GOD of the BIBLE, is The CREATOR

[betsy]

The website you point to is a bit of a stretch on the description of creation. Two points - plate tectonics started well before the development of the water cycle - the world was far too hot in the first few hundred million years for liquid water to exist. This is why many believe water came from comets falling to earth.

Another point is that whales didn't start in the oceans - no mammal did. Mammals arose on land - the cetaceans moved from the land INTO the sea. So the Bible claiming they came first would be wrong.

The only evidence you have for your belief is the Bible itself. There is no corroborating evidence.

Why do you think your words carry more weight than a real scientist? You have to support your claim.

Anyway, did you see the actual evidences given? They are numbered. Address those.

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

You confuse confidence with arrogance.........and......

......I don't want to waste my time on ignorance.

And its funny how Jesus was interpreted just this way.....why he rode in to Jerusalem on an ass, rather than a horse....why "Jesus Christ" actually was a summary phrase by the average Joseph and Mary who mocked ALL those soap box philosophers in the Temples when they asserted that they too were the God-anointed true King. These average people gave birth to the myth for mistaking the message for some literal beings. "Jesus Christ" == "Je sus christos" == "I am as equal to the King by God's grace" or, by some, "I AM the official King by grace of God".

The mockery was FROM the average citizen to those who asserted either divinity or equal stature as King, an apparent "ignorance" to the status quo. As such, you too here prove that should you have just become the same as the idiots of the crowd who are too scared of the presiding King's threat of hell should you not follow blindly. And then a child stands up in the crowd to announce how the Emperor/King is literally naked. How dare such an arrogant child insult the King, right?

If you actually believe in God, you wouldn't be so cowardly NOW to hide anonymously among the crowd. Should you not speak loudly without the fear of being exposed for being naked too?

[?Impact]

why he rode in to Jerusalem on an ass, rather than a horse

What is wrong with riding in on a οναριον, that was a long domesticated animal and certainly well adapted to the climate of Jerusalem. Horses were more often associated with military force, not the conquering image that Jesus wanted to cultivate. It also fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would arrive on a οναριον.

[betsy]

And its funny how Jesus was interpreted just this way.....why he rode in to Jerusalem on an ass, rather than a horse....why "Jesus Christ" actually was a summary phrase by the average Joseph and Mary who mocked ALL those soap box philosophers in the Temples when they asserted that they too were the God-anointed true King. These average people gave birth to the myth for mistaking the message for some literal beings. "Jesus Christ" == "Je sus christos" == "I am as equal to the King by God's grace" or, by some, "I AM the official King by grace of God".

The mockery was FROM the average citizen to those who asserted either divinity or equal stature as King, an apparent "ignorance" to the status quo. As such, you too here prove that should you have just become the same as the idiots of the crowd who are too scared of the presiding King's threat of hell should you not follow blindly. And then a child stands up in the crowd to announce how the Emperor/King is literally naked. How dare such an arrogant child insult the King, right?

If you actually believe in God, you wouldn't be so cowardly NOW to hide anonymously among the crowd. Should you not speak loudly without the fear of being exposed for being naked too?

One minute you describe me as arrogant - and the next, you say I'm a coward. Well, I can't be both, can I?

I don't need to debate with you...... after all, you seem to be doing well knocking yourself down.

And actually, you're the exhibitionist here.

You're the one who's exhibiting your "nakedness," for all to see!

You're totally ignoring the point of this thread....or you're not getting it.

Either way, I'm not interested in your soap box rant. You don't make any sense at all.

Edited July 6, 2016 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

What is wrong with riding in on a οναριον, that was a long domesticated animal and certainly well adapted to the climate of Jerusalem. Horses were more often associated with military force, not the conquering image that Jesus wanted to cultivate. It also fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would arrive on a οναριον.

In Palestine during those days, the horse represented Rome and its power. The 'Je sus christer' was said to have ridden in on a donkey, as a symbolic "fuck you" to the caesar/christ [both words from "Kha Ra Isis" variant of Egyptian meaning "the light carries to one in the same", a way to assert a man as being granted the power (Ra) to a man as favored to rule] . He was indicating that as simple a man he was, his significance is as meaningful as the king's power, a form of declaration of independence.

[Scott Mayers]

One minute you describe me as arrogant - and the next, you say I'm a coward. Well, I can't be both, can I?

I don't need to debate with you...... after all, you seem to be doing well knocking yourself down.

And actually, you're the exhibitionist here.

You're the one who's exhibiting your "nakedness," for all to see!

You're totally ignoring the point of this thread....or you're not getting it.

Either way, I'm not interested in your soap box rant. You don't make any sense at all.

It's just funny how you don't recognize your own insincerity. But this can also be your intent to purposely deceive others to prop up more religiousity for its effective utility in politics. ??

[betsy]

In Palestine during those days, the horse represented Rome and its power. The 'Je sus christer' was said to have ridden in on a donkey, as a symbolic "fuck you" to the caesar/christ [both words from "Kha Ra Isis" variant of Egyptian meaning "the light carries to one in the same", a way to assert a man as being granted the power (Ra) to a man as favored to rule] . He was indicating that as simple a man he was, his significance is as meaningful as the king's power, a form of declaration of independence.

More BS!

In the ancient Middle Eastern world,

leaders rode horses if they rode to war,

but donkeys if they came in peace.

First Kings 1:33 mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel. Other instances of leaders riding donkeys are Judges 5:10; 10:4; 12:14; and 2 Samuel 16:2.

The mention of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9-10 fits the description of a king who would be “righteous and having salvation, gentle.” Rather than riding to conquer, this king would enter in peace.

Zechariah 9:10 highlights this peace: “I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Jesus fulfills this prophecy of Zechariah. The worldwide peace proclaimed by this humble King will be a fulfillment of the angels’ song in Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” (NKJV). Significantly, Jacob’s blessing on his son Judah includes a reference to a donkey and a donkey’s foal (Genesis 49:11). Jesus is from the tribe of Judah.

http://www.gotquestions.org/king-ride-donkey.html

Jesus more likely wanted to connect with the common people, too - as exampled by His lowly birth in a stable - thus the Messiah-on-a-donkey was part of the whole plan! Donkey was used by commoners!

Edited July 7, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Does God cure people of cancer?

[eyeball]

Does God cure people of cancer?

When He's not also giving it to them.

[Scott Mayers]

More BS!

http://www.gotquestions.org/king-ride-donkey.html

Jesus more likely wanted to connect with the common people, too - as exampled by His lowly birth in a stable - thus the Messiah-on-a-donkey was part of the whole plan! Donkey was used by commoners!

Your source (Bible) has devolved from originating as a collection of various metaphoric anecdotes of the general (and very mixed cultural) society of the times. You can glean hints at some 'history' but you have to interpret it in the context of how we today do of modern entertainment and media. Worse, considering we can't trust even the validity of much of modern media with even its greater complexity and depth than a mere ancient book, any religious 'scripture' is a Google times worse to trust than a "Google" search for "Who is Betsy?" [A "google is the number 10¹⁰⁰ by the way.]

[betsy]

Worse, considering we can't trust even the validity of much of modern media with even its greater complexity and depth than a mere ancient book, any religious 'scripture' is a Google times worse to trust than a "Google" search for "Who is Betsy?" [A "google is the number 10¹⁰⁰ by the way.]

Address the evidences, Scott. They're proven by science.

[Scott Mayers]

Address the evidences, Scott. They're proven by science.

Don't try turning the table on me here. It is you who require providing the prerequisite evidence.

(1) Provide evidence that you, as some mere anonymous character here, actually 'care' to be accountable to your words and are not simply playing a sock puppet for promoting anti-intellectual religious thinking. The very fact that you are opting to evangelize in disguise presents reasonable doubt of your sincerity. If you actually believed in a "Christian Supreme being", you'd be confident enough not to be concerned about mere human beings knowing who you are.

(2) You require also to provide a justification for HOW anyone should trust ANY source of ancient history asserting 'super natural' phenomena when it has no contemporary means for people to induce it back through time. It is already default to distrust even much of today's media reporting regarding non-supernatural phenomena when politics always plays a 'superior' role in how we receive it. But you are expecting the non-religious thinker to abandon even our everyday experiences that assure that past historical events are even MORE biased in the days when writing was still new and highly unpopular. So you require a type of initial presentation to us as a "Grand Jury" would (in the U.S.), as a means to even determine whether a case could be reasonably argued with fairness.

(3) ALL written works contain at least some element of 'truth' with respect to social, political, economic, cultural, and SCIENTIFIC knowledge. But where religious texts are concerned, the authorities do NOT welcome open criticism nor doubt and so more often than not, even attempt to distort or hide what might be interpreted as secular, rather than supernatural.

For example, the ancient tribes of ALL human civilization go through a stage of indicating their age by how many months they have lived. (like how many do this with infants for the first two years still) But this has falsely been RE-interpreted as meaning that the ancients lived absurd long lives favored by a supernatural being.

[The_Squid]

When He's not also giving it to them.

Well said....

I always wonder why God cures all the invisible diseases, like cancer.... But you never hear of an amputee being healed by God.... Why doesn't He ever grow a person a new arm?

[Guest]

I wonder why Bigfoot only prevents Loch Ness Monster attacks but can't prevent erectile dysfunction. Why the hell can the gnome in my back garden prevent dragon attacks but not stop the local rabbit population from snacking on my plants? Thankfully, appeals to gods are becoming equivalent to claims of a living Elvis among those 30 and younger. Their god is dead....and no one cares....if there is a hell I'll see you there. - Trent Reznor