to explore the world he could alwaysd have children via the women he met along the way and nobody had grown a 6th finger. Would the giants of the OT have been an evolution of man or would that extra size and 4 extra digits qualify them as a different species even though they are said to be able to have children together?
Possibly some, but definitely not all. Neanderthalensis was spread from Asia to Western Europe and some people over there still have H. Neanderthalensis DNA.
Still has water defying gravity. That's wizardry.
Nope. We haven't been able to study places in other solar systems.
Took over? From what? Live rocks, live lava, etc.?
Probable means less than 100% but still having enough evidence to form rational hypotheses.
Unlikely. Why use the term "days" when the terms "many" and "years" were available?
Well, the latest bit in theoretical physics says that it's possible for the universe to "poof" things from "nothing". So what's the point in calling the universe a god, considering most gods previous to your god have wandering into ancient mythology and no-one believes in them any more? The first gods, according to anthropological history were snakes. Snakes aren't gods. Other gods have been born and they have died? What makes this god any different? Nah, gods are simply terms people use to describe things they cannot explain.
*shrugs*
Darwin made mistakes. The biggest problem Darwin had was that he knew nothing of genetics. His main postulation was that life and its changes happen without the wizardry claimed in theology. It still holds true.
Perhaps. But what's the point? Why not just show up or at least furnish evidence of existence. You don't think most people would smarten up and follow the rules? Why just post threats of a nasty afterlife that could very well be empty? That hits me as a human trait; to make empty threats. And for some "unknowable" to have so many human traits, like anger, jealousy, love, etc. just like any other god before makes it seem more likely that humans created gods in their own image, rather than the other way round.
Wat?
lol You are under the impression I am trying to change your mind? Sorry, I'm just here having fun pointing out some failings in religious philosophy. It's up to you if you want to change your mind.
Oh.
I wouldn't exactly call it a "dummy" label. More like "gullinle".
Like I said, the only practical thing I see in the Bible isn't its explanations about how life started, what happens in x number of years, etc. It's that we should love ourselves for what we are (screwed up or not) and love others in the same manner.
I'm of the opinion that a theme, or number of themes can be carried along by many people over many eras. Aboriginals have been passing along familial histories for thousands of years with very little change, for instance.
Wat?
Not according to the dictionary, but whatever.
So with the further explanation do you 'see the picture'?I can imagine a picture, but whether it's the same pic you want me to see or not is questionable.
Agreed.I noticed:
I suppose that is why Biblical scholars are still arguing.
.... or denialgate. Any tool can be mishandled. It's unlikely that it can do so indefinitely, though. "The truth will out" as they say.
ok
Eventually, I suppose.
There's too much evidence pointing to a big bang for it not to be fact. The problem lies where people claim it was the beginning of the universe. Big bangs happen all the time in the universe and in fact, our galaxy is still banging. But that is about the evolution of the universe, and we're talking about the evolution of the Bible, gods, and life.
Regardless of how you shuffle the words of the Bible around, it remains that there's a conspicuous lack of evidence for the claims.
Teaching the believers rather than the doubters? IOW, preaching to the choir?
Recipe for brainwashing?
No. People have the same DNA (well, except for those which also have Neanderthalensis DNA mixed in). The differences between humans is due to genetic switching in their DNA, different chromosomes, etc. But, sure, adaptations and mutations happen.
Noting as a fact though.
I suppose. Or else there is no end and life simply continues as new lives begin and old ones die off.
Yep. Evolution, although being a fact, still has blurry areas in it. Darwin encountered one and eventually genetics clarified it, for instance. Astronomy clarified the "center of the universe" hypothesis right out of existence.
I'd suggest a different species. Humanoid aliens maybe. lol
I'm not going to deny that God is a wizard by our standards, The purpose of the Bible is to let the ones that will be affected by something God is in charge of, Jonah tried to run away rather than deliver the message so when God says something it means He will manipulate things so they work out His way. An example could be the vision that was shown to 3 Apostles and then they were instructed not to say anything until after the cross. Had the vision taken place in the temple nobody would have been left as an unbeliever. The ones destined to be unbelievers back then are not unbelievers forever. Any person who dies an unbeliever instantly wakes up in front of God at the Great White Throne, a believer who has died will awake about 1,000 years earlier, that is their reward. After the Great White Throne one group lives in New Jerusalem and the other ones live outside the city and expand in numbers for eternity. Each couple is limited to 100 children and they are all just one year apart. Before then you aren't married and after that you are immortal and you don't have children.
How about because it is a term that is used in this place. Since that is the place of Judgment Day a day there could use the 1,000 year thing to increase the amount of time it takes for God to give each person who is resurrected their pardon, without which they cannot accept the water offered to them in Re:21 or enter New Jerusalem because they are not even a liar at that stage. Once New Jerusalem leaves there and lands on the new earth the people follow the living water and a new Eden begins. We can ajust our thing to accept that, explaining it would have meant everything else that complicated would also have to be explained and the book is big enough as it is.
When our sun grows bigger in the far future and the oceans boil away and the solar winds strip away the atmosphere is 'the oceans' still considered to be 'water' while in deep space. The 'water' in Ge:1:2 would be the 'frozen variety' and 'the deep' would be in the direction the universe is expanding.
It just wasn't given a name. The waters of the void would be the material for the universe, the bang was the sign it had warmed up enough to 'melt ice'.
All Gods that are a part of myths would be a fallen angel, Enoch has them being about two miles tall, pretty big until you consider the amount of space travel they do.
That really is the only acid tesr\t there is , it is also the quickest way to shut somebody up. know the passage better than they do, when you point out their error they will be less noisy if nothing else.
Being a first edition back then I can understand it not being a perfected theory yet. I can also live with the fossil record is never going to be complete. The most powerful before the flood will be given 3 1/2 years to regain that power before the earth belongs to the Kingdom of God.
That isn't going to happen of I would have done it the first time I ever heard that. Why not up the probability factor a few % by showing that the Bible is more complex that could have been 'envisioned' back then. The prophecy shows that when He does show up sin and death never happen again. If it was possible He would do it, if He has to make people immortal before they are clean of sin then He is actually sentencing them to the lake. It isn't so much that we agree to His methods, it is that we recognize certain events as being attributed to prophecy surrounding the time of the return.
Sorting the Bible into two piles makes understanding it better, the bruise to the heel was the cross so prophecy about that has been fulfilled and the historical events are there to show us it was a literal event so the other bruise will also be a literal event.
If you aren't willing to follow where things lead then you shouldn't be investigating, or trolling. More like seeing if I asked myself all the same questions you did that made you close the book as being worthwhile. So far anytime that question got any sort of reply I had a reply ready right then, so no change required.
In my case it is boiling down to one version being possible and the 70 weeks being fulfilled and Rome being in the brass are the only two changes needed.
Whatever gets the 'nudge, nudge, winl, wink' atmosphere circulating. Not a big deal just takes longer to tell the story and some may toss out some accurate info. The Bible is there because it fulfills this requirement. Getting the details right doesn't affect the determinations.
True, but if prophecy being understood means every jot remain in the right place the writing is more effective. The OT was held as an oral book (fine parts of it) and some changes would have happened before it was written down during the exile in Babylon. Since God was having Daniel write a book at that same time any variences could have been corrected so the first printed version matched the original stories when they first appeared.
Trivial stuff the Bible includes, the stuff people think is 'way too much detail', even those thing are related to some event/doctrine.
If it was a reference to some passage having a certain meaning it would mean I am either on the trail; of something 'firm' so the concept has to be held open for consideration and an update will be made once more info is found.
In hindsight I probably should have used a different sequence of words.Agreed. I noticed:
I prefer to think greed has a major role (Church = big $$$) rather than they are just too stupid to figure it out.
That could be just a saying if 'history is written by the victors' is a true saying.
It is the part of where the material came from for the bang is the 'poof part' of the theory. If God shuffled the prophecies up then they have to be unshuffled, the shuffling was putting the prophecies that deal with one event into many different books. If the prophecies were intentionally given that shuffling so they could not be accurately understand and that would make tampering with the message.
They have to understand it to teach it.
Recipe for keeping it intact.
Not exact even with twins.
Not by choice.
Something like this?
Not like that cleared up the entire list of questions.
My perspective is a bit different, limited to Old Testament. I am Jewish.
One has to keep in mind that a lot of the "horrible" stuff was necessary to preserve existence. The Amelkites were not the kind of people you wanted to sit down to lunch with. Or you'd become the meal.
