The stratified heavens: the gaseous layers of the stratosphere?
- Thread starter eanassir
- Start date
Not at all, but if you're going to challenge authority as you like to do with physics and cosmology, you better be sure you've got your facts straight and a coherent, consistent, complete case. Your electric cosmos model fails all of those, and its core claims are easily falsifiable, as I've shown you several times, by nothing more complex than second year electromagnetic theory. I wouldn't bother burning you at the stake, but having carefully examined your electric cosmos model I simply dismiss it as incorrect and not useful and pay no further attention to your claims about it. If the people at your favourite sites would actually do some science instead of just talking about it I'd take a second look, but until that happens, the case fails on lack of merit and utility.
Well, I don't know. Maybe because your reading comprehension is poor, maybe you don't accept what words plainly say, such as when you twist the words of Jesus when he said he'd return within the lifetime of those listening to him so that they mean something else, or maybe because you assess all claims from a particular Christian ideological perspective and can't accept that anything inconsistent with that might actually be correct.
I called Dex a heretic in light of his comment that the Gospel of John was written long after any eye-witness would have died from old-age. To go from the verse below to that conclusion is more than any stretch of the imagination would allow for. In this case the verse is be taken at face value, no wonder we differ on what the Bible's final message is.
Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
I hesitate to say yes to something that has no specifics in it but if that means Revelation can be understood to be mostly about the future (everything but two minor references) then yes and it can be explained in less space than I page on a thread. That nobody has done it yet points to intentional dumbing down.
This isn't a conversion quest, it is a quest to put together all the verses so they reference one big picture, either the bruise to Jesus of the bruise to Satan that was determined in Ge:3. OT prophecy covers both events and the NT covers Christ's bruise in the 4 Gospels and Satan's bruise is detailed even more than in the OT by those and the other NT books, especially Revelation. The Bible is the only reference that can be used to 'tell the story' that is contained between those two covers. lol That seems so foreign to non-believers.
Like you are an impartial source, lol.
Sure they do, all the way to when an 'authority figure' tells them what to think. Dexter's doctrine has nothing unique in it or anything that challenges what those doctrines promote from when they were first introduced. The corruption of the brass and iron in Daniel is based on works that are not much more than 100 years old. His acceptance of the meaning of Revelation is from a relatively unknown sect of a corrupt section of Christianity. Unknown because the holes are bigger than the boat they are trying to float.
Admitting to the parts they disagree with in minute detail is never easily revealed, some clam right up.
Hook, line, sinker, rod, boat and lake more or less. Sounds like you have swallowed their dogma that it is an book that cannot be understood.
Like a chess game some moves God did in Scripture are part of a sequence that requires o few things to happens before the words are said to be fulfilled.
You were not in the conversation when I posted that and Anna wasn't on the heretic list yet, as a matter of fact she still isn't on it, and you are a Johhny-come-lately so you would have to agree that the verse from John is a complete and utter lie and nothing of the sort ever came close to being an historical event. See how easy it is. lol Dexter is right and the Bible is wrong.
My teachers used to say that also, then when I read the material more than twice they said I was asking questions that were past the scope of the material. Apparently you got it right the first time and have never had to review or revise any material you have read.
Like this verse from the Gospel of John?
Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
Perhaps the actual verses should be used rather than relying on your 'memory. You are failing to cover both bruises, they are different events.
M't:16:28:
Verily I say unto you,
There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death,
till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Within a week they saw Jesus looking like this. How is that twisting things when compared to the verse rather than your rendition of what Jesus actually said?
M't:17:1:
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter,
James,
and John his brother,
and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
M't:17:2:
And was transfigured before them:
and his face did shine as the sun,
and his raiment was white as the light.
The beloved Disciple also saw Jesus in that same likeness before they died.
Re:1:13:
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man,
clothed with a garment down to the foot,
and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Re:1:14:
His head and his hairs were white like wool,
as white as snow;
and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Re:1:15:
And his feet like unto fine brass,
as if they burned in a furnace;
and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Re:1:16:
And he had in his right hand seven stars:
and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword:
and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
You wouldn't say that if you were privy to any of my posts on the Christian sites I visit. They are 10 x more pissed than you could ever get. lol
Are you saying your doctrine, that is inconsistent with some very basic Scripture, is the correct view because it is also 'correcting mistakes made in the 1st draft of Scripture? lol
Don't run that one past your shrink.
Mhz, the only thing Dex, Les and Anna and I have in common is that we have studied the bible and found it seriously lacking in credibility. Beyond that there is very little that anyone could say links us. So much for your sheeple theory. Believing in fairy tales beyond the age of reason, though, seems to be epidemic.
If each of you has an IQ of 100, combined that is still 100 not 400. Have all you other projects ended in perfect clarity? How can you promote the no eue-witness thing in light of the verse I keep posting?
I'm not sure what path your investigation took but Dex's if straight from play books available before he was old enough to read.
Why bring 911 into the topic? lol
The real reason we differ on what the Bible's final message is, is because you take it all as literally true (except when it's convenient for your interpretation not to) and think it has one, and I don't. Biblical scholarship is pretty much unanimous that Mark was the first gospel written, and that it seems most likely to have been written no earlier than around the year 64, and possibly as late as 70. Matthew and Luke clearly used it as a source, so they must post-date it. Luke is probably later than Matthew, and both are generally dated between 70 and 80. John is later still. It was clearly known to other Christian writers by the year 150, and its origins are generally dated to sometime around or shortly after 100. And just in case you missed the obvious conclusion from that, it means the gospels were written several generations after Jesus time, and not by the apostles whose names they bear. That's a heresy only to a fundamentalist Christian; it's the clear consensus of biblical scholarship.
I'm a little surprised that you'd cite John in support of the truth of John. You really should understood that such self-referential argument carries no weight at all, it's the same fallacy eannassir commits all the time.
I was talking to a woman today from Austria who was raise Catholic and one of her grandparents was Muslim. Anyway, she learned both Latin and ancient Greek among the 9 languages that she fluently speaks. She said Latin was the language of politics and Greek was the language of religion in old Rome. She also has read the original Greek version of the new testament.
She said it bore no resemblance to any of the English versions. It read more like the original epochs of Babylon and Sumar. They are great myths of the old gods and that Jesus barely got an honourable mention. The present versions of the new testament are pure fabrications. She learned all this from bible scholars at a Catholic seminary and it convinced her and half the class to renounce the faith and the church.
She can also reads Aramaic and said that she considered Islam as an alternative to Catholicism but rejected it for the same reasons. Now she has no use for any religion.
She said it bore no resemblance to any of the English versions. It read more like the original epochs of Babylon and Sumar. They are great myths of the old gods and that Jesus barely got an honourable mention. The present versions of the new testament are pure fabrications. She learned all this from bible scholars at a Catholic seminary and it convinced her and half the class to renounce the faith and the church.
She can also reads Aramaic and said that she considered Islam as an alternative to Catholicism but rejected it for the same reasons. Now she has no use for any religion.
Well, maybe not entirely, though all biblical scholars agree that the texts have been heavily modified. A good popular reference on this is Bart D. Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. The man's a serious biblical scholar, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, and a former fundamentalist Christian whose detailed studies of the New Testament led him to apostasy, poor fellow, which he describes in another book, God's Problem. I have several of his books, including those two, and he writes very well, definitely worth a read. Especially if you'll be bumping into MHz.:smile:
Thanks, I'll check them out. There are plenty of fanatics in our small berg to spar with too.
Perhaps not, though there are plenty of instances of Greek words being translated different ways, and plenty of omissions and additions in the biblical texts currently seen as canonical. Some of the more significant changes are detailed in the two books I mentioned in my previous post.
For all your claimed wisdom why do you have so much problem grasping a few thing in the Bible that go against 'the norm'? Before I get to that part lets cover that one verse from John in particular. Clearly it is saying that there was an eye-witness, that being true or not also has bearing on if this verse below is true or not. Now it is easy to see which path you took. If you are comfortable with that (the word God actually throws you into turmoil BTW) that's fine. To get there you had to go through a series 'if/then' questions. Rather than that part that got you to where you are now I want to talk about the part of the 'if/then' cycle that was the 'version you would have had adopted if you had believed verses like the two referenced so far. The letter the verse come from would have been from an Apostle like Peter or Andrew (most likely Andrew as him and the beloved were the two that John sent to follow Jesus). So lets take the CIA magic marker and black out anything said by John (for starters) and we have your version of things. What did your version look like when you still applied this rule as part of the requirements for understanding the Holy Bible, not just Revelation. Right off the bat you are going to accuse me of 'laying a curse on you', guess what, you can't be cursed but you can be deceived and you can do it to yourself. You have freely added things from history books as 'proof' your version is right and all you have done is change the story that makes the Bible appear to be more of a burden on people than what is written without the embellishments you insist are needed. Your 'little trick' also removes you from being able to be saved.
Is your current version altered if you take things as presented in the KJV version that is freely available today, (whole passages determine the meaning rather than a single verse setting policy) that is the only reference you can use what changes take place in the two examples below, rather than a long detailed reply a simple .changes are needed. or .changes are not needed. will do.
Re:22:18:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Re:22:19:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book.
1Jo:1:1:
That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled,
of the Word of life;
Example #1 In Daniel 6 there are many versions of who the 'he' is that is mentioned in relation to a covenant. Does your version change if you are 'forced' to use this verse just below to define who the 'he' is later in the same passage.
Da:9:4:
And I prayed unto the LORD my God,
and made my confession,
and said,
O Lord,
the great and dreadful God,
keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him,
and to them that keep his commandments;
Example #2 You have to take the two references to the 'end of sacrifice' as being the same event rather than your urrent that has the first 'end of sacrifice' happening before Jesus is taken to the temple by His mother so she can make the required sacrifice in the Temple. (Lu:2:22-30
The moneychangers is proof blood sacrifice never came to an end. Pick the true abomination, a Gentile spilling pig's blood or the leaders of the Jewish people plotting to kill one of their own because He is a threat to their 'position in society'. Now compare the pig's blood to what the temple leaders did to Stephen. Which pages of your books cover that aspect of things?Da:8:11:
Yea,
he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,
and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Da:9:27:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation,
and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
The Bible's message can be understood by reading the first 3 and last 3 chapters. The part of what happens in between those two points is not quite as easy to understand just because the events are broken up into little flashes of info rather than all info in one spot.
That would appear to be somewhat less than 100% agreement. So when Paul and everybody was wandering around outside of Israel teaching in the synagogues they came with empty hands and no manuscripts and Jesus's promise to them about sending the Holy Spirit to help them remember His exact words was (at the earliest 30 years and as late as 70 years after the cross. This would also seem to promote that the Gospel and the Epistles and Revelation were all written in one sitting while on Patmos. You 'scholors' can't even prove that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written out by the end of the first week Jesus was out of the grave. John's version covers events past that first week but that brings up this question. The 4 writers were baptised the first night Jesus was out of the grave. Anytime after that the writing could have started. By the time Peter had his vision about taking the Gospel to the Gentiles there could have been more than a few copies of the 4 Gospels already copied from some original documents. That would have been part of the mission when in places outside of Israel. Take the 4 with you and at each stop have a scribe make a copy so they could study it after the Apostles left with the originals to visit the next town. The original could have been in Hebrew and translated into Greek in the synagogues that were visited on journeys like Paul took. Those places would have already had copies of the OT. You don't go on a mission to 'publish' when you have nothing on hand to publish.
Again you admit it is speculation, by 64 AD the epistles of John should have been in print also, as well as acts and James and Peter. Jude and Revelation could have been the only two books left out by 64AD.
The Epistles of John were written wile in the Nations but before being transferred to Patmos and visits were mentioned and after 70 AD Jews were not wandering around with the same freedoms they have prior to the revolt the Jews in Jerusalem were staging.
Clearly??? Not all 3 accounts say the same thing.
M'r:9:2: And after six days
M't:17:1: And after six days
Lu:9:28: And it came to pass about an eight days
Jesus told them they would have help remembering what He said to them, perhaps that is why they are so similar. The copied book should be the largest, not the smallest and least detailed.
So until then everything was repeated just as the Torah was verbal only until the captivity in Babylon.
So John and all 5 books were void untill about 100 AD when the misssion was to get the word out far and wide ASAP. Putting off a task that couild have been started almost 70 years earlier, and you see nothing wrong with the 'thinkers' who came up with that supposition? To what lengths did you question it before deciding they were right and the Bible got it wrong ... again.
That is what the RCC clearly promotes as the truth, need I remind you they are in danger of having their nuts cut off for the lies and deceptions that are in the news even these days.
Perhaps you missed the jump from 'speculation' (less than 100% certainty) to you promoting their thoughts as being 100% provable
None of whom have the same satnding with God as the Apostles had. You choose to belive men who were obviously not around to determine if the Gospels are eye-witness accounts or not over the Gospels version of things. Without their 'help' you would be clieless about the Bible's message. That isn't an insult and my two examples above would show that to be true. You are relying on one set of possibilities (for both example #1 and #2). You scholors should have covered those two possibilities, show me some papers that cover just those two aspects.
MHz, if you start from the premise that the Bible is literally true and correct and the revealed word of god you will bend and twist all claims and research results to fit that premise, or simply deny them. It's called confirmation bias. The premise is false. You are not correct.