EVIDENCE FOR GOD

[taxme]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't know.  I would be just speculating.  If you ever get the chance, maybe you can ask him.  Or maybe the answer is in the Bible and you can find it with Google.  THere is a website called GotQuestions that answers biblical questions.  If I find the answer I will post it.

 

But again this may be the result of the fall of man.

I doubt very much that god will answer any of my questions as I really do not believe in a god. But just in case there is a god I have asked god many times to let me win the lottery but so far not so good. Still waiting.

But I must admit that I do like to call myself an agnostic. That way I am covering my ass.  

Apparently, there were before man dinosaurs that were killing other dinosaurs to eat. So this can't be due to the fall of man. 

 

[blackbird]

20 hours ago, taxme said:

I doubt very much that god will answer any of my questions as I really do not believe in a god. But just in case there is a god I have asked god many times to let me win the lottery but so far not so good. Still waiting.

But I must admit that I do like to call myself an agnostic. That way I am covering my ass.  

Apparently, there were before man dinosaurs that were killing other dinosaurs to eat. So this can't be due to the fall of man. 

 

A gentleman, whose comments, I read on a news forum comment section, who is actually a highly educated man with a masters degree in biochemistry and educated in genetics, enzymology, embryology, etc. etc. and aced his classes is a masterly apologist for the Bible and christianity in general.   I invited him to come over here but I don't think he received my invite.

Anyway, he said much of what is in the Bible is supported by premier archaeologists, anthropologists, literary artifacts experts, legal historians, etc. etc.  He would easily rebuff the mockers and skeptics of the Bible. He knows the facts and how to put them forward like nobody I have encountered anywhere.  I am keeping an eye out for him to try to get him over here.

[blackbird]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:07 PM, taxme said:

I doubt very much that god will answer any of my questions as I really do not believe in a god. But just in case there is a god I have asked god many times to let me win the lottery but so far not so good. Still waiting.

But I must admit that I do like to call myself an agnostic. That way I am covering my ass.  

Apparently, there were before man dinosaurs that were killing other dinosaurs to eat. So this can't be due to the fall of man. 

 

So if I understand it correctly an agnostic is someone who believes there is an impersonal God but that one cannot know him personally.  That would exclude the Bible then as a special revelation to mankind.   Being an agnostic will not do one any good.  There is no such faith as agnosticism that is recognized by God as acceptable.  The only faith God accepts is faith in Jesus Christ as lord and saviour.  So if you want to be safe, that is the way to go.  You can also then familiarize yourself with the Bible and have something to refute Muslims and other cults with.  Since you seem to be a good debater, you would be a welcome asset to the battle for truth in the world.  Better to be on the winning side.  The other side is going to lose in the end.

[?Impact]

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

a masterly apologist for the Bible and christianity in general

Everyone's opinions are welcome, they are however just opinions. Supporting evidence is what I base my world view on, they are few and far between.

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

The other side is going to lose in the end.

That is what they all say.

[taxme]

18 hours ago, blackbird said:

A gentleman, whose comments, I read on a news forum comment section, who is actually a highly educated man with a masters degree in biochemistry and educated in genetics, enzymology, embryology, etc. etc. and aced his classes is a masterly apologist for the Bible and christianity in general.   I invited him to come over here but I don't think he received my invite.

Anyway, he said much of what is in the Bible is supported by premier archaeologists, anthropologists, literary artifacts experts, legal historians, etc. etc.  He would easily rebuff the mockers and skeptics of the Bible. He knows the facts and how to put them forward like nobody I have encountered anywhere.  I am keeping an eye out for him to try to get him over here.

Are you a church minister? 

[taxme]

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

So if I understand it correctly an agnostic is someone who believes there is an impersonal God but that one cannot know him personally.  That would exclude the Bible then as a special revelation to mankind.   Being an agnostic will not do one any good.  There is no such faith as agnosticism that is recognized by God as acceptable.  The only faith God accepts is faith in Jesus Christ as lord and saviour.  So if you want to be safe, that is the way to go.  You can also then familiarize yourself with the Bible and have something to refute Muslims and other cults with.  Since you seem to be a good debater, you would be a welcome asset to the battle for truth in the world.  Better to be on the winning side.  The other side is going to lose in the end.

I have only in the past few decades or so got involved with politics and religion, and I have found out that both have been the main cause and the problem that plagues the world today, not better it. If human beings stopped with the belief of this or that and began to just believe and help each other out instead the world could be a better place to live in. But thanks to the elite special interest groups and their puppet on a string politicians we have allowed them to run and ruin all of our lives, and the world. The battle for the truth is being waged out there but no one seems to want to listen to or do anything about it because let's be honest here? No one really gives a chit. And when one does try to expose the truth they are called kooks and conspiracy nuts. 

With the majority of Canadians out there their belief is that it is all about me-me-me and making money. They don't care as to how they get their money just get it at all costs. Sure, we all like money but some will sell their souls to get it. The world is the way it is and it will always be the same and no god is going to be able to do anything about it because it would appear as though god does not give a chit either. God has had thousands of years to fix things, and so far as not done a bloody thing to better the world. Keep on dreaming for a god to come and save mankind but I think that you will be dead and gone forever and life will still go on until the earth blows itself up one day, and then all life will come to an end. Problem solved. 

[blackbird]

23 minutes ago, taxme said:

Are you a church minister? 

No.  Just a sinner saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  Romans 10:13

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, taxme said:

I have only in the past few decades or so got involved with politics and religion, and I have found out that both have been the main cause and the problem that plagues the world today, not better it. If human beings stopped with the belief of this or that and began to just believe and help each other out instead the world could be a better place to live in. But thanks to the elite special interest groups and their puppet on a string politicians we have allowed them to run and ruin all of our lives, and the world. The battle for the truth is being waged out there but no one seems to want to listen to or do anything about it because let's be honest here? No one really gives a chit. And when one does try to expose the truth they are called kooks and conspiracy nuts. 

With the majority of Canadians out there their belief is that it is all about me-me-me and making money. They don't care as to how they get their money just get it at all costs. Sure, we all like money but some will sell their souls to get it. The world is the way it is and it will always be the same and no god is going to be able to do anything about it because it would appear as though god does not give a chit either. God has had thousands of years to fix things, and so far as not done a bloody thing to better the world. Keep on dreaming for a god to come and save mankind but I think that you will be dead and gone forever and life will still go on until the earth blows itself up one day, and then all life will come to an end. Problem solved. 

"If human beings stopped with the belief of this or that and began to just believe and help each other out instead the world could be a better place to live in. "

That will never happen in this present world.  Here's what God says about mankind:

10  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

   Romans ch3 vs10-18

This is why we are living in a wicked world and full of evil. 

Since we are completely depraved and deceitful, and God has said it is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment.

What shall we therefore do?

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: ²³For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ²⁴Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: ²⁵Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; ²⁶To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. ²⁷Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. ²⁸Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans ch3 vs 22-28

John 6:47 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

[blackbird]

Merry Christmas to you this lovely Christmas morning of 2017.  Several inches of snow through the night made it a lovely white Christmas.  Very timely.

[GostHacked]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:27 PM, blackbird said:

I have heard that question about incest before.  But you are judging by today's standards.  The situation with Adam and Eve was a unique situation which God ordained.  So how they had grandchildren doesn't really matter. It may meet the definition of incest today but that was how it would have had to be in the beginning in order for the human race to multiply.

Were Adam and Eve white? Black? Asian? Something else?   And how do you explain the differences in the gene pool that make up the human race? All that cannot have come from two people. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Were Adam and Eve white? Black? Asian? Something else?   And how do you explain the differences in the gene pool that make up the human race? All that cannot have come from two people. 

Actually they were gay.  They only had kids as a personal favour to God, because they felt sorry for him for having screwed up the whole creation thing.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Were Adam and Eve white? Black? Asian? Something else?   And how do you explain the differences in the gene pool that make up the human race? All that cannot have come from two people. 

I do not know what colour Adam and Eve were.  The different races descended later from Noah's three sons, Japeth, Shem, and Ham.  Everyone has the same father Noah and further back we all descended from Adam and Eve.  There are various websites which give opinions on that question.

Question: "What is the origin of the different races?"

Answer: The Bible does not explicitly give us the origin of the different “races” or skin colors in humanity. In actuality, there is only one race—the human race. Within the human race is diversity in skin color and other physical characteristics. Some speculate that when God confused the languages at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), He also created racial diversity. It is possible that God made genetic changes to humanity to better enable people to survive in different ecologies, such as the darker skin of Africans being better equipped genetically to survive the excessive heat in Africa. According to this view, God confused the languages, causing humanity to segregate linguistically, and then created genetic racial differences based on where each racial group would eventually settle. While possible, there is no explicit biblical basis for this view. The races/skin colors of humanity are nowhere mentioned in connection with the tower of Babel.

At the Tower of Babel, when the different languages came into existence, groups that spoke one language moved away with others of the same language. In doing so, the gene pool for a specific group shrank dramatically as the group no longer had the entire human population to mix with. Closer inbreeding took place, and in time certain features were emphasized in these different groups (all of which were present as a possibility in the genetic code). As further inbreeding occurred through the generations, the gene pool grew smaller and smaller, to the point that people of one language family all had the same or similar features.

Another explanation is that Adam and Eve possessed the genes to produce black, brown, and white offspring (and everything else in between). This would be similar to how a mixed-race couple sometimes has children that vary in color. Since God obviously desired humanity to be diverse in appearance, it makes sense that God would have given Adam and Eve the ability to produce children of different skin tones. Later, the only survivors of the flood were Noah and his wife, Noah’s three sons and their wives—eight people in all (Genesis 7:13). Perhaps Noah’s daughters-in-law were of different races. It is also possible that Noah’s wife was of a different race than Noah. Maybe all eight of them were of mixed race, which would mean they possessed the genetics to produce children of different races. Whatever the explanation, the most important aspect of this question is that we are all the same race, all created by the same God, all created for the same purpose—to glorify Him.
https://www.gotquestions.org/different-races.html

Here is an interesting video called "How Different Races Came from Noah" on youtube.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=How+different+races+came+from+Noah&view=detail&mid=A16FB86059522397C537A16FB86059522397C537&FORM=VIRE

This shows how we are all descendants of Noah through his three sons,  Japheth, Shem, and Ham.   The Caucasians descended from Japheth or more likely including a mixture of some of the other two.  The eastern or oriental and middle eastern people such as the Jews and other ME tribes descended from Shem and today have mixtures of the other two as well.   The black people or brown descended from Ham with some mixtures today.

 

Edited December 25, 2017 by blackbird

[Guest]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The black people or brown descended from Ham with some mixtures today

And strangely, a lot of them won't eat pork!

[?Impact]

On 12/25/2017 at 4:29 PM, blackbird said:

I do not know what colour Adam and Eve were.  The different races descended later from Noah's three sons, Japeth, Shem, and Ham.  Everyone has the same father Noah and further back we all descended from Adam and Eve.  There are various websites which give opinions on that question.

Question: "What is the origin of the different races?"

Answer: The Bible does not explicitly give us the origin of the different “races” or skin colors in humanity. In actuality, there is only one race—the human race. Within the human race is diversity in skin color and other physical characteristics. Some speculate that when God confused the languages at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9),

Yes, that is an interesting story. The tower of Babel was started by Nimord, son of Cush who is the son of Ham, son of Noah. That makes Nimrod the great grandson of Noah, or three generations removed. We started with 3 families (Noah's three sons and their wives) and have enough people to build a tower to the heavens and create the 70 Biblical nations. When God said go forth an multiply, they must have copulated like jackrabbits.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, that is an interesting story. The tower of Babel was started by Nimord, son of Cush who is the son of Ham, son of Noah. That makes Nimrod the great grandson of Noah, or three generations removed. We started with 3 families (Noah's three sons and their wives) and have enough people to build a tower to the heavens and create the 70 Biblical nations. When God said go forth an multiply, they must have copulated like jackrabbits.

I am not familiar with the account leading up to the tower of Babel.  I am not doubting what you said.  I was just reading the first part of Genesis ch11 about the building of the tower, but did not see Nimrod's name.  Can you tell me what verse it mentions Nimrod starting the tower?  Just like to see these things myself.  Thanks.

Edited December 27, 2017 by blackbird

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I am not familiar with the account leading up to the tower of Babel.  I am not doubting what you said.  I was just reading the first part of Genesis ch11 about the building of the tower, but did not see Nimrod's name.  Can you tell me what verse it mentions Nimrod starting the tower?  Just like to see these things myself.  Thanks.

Read Chapter 10 (10:10 specifically), a lot of history is contained in those two short chapters. There is confusion as to where this tower was located, although somewhere near Al Hasakah in Syria seems to be the most likely although many say it is just south of Mosul in Iraq.

Translations are always problematic, especially since ancient written Hebrew only used consonants and vowels would need to be vocalized by the reader. Modern Hebrew (ok, relatively modern but still 1000-1500 years old) has vowels as markers on other letters (all those dots and lines you see in and around letters) but that would not be in any of the ancient scriptures. There is some confusion between Babel and Babylon as they have the same consonants.

The ancient Genesis 10:10 was:

ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל וארך ואכד וכלנה בארץ שנער

although modern text would be:

וַתְּהִ֨י רֵאשִׁ֤ית מַמְלַכְתֹּו֙ בָּבֶ֔ל וְאֶ֖רֶךְ וְאַכַּ֣ד וְכַלְנֵ֑ה בְּאֶ֖רֶץ שִׁנְעָֽר

You will note that the highlighted Babel (בָּבֶ֔ל) has a lot of similarity with Babylon ( בָּבֶל ), take away the modern vowel markers and you have the same written word.

Edited December 27, 2017 by ?Impact

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Read Chapter 10 (10:10 specifically), a lot of history is contained in those two short chapters. There is confusion as to where this tower was located, although somewhere near Al Hasakah in Syria seems to be the most likely although many say it is just south of Mosul in Iraq.

Translations are always problematic, especially since ancient written Hebrew only used consonants and vowels would need to be vocalized by the reader. Modern Hebrew (ok, relatively modern but still 1000-1500 years old) has vowels as markers on other letters (all those dots and lines you see in and around letters) but that would not be in any of the ancient scriptures. There is some confusion between Babel and Babylon as they have the same consonants.

The ancient Genesis 10:10 was:

ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל וארך ואכד וכלנה בארץ שנער

although modern text would be:

וַתְּהִ֨י רֵאשִׁ֤ית מַמְלַכְתֹּו֙ בָּבֶ֔ל וְאֶ֖רֶךְ וְאַכַּ֣ד וְכַלְנֵ֑ה בְּאֶ֖רֶץ שִׁנְעָֽר

You will note that the highlighted Babel (בָּבֶ֔ל) has a lot of similarity with Babylon ( בָּבֶל ), take away the modern vowel markers and you have the same written word.

I just read Ch10 about the genealogy of the sons of Noah.  I see where it mentions Nimrod who was a mighty hunter.  He started a number of cities in the land of Shinar, including Babel.  Nimrod is not mentioned after vs 10 but there is a long list of names in a genealogy.  VS 32 concludes with saying these are the sons of Noah, etc.   Then ch 11 vs 1 to 4 speaks about them saying they would build a city and a tower (the tower of Babel).  It doesn't mention Nimrod in ch11, but he could well be involved in building the city and tower, as Babel was mentioned in ch 10 vs 10.   You quoted some Hebrew letters and words.  Yes,  Babylon could have been built where Babel existed.  I don't know.   The King James Bible (1611) is based on the Received Text and is completely accurate.  That's all I need.  I don't worry about the Hebrew or Greek.  No need. 

Some of the translators of the KJV (1611) were some of best Hebrew and Greek scholars that ever lived.  They were not influenced by television and modernism as people are today.  They also believed in the inerrancy of Scripture which Bible translators of the 20th century do not.  The 20th century Editors and producers of modern versions were also using the corrupt translation (Greek N.T.) or compilation of Wescott and Hort.  They used corrupt manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

The KJV translators used the original manuscripts called the Received Text (New Testament manuscripts).    I believed their work is extremely accurate and trustworthy.  There were 47 scholars who worked on the translation of the KJV.

Edited December 27, 2017 by blackbird

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The KJV translators used the original manuscripts called the Received Text (New Testament manuscripts).    I believed their work is extremely accurate and trustworthy.  There were 47 scholars who worked on the translation of the KJV.

Genesis is not part of the New Testament, and therefore not part of the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text). Yes, many scholars worked on the KJV, Genesis was translated by up to 10 scholars at the First Westminster Company (I am unable to find a record of who at that company worked on what parts). The source material appears to be the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5), but with some passages changed to match the Greek Septuagint and/or Latin Vulgate translations. Your belief in accuracy notwithstanding, you might be interested in reading The Authorized Edition of the English Bible from Cambridge University Press (1884) which discusses in detail the KJV.

[blackbird]

10 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Genesis is not part of the New Testament, and therefore not part of the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text). Yes, many scholars worked on the KJV, Genesis was translated by up to 10 scholars at the First Westminster Company (I am unable to find a record of who at that company worked on what parts). The source material appears to be the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5), but with some passages changed to match the Greek Septuagint and/or Latin Vulgate translations. Your belief in accuracy notwithstanding, you might be interested in reading The Authorized Edition of the English Bible from Cambridge University Press (1884) which discusses in detail the KJV.

I had a brief look at that link but no, I am not going to go into all the alleged Hebrew claims simply because there have been corrupt changes to the modern Bibles and there has been a battle raging over the Bible for a long time.  I am no expert on Greek or Hebrew so it would be pointless for me to go into that.  There are corrupt manuscript found in the 1800s that were used by two heretics, Wescott and Hort, to produce the corrupt modern versions.  All modern versions take their lead from those.   I am satisfied from what have read about where the King James Bible came from and will stick with it.  It would be an impossible thing to be trying to look at old manuscripts of Greek or Hebrew when there are many known corrupt manuscripts and disputes over the versions.  I will stick to the Bible based on the Received Text.

This video is very impressive:   A Lamp in the Dark - The Untold History of the Bible         

A shorter video (57 mins) is also on youtube.   

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by blackbird

[GostHacked]

On 12/25/2017 at 4:29 PM, blackbird said:

I do not know what colour Adam and Eve were.  The different races descended later from Noah's three sons, Japeth, Shem, and Ham.  Everyone has the same father Noah and further back we all descended from Adam and Eve.  There are various websites which give opinions on that questions.

Rather have some real answers than opinions.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Rather have some real answers than opinions.

I doubt if the Bible gives details about the colour of the different descendants.  I just don't have the time at the moment to read through massive amounts of information to try to answer that, but I'm pretty sure the Bible does not state explicitly who was what colour.  It is not considered important to know.  So I doubt my reading tons of articles or searching the Bible on colour of races or where the coloured races came from will produce any answer.  Anybody can do that if they really want to try to find out.

Edited December 27, 2017 by blackbird

[?Impact]

On 12/27/2017 at 2:29 PM, blackbird said:

I had a brief look at that link but no, I am not going to go into all the alleged Hebrew claims simply because there have been corrupt changes to the modern Bibles and there has been a battle raging over the Bible for a long time.

... I will stick to the Bible based on the Received Text.

This video is very impressive:   A Lamp in the Dark - The Untold History of the Bible

Since your faith itself is not based on logic, and you are unwilling to look at a detailed analysis done 130 years ago, I also doubt you are unwilling to look at a modern analysis of the King James Version and the Textus Recpetus upon which it is based.  Sorry, I don't have some YouTube video that goes into great conspiracy theories about how one Church is corrupt and my Church is the only true one; you see I agree with the premise that the Catholic Church is like the mafia and the Jesuits are their thugs, the only difference is I don't use that to promote my faith because I don't have one. If you go to the home page of the above website, and click on list of articles you will get a lot of detailed analysis from various authors. 

[blackbird]

10 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Since your faith itself is not based on logic, and you are unwilling to look at a detailed analysis done 130 years ago, I also doubt you are unwilling to look at a modern analysis of the King James Version and the Textus Recpetus upon which it is based.  Sorry, I don't have some YouTube video that goes into great conspiracy theories about how one Church is corrupt and my Church is the only true one; you see I agree with the premise that the Catholic Church is like the mafia and the Jesuits are their thugs, the only difference is I don't use that to promote my faith because I don't have one. If you go to the home page of the above website, and click on list of articles you will get a lot of detailed analysis from various authors. 

I have read enough about the version issue since 1985 and am quite satisfied with what I learned.  I have heard the story about how the new versions came about and am satisfied with the information I heard from more than one source.  I have no desire to read anything from skeptics or opponents of the King James Bible.  I am currently studying the book I had skimmed through years ago,  "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.   Available through Amazon.  or the website  avpublications.com   I consider opponents of the King James Bible (1611) as apostates or people in serious error and am not interested in reading anything they have to say at this point.

I will say this book explains in detail how the modern versions are working toward a one-world religion or a false religion which will be worshiping the devil or Satan.  Wording in the modern versions is geared to that goal.  There are numerous examples.  There is also a new age movement made up of esoterics and new agers who have their own followers.  They also are connected with the evolving one world religion.  People who are not born again are not free as they believe themselves to be, but are actually following the god of this world. 

You say my faith is not based on logic.  Logic has nothing to do with it.   Faith in the Bible and Jesus is not determined by logic or the scientific method.  Faith is a gift of God whereby God uses the Holy Scriptures as his means of communicating with mankind. 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by blackbird

[?Impact]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

I have read enough about the version issue since 1985 and am quite satisfied with what I learned.  I have heard the story about how the new versions came about and am satisfied with the information I heard from more than one source.  I have no desire to read anything from skeptics or opponents of the King James Bible.  I am currently studying the book I had skimmed through years ago,  "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.   Available through Amazon.  or the website  avpublications.com   I consider opponents of the King James Bible (1611) as apostates or people in serious error and am not interested in reading anything they have to say at this point.

Ok fair enough. One question however, why do you participate in discussion forums? Do you see them as not really discussion, but a stage upon which to proselytize?

[taxme]

On 12/26/2017 at 2:38 PM, ?Impact said:

Yes, that is an interesting story. The tower of Babel was started by Nimord, son of Cush who is the son of Ham, son of Noah. That makes Nimrod the great grandson of Noah, or three generations removed. We started with 3 families (Noah's three sons and their wives) and have enough people to build a tower to the heavens and create the 70 Biblical nations. When God said go forth an multiply, they must have copulated like jackrabbits.

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by taxme