Pope's latest

[basics]

" If they would man up and get their publications peer reviewed they would be treated differently. As it stands they're seen as snipers and liars: peddlers of snake-oil and pseudo-science."

Himster,

To my knowledge some have and still their findings are not acceptable to a system that has it in its head that evolution is factual. When you talk of pseudo-science what you really mean is all science because if what is said about it must be experimental then how can that be the case since no scientist was there when the flood or creation took place. Evolution is an assumption whilst God's word comes directly from the Creator and Him who made the flood. But it's a case of who or what you believe.

" Mt St Helens obeyed the geological principles that require evolution. The biblical model was objectively debunked 150 years ago conclusively. Under the creationist model plate-tectonic movements don't exist, therefore Mt St Helens doesn't exist if you're a creationist."

I really don't know how you can say that. If land according to Genesis could be raised up out of the deep then us thinking men of today can understand the workings around that but then in Moses' time it wasn't important enough for God to go into such details, the primary function being that He did what they needed to know. As for it being debunked 150 years ago, please explain that one. Oh, I think that when the Bible speaks of earthquakes and fire and brimstone plus the stretching out of the stars into the heavens, or that they give off unquestionable musical notes, there is quite enough to show that you are misguided on that.

" Based on the mass of the earth, the quantity of water that has been verified by on ground observation and scans from orbit."

Well, the obvious is that they are wrongly calculated based on what can be seen and not what cannot be seen. In other words if we take global warming as an example and all the ice did melt plus all the water under the plates as well as that in the plates sprung up, I think quite a few in the scientific community would be a little surprised, not forgetting all that is in the sky fell too. That is what Genesis says did happen without the mountains.

Even without that, it is already accepted that some of California is going to drop away into the sea, the same being said about the Canary Islands and the carnage expected is beyond belief according to the scientists. Millions would die in both cases not just by the events themselves, rather the sunamis that would engulf other parts of the world. All that without the sky pouring down or the fountains of the deep rising up. And you say it is impossible based on what is assumed and not the reality from other portions of science.

" We know how high mount Everest was 4600 years ago by measuring the speed at which it is rising and work backwards with a precision of half a millimeter, so no, your bizarre interpretation of the bible is demonstrably false again. Meaning that if the flood did happen the water would have had to rise at least over 20,000 feet."

No, you think you know because of backward calculations but these are asumptions based on no experimental knowledge at all. Never having witnessed plates separating nor pressing together with such velocity and violence how can anyone say for certain how high or how quickly these mountains rose up. The one thing we do know is that they are shrinking, why? Because water, rainfall, is doing that, so imagine what Genesis's evaluation might do were another event like it happen. You say it can't and I beg to differ on that. The thing is God promised not to do it again, not by flood.

" Of course it would kill everything. There would be no survival chance for fresh water fish, but there is fresh water fish, so again your interpretation is false. Also there are trees in Sweden that are over 9000 years old (verified by counting the rings and carbon dating). "

As I have already said many times, God made everything about creation up and running, each part as it was needed to be so that all the creatures might live on it or in it. Were you and your instruments stood on the place on say the eighth day and cut down a tree what would you have found? The tree having rings that to your knowledge made it older than creation time and it would be the same for any other thing you experimented on. Adam was a full grown man as Eve was a woman, so were the birds, fishes, cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, horses, elephants or any other makings, each to its own kind and each suited to its environment. No-one ever said that everything started off as babies or saplings or just root penetration.

" Water can only exist in the crust, any closer to the core and it turns to gas and shoots out cracks in the crust. Water makes up 0.02% of the earth's mass, this is the maximum limit due to the depth of the crust. To cover all the earth as it was 2600 years ago it would have to be almost 5%"

Again the thing is no scientist knows what the earth was like before the flood or what volumes of water it could absorb but what is sure is that God says that everything was covered to a depth of 22/25 feet telling us that there certainly was a great change because of the effects of the flood because we can see them now. Why you keep mentioning 2,600 years ago but that is obviously quite wrong in itself, how? Because there are three fourteen generations from Adam to Jesus Christ so the flood by calculation was the end of the first fourteen leaving two further fourteen generations which mathematically proves your assumption wrong. Adam and Noah's father were contemporaries the former dying sometime before the flood. That would make it around three to four thousand odd years ago plus of course the two thousand since Jesus' death and resurrection if I am correct.

" This simply isn't possible even with magic and hocus pocus because this increase to the mass of the earth would change our gravitational force, at best we would be killed quickly by the moon (completely obliterating the planet) and at worst we would be flung at the sun and roasted alive over the course of a week."

Well since the flood happened and we are still here, everything working as it should albeit in a fallen way, I think that lays to rest the above.

" Seriously? If they weren't localized then who wrote the stories? You claim everything was killed except for Noah's family and yet you expect us to believe that there are other written sources about this devastating global flood? Do you not see the lack of logic there? We have absolutely no evidence of a global flood, ever. Every flood that has ever left a mark has been localized."

At the time of Cush, Semiramis and Ninus, Noah perhaps still being alive, certainly Shem, mankind was scattered along with his language all over the planet. All of them knew about the flood and so the memories of it would be orally or even in writing passed down through the generations and because it was such an important event it stayed in the minds of each generation albeit somewhat altered in many respects. Nonetheless it is there.

As for the localisation, what with time, wind and weather many of the effects would be covered up, built upon and populated so that what the geologist actually sees now is from isolated but definite portions of the planet.

" The problem with mountains raising faster than is physically possible is the tectonic plates: You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Meaning when mountains are formed by two plates crashing together the opposite ends are pulling apart and letting out magma and forming volcanoes: this can only be done slowly: if this was done at speed (which is impossible BTW) the resultant magma would not have time to cool, the earth would be consumed in fire and smoke, the devastation of the flood would pale in comparison."

What you are not taking into effect is that during the flood, tectonic effects must have run alongside the water rising up from the deep and yes forming volcanic action that would have been slowed in the cementation by the waters, this already seen in Hawai on a day to day basis. We know it took a year for the water to recede, plenty of time for magma being hardened where mountains were formed but what you forget is that these mountains weren't necessarily made totally of magma, rather the already formed crust. Indeed there might well have been no volcanic activity at all when and where they were formed. Another example of volcanic creation is the Island of Surtse which began in my lifetime and is still growing without any billions of years to do so for I am only talking of some fifty years at most give or take a few.

Ararat, the range, that the Ark rested on is a volcanic range yet when the Ark was opened there was no indication of heat from the land, so inside that year when they were formed they were also cooled by the waters that covered them until it receded. Today it is devoid of much water. How you might ask is that possible? Well as Jesus Himself said, " Nothing is impossible with God." There is every indication that an ice age began almost after the flood resided and if that were so then it itself would add to the solidifying of the rocks. So when you say these things are impossible not only do I disagree with you for Jesus Christ does too and He being the Creator should know, don't you think?

[Himster]

To my knowledge some have and still their findings are not acceptable to a system that has it in its head that evolution is factual. When you talk of pseudo-science what you really mean is all science because if what is said about it must be experimental then how can that be the case since no scientist was there when the flood or creation took place. Evolution is an assumption whilst God's word comes directly from the Creator and Him who made the flood. But it's a case of who or what you believe.

Evolution is based on a mass observable facts that have made demonstrable and useful predictions. Without evolution vaccines wouldn't work, cancer research could not happen, dog-breeding would be impossible, the evolutionary prediction of DNA would have been proven wrong, incest would have no negative effects. These are facts, evolution cannot be dismissed so arbitrarily.

Just because evolution exists doesn't mean god doesn't exist.

I really don't know how you can say that. If land according to Genesis could be raised up out of the deep then us thinking men of today can understand the workings around that but then in Moses' time it wasn't important enough for God to go into such details, the primary function being that He did what they needed to know. As for it being debunked 150 years ago, please explain that one. Oh, I think that when the Bible speaks of earthquakes and fire and brimstone plus the stretching out of the stars into the heavens, or that they give off unquestionable musical notes, there is quite enough to show that you are misguided on that.

The time-scale referred to in your interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Tectonic plate movement has a speed limit for the earth to exist: if too fast then life as we know it would cease: if the plates were to move too slowly the magnetic field protecting us from the sun would collapse and we would all die either from radiation, being cooked alive, or frozen to death. 150 years ago the movements of plate tectonics were investigated and the science of geology as we know it today was born, a science which does not allow a global flood or the formation of mountains as you propose.

Well, the obvious is that they are wrongly calculated based on what can be seen and not what cannot be seen. In other words if we take global warming as an example and all the ice did melt plus all the water under the plates as well as that in the plates sprung up, I think quite a few in the scientific community would be a little surprised, not forgetting all that is in the sky fell too. That is what Genesis says did happen without the mountains.

We know the mountains existed at the time, they can be dated and measured with extreme accuracy and of course the pyramids. So to cover all of these with water would take so much water that the earth would be destroyed.

Even without that, it is already accepted that some of California is going to drop away into the sea, the same being said about the Canary Islands and the carnage expected is beyond belief according to the scientists. Millions would die in both cases not just by the events themselves, rather the sunamis that would engulf other parts of the world. All that without the sky pouring down or the fountains of the deep rising up. And you say it is impossible based on what is assumed and not the reality from other portions of science.

You're assuming a global flood is possible, all of science disagrees: biology, physics, geology, archaeology, chemistry, astronomy. All you have is one dubious book and a series of fanciful anecdotes. Which is more reasonable: science, or magic?

No, you think you know because of backward calculations but these are asumptions based on no experimental knowledge at all. Never having witnessed plates separating nor pressing together with such velocity and violence how can anyone say for certain how high or how quickly these mountains rose up.

We know the stress limits of the plates. If these limits are exceeded the earth as we know it would be destroyed and would never ever recover to a similar state ever again.

The one thing we do know is that they are shrinking, why? Because water, rainfall, is doing that, so imagine what Genesis's evaluation might do were another event like it happen. You say it can't and I beg to differ on that. The thing is God promised not to do it again, not by flood.

False, most mountain ranges are growing. When two plates collide they crumple and bend and form mountains, these mountains grow all the time and due to the laws of physics they can only grow at a certain speed.

As I have already said many times, God made everything about creation up and running, each part as it was needed to be so that all the creatures might live on it or in it. Were you and your instruments stood on the place on say the eighth day and cut down a tree what would you have found? The tree having rings that to your knowledge made it older than creation time and it would be the same for any other thing you experimented on. Adam was a full grown man as Eve was a woman, so were the birds, fishes, cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, horses, elephants or any other makings, each to its own kind and each suited to its environment. No-one ever said that everything started off as babies or saplings or just root penetration.

I'm glad you admitted it: so all of science is just a practical joke by your god, there is no such thing as reality.

Again the thing is no scientist knows what the earth was like before the flood or what volumes of water it could absorb but what is sure is that God says that everything was covered to a depth of 22/25 feet telling us that there certainly was a great change because of the effects of the flood because we can see them now. Why you keep mentioning 2,600 years ago but that is obviously quite wrong in itself, how? Because there are three fourteen generations from Adam to Jesus Christ so the flood by calculation was the end of the first fourteen leaving two further fourteen generations which mathematically proves your assumption wrong. Adam and Noah's father were contemporaries the former dying sometime before the flood. That would make it around three to four thousand odd years ago plus of course the two thousand since Jesus' death and resurrection if I am correct.

2,600 bc is the traditional biblical estimation (a guess) of the flood. But we know it didn't happen, there are literally mountains of evidence that debunk this myth.

Well since the flood happened and we are still here, everything working as it should albeit in a fallen way, I think that lays to rest the above.

Except the global flood didn't and couldn't happen, even allowing for your magic and miracle nonsense the flood would have destroyed the earth irreversibly, but it didn't: so it didn't happen. The end

At the time of Cush, Semiramis and Ninus, Noah perhaps still being alive, certainly Shem, mankind was scattered along with his language all over the planet. All of them knew about the flood and so the memories of it would be orally or even in writing passed down through the generations and because it was such an important event it stayed in the minds of each generation albeit somewhat altered in many respects. Nonetheless it is there.

So that's your evidence? You prefer the break the laws of every science discipline in favour of giving heed to anecdotes and the tales of fish-wives. I guess that sums up your position.

As for the localisation, what with time, wind and weather many of the effects would be covered up, built upon and populated so that what the geologist actually sees now is from isolated but definite portions of the planet.

They cannot be covered up. Every flood that has ever happened has left evidence. When the Nile flooded 9,000 years ago we can see the evidence and date it with accuracy again and again and again, when the land bridge between our two counties was covered up with water we can date it and map it's progression over thousands of years by using the principles of geology again and again it gives the same answer. There is nothing about this global flood of yours. If we can see all these relatively tiny floods (and I mean hundreds of thousands of them over a massive time-frame) what are the odds that the evidence of your supposed flood would magically disappear, perhaps your god is playing another practical joke? Maybe he finds it amusing to mislead so many people for no reason.

What you are not taking into effect is that during the flood, tectonic effects must have run alongside the water rising up from the deep and yes forming volcanic action that would have been slowed in the cementation by the waters, this already seen in Hawai on a day to day basis. We know it took a year for the water to recede, plenty of time for magma being hardened where mountains were formed but what you forget is that these mountains weren't necessarily made totally of magma, rather the already formed crust. Indeed there might well have been no volcanic activity at all when and where they were formed. Another example of volcanic creation is the Island of Surtse which began in my lifetime and is still growing without any billions of years to do so for I am only talking of some fifty years at most give or take a few.

You're missing the point: the quantity and speed would have destroyed the planet. It is simply physically impossible for tectonic plates to move at that speed and stay intact, this has been demonstrated on the small scale, if it happened on a large scale there would be nothing that could have survived, the sea would boil, the ark would burn, the sky would rain fire and ash the sun would be blotted from view for a thousand years. And that's even excluding what the extra water would do.

Ararat, the range, that the Ark rested on is a volcanic range yet when the Ark was opened there was no indication of heat from the land, so inside that year when they were formed they were also cooled by the waters that covered them until it receded. Today it is devoid of much water. How you might ask is that possible? Well as Jesus Himself said, " Nothing is impossible with God." There is every indication that an ice age began almost after the flood resided and if that were so then it itself would add to the solidifying of the rocks. So when you say these things are impossible not only do I disagree with you for Jesus Christ does too and He being the Creator should know, don't you think?

Your interpretation of the bible is demonstrably incompatible with reality. I never said anything about god. God could still exist with demonstrable reality, just not what you imagine to be god/god's actions.

[Copperknickers II]

I see that this Pope has come out to say that the church, Roman Catholic, has got it wrong concerning the birth time of Jesus Christ. What kept them? One only had to see the date of the death of Herod and count back to the investigated time of Messias advent to arrive at that conclusion.

That king had all his experts working along with the knowledge that the three visitors brought to realise that Jesus was anything up to two years of age making His birth at around 6BC. Therefore when He died and rose again that would place Him very much in the forty years old bracket, a very Biblical number, one that I personally have held for most of my conversion time fortified by the forty days from his death to Pentecost if I am not mistaken.

Therefore when the wise men actually saw Him he wasn't a babe in a manger, rather a toddler dodging around His parents as toddlers do. So all the nonsense built up upon nativity scenes are just that, untruths which leave children with the wrong impressions altogether. It paints a false picture of the seriousness surrounding what was one of the world's most important events, why? Because it has turned the event into an idol in the minds of those that celebrate Christmas.

To children what is given them is what they will believe actually took place when in fact it never did and religion feeds on it whether Romish or anything else in the Christian system. I don't find it offensive to give presents as these men were written to have done, but place it in the right setting by telling children the truth from start to finish. That way the link between the wise men and their gifts correspond to the gifts St Nicholas, Santa Claus, emulated when he did the same for children in his time.

So, what do you guys think?

I'm not sure telling the truth is a good idea. I mean, I don't think it would go down very well in the Vatican if the Pope were to make a speech saying:

'I am an atavistic chauvinist leading an organisation whose main aim over the past 1500 years has been to oppress poor people by making them believe a load of nonsense about a man from 2000 years ago being the son of a non-existent god, written about in a book compiled by people who never actually met him based mostly on Babylonian mythology, and detailing a host of unpleasant bronze age moral edicts and rubbish about bringing the dead back to life.'

[basics]

" 'I am an atavistic chauvinist leading an organisation whose main aim over the past 1500 years has been to oppress poor people by making them believe a load of nonsense about a man from 2000 years ago being the son of a non-existent god, written about in a book compiled by people who never actually met him based mostly on Babylonian mythology, and detailing a host of unpleasant bronze age moral edicts and rubbish about bringing the dead back to life.' "

Copperknickers II,

Since these are not any Pope's words we must assume that they are your own thoughts and from that there is a basis for a good reply. First off, from the very first definitive words of creation we see the Godhead at work in it. That is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and couple that with the prophecies and the visions seen throughout the Old Covenant Scriptures we eventually arrive at the birth of the One prophesied about. That birth was wriiten of by men who did have experience of both living with or around Him and witnessing what had been prophesied of. Since Israel was built upon signs and wonders it was quite appropriate that He did many so that Israel could see who in fact He was.

Babylon only came about after the flood and its religion was based on the Gospel carried into the new world by Noah and greatly twisted so that Nimrod or Ninus was made the " seed " promised in the garden by God Himself, that " seed " being Jesus Christ. The problem with your assertion is that no Babylonian claim can go back to creation itself because it wasn't there then. One other factor is that Jesus goes on and on but where is your Babylonian counterfeit?

When Jesus was approached by the Baptist's followers and asked who He was, He replied, " Tell John that the blind see, the lame walk and the dead are raised," my words but essentially the same as is written, so that what John preached was authenticated by what was being done in the name of the Kingdom of God. And when the Baptist was asked to baptise Jesus, he John, knew that prophesy was about to be fulfilled before his very eyes. Out of the waters He rose in type of what was to happen in reality. And the father declared Him to be His Son in whom He was very pleased, why? Because the declaration had been laid down, the cross a certainty and life after death promoted by Him rising from it.

These were all things recorded by witnesses who saw what happened and by their own experience had the same happen to them at Pentecost. By that I mean that through His rising from the dead, they too had that surety built in by the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit. They could write of Lazarus without any shadow of doubt that he was raised from the dead but that in itself was only a precursor to what Jesus Christ would do for all that He died and rose again for. Lazarus was a sign to Israel but Jesus was a sign to all mankind that the soul is immortal but its journey subject to regeneration before death comes.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

^First Babylonian dynasty was in the 3rd millenium BC, Noah and his ark was later (according to your earlier claim). The Babylonians believed in the religious practice of the Chaldeans.

The first thing you should notice about the story of Noah... He lived to the age of 950 and then conclude -without reading further- that it's a fairy tale.

[basics]

" First Babylonian dynasty was in the 3rd millenium BC, Noah and his ark was later (according to your earlier claim). The Babylonians believed in the religious practice of the Chaldeans."


Aeneas Veneratio,

Ninus or Nimrod is the accepted founder of cities, the chiefest of which is Babylon and when his apostasy reached heights that Shem could not accept, he was killed and after he was killed Cush and Semiramis made him the " seed " promised by God years before in the garden of Eden. The religion that grew from that was called the Chaldean Mysteries. Out of that came all the other false religions of the world based on the same storyline but with the hero being called other names of which most can be rooted back to the original, Ninus or Nimrod. See Hyslop's Two Babylons for linguistic evidence for that.

Since the flood came upon man at the end of the first fourteen generation cycle and all were killed off apart from Noah and his family then that is where the mathematically minded must begin if one wants an approximate date of the flood. There are certain Jews who apperently can work their lineage back to him and in the New Testament Jude writes of some that can trace their lineage all the way back to Adam, obviously through Noah. To my knowledge I have never expressed a dating but I have expressed what is written in the word of God by the three fourteen generations until Jesus' advent.

The Bible speaks of both Cush, whose name means confounder, and Semiramis, called the whore of Babylon whose beauty and skullduggery made men drunk with her wine, the wine being in my opinion the false religion that people all over the then known world gladly accepted. According to Hyslop it was Cush who was the instigator, the one with the idea of deifying Nimrod and from the evidence brought out he was then negroid like his grandfather Ham, son of Noah. As the other religions grew these features were replaced by what we see in all the myths now in that negroid Ninus has been replaced by a caucasian white hero.

The big question is why did the world accept Ninus as being the promised " seed. " Quite simply the answer is that when Noah and family began to grow so too did the Gospel that they brought with them. It was fresh in their minds seen by the fact that Noah built an altar to God after he stepped onto dry land and this was passed on to the generations as they came forth. That Cush was a grandson of that man that must have carried great weight on those around him and obviously so it did when Nimrod paid for his apostasy with his life.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

^

Ninus (Greek: Νίνος), according to Greek historians writing in the Hellenistic period and later, was accepted as the eponymous founder of Nineveh (also called Νίνου πόλις "city of Ninus" in Greek), Ancient capital of Assyria, although he does not seem to represent any one personage known to modern history, and is more likely a conflation of several real and/or fictional figures of antiquity, as seen to the Greeks through the mists of time.

I can only find biblical sources on Nimrod, meaning there is no other sources to back up the claims presented in the Bible.

Founding of Babylon

Classical dating

Ctesias, who is quoted by Diodorus Siculus and in George Syncellus's Chronographia, claimed to have access to manuscripts from Babylonian archives which date the founding of Babylon to 2286 BC by Belus who reigned as Babylon's first king for fifty five years.[5] Another figure is from Simplicius,[6] who recorded that Callisthenes in the 4th century BC travelled to Babylon and discovered astronomical observations on cuneiform tablets stretching back 1903 years before the taking of Babylon by Alexander the Great in 331 BC. This makes the sum 1903 + 331 which equals 2234 BC as the founding date for Babylon. A similar figure is found in Berossus, who according to Pliny,[7] stated that astronomical observations commenced at Babylon 490 years before the Greek era of Phoroneus, and consequently in 2243 BC. Stephanus of Byzantium, wrote that Babylon was built 1002 years before the date (given by Hellanicus of Mytilene) for the siege of Troy (1229 BC), which would dates Babylon's foundation to 2231 BC.[8] All of these dates place Babylon's foundation in the 23rd century BC; however, since the decipherment of cuneiform in recent centuries, cuneiform records have not been found to correspond with such classical (post-cuneiform) accounts.

Stop with the fairy tale of Noah's Ark... it has already been debunked.

This is how the Humans are believed to have spread across the planet. Floods might have (/probably) occured locally, but nothing in the scale of a flood covering all of the planet.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To my knowledge some have and still their findings are not acceptable to a system that has it in its head that evolution is factual. When you talk of pseudo-science what you really mean is all science because if what is said about it must be experimental then how can that be the case since no scientist was there when the flood or creation took place. Evolution is an assumption whilst God's word comes directly from the Creator and Him who made the flood. But it's a case of who or what you believe.

I really think every standup comedian in the World could learn a lot from you... The existence of some creator is also an assumption.

Earth through time - feel free to place your flood myth, Noah, Nimbod, Kaninus, etc.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Evolution!

The big question is why did the world accept Ninus as being the promised

The majority of living beings on Earth didn't accept anything, they just didn't care. And, big question to whom exactly?

[basics]

" I really think every standup comedian in the World could learn a lot from you... The existence of some creator is also an assumption."

Aeneas Veneratio,

Not everyone because the late comedian Roy Castle was also a born again Christian but if any want to come onto these threads then yes, they might learn something. Didn't expect that answer eh?

No, the existence of the Creator is being evidenced by all the sinners who are being brought to Him even as I write something for which you can only put down to some medical malady. Your opinion of that therefore is the assumption.

" The majority of living beings on Earth didn't accept anything, they just didn't care. And, big question to whom exactly? "

And you were around to see all that? Surprisingly One was around and had it written of. That's why we have a Bible of some sixty odd books written by a little fewer in number. What the last bit is I cannot grasp, but no doubt you can expand on it so that I can answer.

However, Peter writes that the world then was full of mockers, that being the case then they obviously knew of the predictions. The reason they didn't care if that was how it was would be because as Peter said, they kept asking where is this " seed " that was promised and as He was not evident to them they mocked the very idea just as you do now. It is a case of you not having any so why should you believe that others do.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

" I really think every standup comedian in the World could learn a lot from you... The existence of some creator is also an assumption."

Aeneas Veneratio,

Not everyone because the late comedian Roy Castle was also a born again Christian but if any want to come onto these threads then yes, they might learn something. Didn't expect that answer eh?

They would learn a lot about indoctrination and use it for jokes... Not really in a way that would make it a compliment to you.

No, the existence of the Creator is being evidenced by all the sinners who are being brought to Him even as I write something for which you can only put down to some medical malady. Your opinion of that therefore is the assumption.

PROOFS! You don't know, what happens to a dead person. Your claim is as much an assumption as a claim of "medical malady", what ever the Iblis that is.

" The majority of living beings on Earth didn't accept anything, they just didn't care. And, big question to whom exactly? "

And you were around to see all that? Surprisingly One was around and had it written of. That's why we have a Bible of some sixty odd books written by a little fewer in number. What the last bit is I cannot grasp, but no doubt you can expand on it so that I can answer.

One historical source... You need more than one source to say anything with certainty of, what transpired during some time in history. The people in Europe, the Americas, most of Asia, Oceania and most of Africa didn't care enough to even mention it in their historical writings.
Last part "What the last bit is I cannot grasp" was about you claiming it was a big question, why "the World accepted Ninus". Big question for whom, exactly? Who cares? Seeing as I also found this part about Ninus, I seriously doubt anyone cares. Requoting...

Ninus (Greek: Νίνος), according to Greek historians writing in the Hellenistic period and later, was accepted as the eponymous founder of Nineveh (also called Νίνου πόλις "city of Ninus" in Greek), Ancient capital of Assyria, although he does not seem to represent any one personage known to modern history, and is more likely a conflation of several real and/or fictional figures of antiquity, as seen to the Greeks through the mists of time.

However, Peter writes that the world then was full of mockers, that being the case then they obviously knew of the predictions. The reason they didn't care if that was how it was would be because as Peter said, they kept asking where is this " seed " that was promised and as He was not evident to them they mocked the very idea just as you do now. It is a case of you not having any so why should you believe that others do.

The World will always be full of mockers/intelligent people, who will keep asking questions to the homeschooled, indoctrinated and blind followers. Just because Peter said something doesn't make it true.

I see that you gave up on the Noah fairy tale and the flood after I posted those images of human migration out of Africa and Earth through time. Seems like I just need to keep posting images, instead of refuting your claims by mere words...interesting!

Yours in science and logic
Aeneas

[basics]

" They would learn a lot about indoctrination and use it for jokes... Not really in a way that would make it a compliment to you."

Aeneas Veneratio,

Only if they hadn't had the experience that all born again Christians have had.

" PROOFS! You don't know, what happens to a dead person. Your claim is as much an assumption as a claim of "medical malady", what ever the Iblis that is."

So, when Jesus appeared to the disciples and others amounting to a few hundred, four if memory serves me, that is not proof enough for you? In each generation as is written from the fall of man and the exclusion from the garden, people have been brought to God by God and that process has never stopped. Now if that alone can't penetrate your thoughts how can you claim to be wise? Perhaps it's another wonder that evolution throws up?

I mean if survival of the fittest is the in thing then the church of the living God has to be at the top of the tree of life if only because all the peoples like yourself liking to kill it off have never succeeded and won't, why? Because you are dealing with God.

" One historical source... You need more than one source to say anything with certainty of, what transpired during some time in history. The people in Europe, the Americas, most of Asia, Oceania and most of Africa didn't care enough to even mention it in their historical writings. "

Not true! Each of them has religiosity built into their past and the most powerful of their times also wrote of it in their peculiar manner. As I said have a read of Hyslop's Two Babylons for the many expert rooting of these things.

" Last part "What the last bit is I cannot grasp" was about you claiming it was a big question, why "the World accepted Ninus". Big question for whom, exactly? Who cares? Seeing as I also found this part about Ninus, I seriously doubt anyone cares. "

Got it now. OK let's look at the situation then. Nimrod had become a mighty hunter as Scripture says but Hyslop puts more meat on the bones when he says that Nimrod or Ninus, not only did that but raised small armies to take over land and build fortifications on it egged on by his father Cush, son of Ham. His reputation spread and so people looked up to him and obviously it went to his head because he was killed for his apostasy reputedly by Shem his great uncle and parts of his body were displayed around the growing towns and cities as a warning to others.

Cush and Semiramis, Ninus's wife, using the prophecy saw advantage here. Make him a god according to the promise and what power across the regions was to be had. So it was that Nimrod or Ninus was deified bringing into existence the first false religion called the Chaldean Mysteries starting off as an underground system because of Shem's warning. The thing grew because man then thought as he does now that man was the all important thing, God being pretty much unseen and unheard then to the fallen race, with Noah and Shem being the exception man preferred to give credence to Ninus. They believed that he was their saviour.

You keep stressing that you doubt if anyone cared or cares even now and there is a great deal of truth in what you say. The message continues and man continues to ignore it. The flood came and no-one cared why Noah was building a huge rectangular monstrosity for months before it came. The people of Soddom and Gomorrah hadn't a care when God was about to punish them. Death is at hand all the time and people just think that it won't be them until it is too late, why? As you say they don't care.

" The World will always be full of mockers/intelligent people, who will keep asking questions to the homeschooled, indoctrinated and blind followers. Just because Peter said something doesn't make it true."

Well, Moses was said to be the greatest mind in all Egypt and he cared just as Paul was Jesus' church's great enemy but once experiencing Christ he cared counting all his earlier learning as dung. Peter I'm sure put his mouth where it shouldn't have been many times but once Pentecost's Spirit fell on him it was quite a different story, why? Because God's power was behind him, in him. All these men were counted as reasonably to super intelligent but not enough for God as we can see. You see God sees what you call intelligence as foolishness and I can understand why?

" I see that you gave up on the Noah fairy tale and the flood after I posted those images of human migration out of Africa and Earth through time. Seems like I just need to keep posting images, instead of refuting your claims by mere words...interesting!"

No, I ignored what man assumes to be the spread of man across the world, why? Because it comes via the imagination and not what is written. It's a bit like the other trees that are fed to children, single cells to humans, geologic columns etc, pure assumption based on what? You say the flood didn't happen. God says it did and I believe God. But then the Creation Science movement has hundreds of scientists who all must hold Masters Degrees to be members that would correct you and your evolutionary delusion so it's not a case of me and God but me and men of science believing that God's way is the most probable way that life came about. These men believe the flood was actual.

[Colossus]

[Aeneas Veneratio]

" They would learn a lot about indoctrination and use it for jokes... Not really in a way that would make it a compliment to you."

Only if they hadn't had the experience that all born again Christians have had.

Assumptions...

" PROOFS! You don't know, what happens to a dead person. Your claim is as much an assumption as a claim of "medical malady", what ever the Iblis that is."

So, when Jesus appeared to the disciples and others amounting to a few hundred, four if memory serves me, that is not proof enough for you? In each generation as is written from the fall of man and the exclusion from the garden, people have been brought to God by God and that process has never stopped. Now if that alone can't penetrate your thoughts how can you claim to be wise? Perhaps it's another wonder that evolution throws up?

Assumptions... Written words don't make a claim valid, if the stories are just fiction.

I mean if survival of the fittest is the in thing then the church of the living God has to be at the top of the tree of life if only because all the peoples like yourself liking to kill it off have never succeeded and won't, why? Because you are dealing with God.

Your god can blow me... No one has ever proven that he (or she) exists!

" One historical source... You need more than one source to say anything with certainty of, what transpired during some time in history. The people in Europe, the Americas, most of Asia, Oceania and most of Africa didn't care enough to even mention it in their historical writings. "

Not true! Each of them has religiosity built into their past and the most powerful of their times also wrote of it in their peculiar manner. As I said have a read of Hyslop's Two Babylons for the many expert rooting of these things.

Other religious IMAGINATIONS, which doesn't make any of them truthful. Several of them with more than one deity.

" Last part "What the last bit is I cannot grasp" was about you claiming it was a big question, why "the World accepted Ninus". Big question for whom, exactly? Who cares? Seeing as I also found this part about Ninus, I seriously doubt anyone cares. "

Got it now. OK let's look at the situation then. Nimrod had become a mighty hunter as Scripture says but Hyslop puts more meat on the bones when he says that Nimrod or Ninus, not only did that but raised small armies to take over land and build fortifications on it egged on by his father Cush, son of Ham. His reputation spread and so people looked up to him and obviously it went to his head because he was killed for his apostasy reputedly by Shem his great uncle and parts of his body were displayed around the growing towns and cities as a warning to others.

Cush and Semiramis, Ninus's wife, using the prophecy saw advantage here. Make him a god according to the promise and what power across the regions was to be had. So it was that Nimrod or Ninus was deified bringing into existence the first false religion called the Chaldean Mysteries starting off as an underground system because of Shem's warning. The thing grew because man then thought as he does now that man was the all important thing, God being pretty much unseen and unheard then to the fallen race, with Noah and Shem being the exception man preferred to give credence to Ninus. They believed that he was their saviour.

You keep stressing that you doubt if anyone cared or cares even now and there is a great deal of truth in what you say. The message continues and man continues to ignore it. The flood came and no-one cared why Noah was building a huge rectangular monstrosity for months before it came. The people of Soddom and Gomorrah hadn't a care when God was about to punish them. Death is at hand all the time and people just think that it won't be them until it is too late, why? As you say they don't care.

Flood didn't happen. Ninus' existence has not been proven by several (and unbias) sources. Nimrod's life is only written of in the Bible and therefore without enough unbias source material to be backed up.

" The World will always be full of mockers/intelligent people, who will keep asking questions to the homeschooled, indoctrinated and blind followers. Just because Peter said something doesn't make it true."

Well, Moses was said to be the greatest mind in all Egypt and he cared just as Paul was Jesus' church's great enemy but once experiencing Christ he cared counting all his earlier learning as dung. Peter I'm sure put his mouth where it shouldn't have been many times but once Pentecost's Spirit fell on him it was quite a different story, why? Because God's power was behind him, in him. All these men were counted as reasonably to super intelligent but not enough for God as we can see. You see God sees what you call intelligence as foolishness and I can understand why?

Moses could read, write and probably speak several languages. I know several people capable of the same thing, I still wouldn't trust everything they said or wrote without proper analysis, rationalization and/or scientific peer-review.

" I see that you gave up on the Noah fairy tale and the flood after I posted those images of human migration out of Africa and Earth through time. Seems like I just need to keep posting images, instead of refuting your claims by mere words...interesting!"

No, I ignored what man assumes to be the spread of man across the world, why? Because it comes via the imagination and not what is written. It's a bit like the other trees that are fed to children, single cells to humans, geologic columns etc, pure assumption based on what? You say the flood didn't happen. God says it did and I believe God. But then the Creation Science movement has hundreds of scientists who all must hold Masters Degrees to be members that would correct you and your evolutionary delusion so it's not a case of me and God but me and men of science believing that God's way is the most probable way that life came about. These men believe the flood was actual.

Most probable way? HAHAHAHAHA!! Written... Those things that "man believes" have also been written down in countless numbers of books.
God didn't say anything in the Bible... The Bible is based on WITNESS ACCOUNTS by mere mortals. Only the Quran is believed to be god speaking through Muhammed.

Yours in science and logic,
Aeneas

PS Your quoting style is rather archaic...

[Ciabhán]

Come on folks everyone knows arguing with basics will never get one anywhere. Anyone that can completely ignore what his own senses tell him in favour of millenia old stories is not going to be swayed. Just give it a rest.

Basics mate you really need to drop the archaic mystic-evangelical speech pattern thing. Maybe it's part of the born-again handbook because it lends power to your words when speaking to the lonely, desperate and easily awed but when typed it just makes it painful to read throught your posts. Especially for those of us who are not the target audience.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Come on folks everyone knows arguing with basics will never get one anywhere. Anyone that can completely ignore what his own senses tell him in favour of millenia old stories is not going to be swayed. Just give it a rest.

Basics mate you really need to drop the archaic mystic-evangelical speech pattern thing. Maybe it's part of the born-again handbook because it lends power to your words when speaking to the lonely, desperate and easily awed but when typed it just makes it painful to read throught your posts. Especially for those of us who are not the target audience.

This. A thousand times this.

[Carl Jung was right]

Hey didn't Jesus settle in Japan, get married to some swag babes and live until 106? I wonder when we'll hear the Popsicle admit to that.

[basics]

" Assumptions... Written words don't make a claim valid, if the stories are just fiction."

Aeneas Veneratio,

Now that's an assumption if ever there was one. The Babylonian stories are true because the Babylonians wrote them but the stories of Moses are not true because God happened to command him to write them. And because you don't know God, He then mustn't exist, another assumption.

" Your god can blow me... No one has ever proven that he (or she) exists!"

Our God, note that, our God will blow you... away into outer darkness and perpetual torment sooner than you think. So, I suppose that what has been written about God being seen by Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, as well as all the disciples and many more might prove something to you but not to them, another assumption.

" Other religious IMAGINATIONS, which doesn't make any of them truthful. Several of them with more than one deity."

Yes some had more than one deity shown by the elevation of Semiramis herself. But the point is that all of them concern someone dying for their people just as God said about the "seed" Jesus Christ in the garden immediately the fall took place. They replaced Jesus with one of their own.

" Flood didn't happen. Ninus' existence has not been proven by several (and unbias) sources. Nimrod's life is only written of in the Bible and therefore without enough unbias source material to be backed up."

Oh, but it did. And as far as Ninus, Nimrod, is concerned take a look at Hyslop's Two Babylons to see all the expert expositions regarding that man. Therefore you are quite wrong in saying that only the Bible mentions him.

" Moses could read, write and probably speak several languages. I know several people capable of the same thing, I still wouldn't trust everything they said or wrote without proper analysis, rationalization and/or scientific peer-review."

But we are not talking about your peers, rather about the man whom God called out to write down how we came about for the benefit then of the Israelites and today, us. If you don't mind me saying so, you appear to be just like them, why? Because anyone who believes that nothing can make something all by itself has to be a penny short of a shilling.

" God didn't say anything in the Bible... The Bible is based on WITNESS ACCOUNTS by mere mortals. Only the Quran is believed to be god speaking through Muhammed."

Yet Jesus Christ said that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that cometh from out of the mouth of God. Peter said that all Scripture is God breathed so, where does that leave you and your assertion? Jesus believed that Genesis was God breathed as was the rest of Scripture, you not only makes another assumption on your part.

" Most probable way? HAHAHAHAHA!! Written... Those things that "man believes" have also been written down in countless numbers of books "

I kept that for last because each one of these scientists by their research cannot see the evolutionary model as being how life came about. My own assertion is that there is no evolutionary model because no evolutionist can ever establish how it is that nothing can make something all by itself. As Jesus said to Paul, why do you strive against the current that is God? My words but nonetheless the very same meaning. All you're doing is kicking the wind, making blind, note that, blind assumption for which science has no answer to.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Despite the warning above, I assume I am honour-bound to continue this path of refuting more illogical claims...
Seriously basics, you really need to learn, how to quote properly...

" Assumptions... Written words don't make a claim valid, if the stories are just fiction."

Now that's an assumption if ever there was one. The Babylonian stories are true because the Babylonians wrote them but the stories of Moses are not true because God happened to command him to write them. And because you don't know God, He then mustn't exist, another assumption.

Fine, THERE ARE TWO GIANTS LIVING IN A CAVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE MOON, when they make love it causes landslides in China. Now, because that is written, it is the truth.

" Your god can blow me... No one has ever proven that he (or she) exists!"

Our God, note that, our God will blow you... away into outer darkness and perpetual torment sooner than you think. So, I suppose that what has been written about God being seen by Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, as well as all the disciples and many more might prove something to you but not to them, another assumption.

At least that would get me away from you... Your god... Your god being the one written of in the bible and I highly doubt - should a supernatural being exist - that the "real" one would be anything like the biblical version.
Adam and Eve had two sons, one son killed the other and got exiled... how did mankind come from that? Your bible says nothing of Adam and Eve having more children, and Kain couldn't reproduce all by himself.
Your god, apparently, created me with the intention of having me questioning everything, so I will see you in your heaven.

" Other religious IMAGINATIONS, which doesn't make any of them truthful. Several of them with more than one deity."

Yes some had more than one deity shown by the elevation of Semiramis herself. But the point is that all of them concern someone dying for their people just as God said about the "seed" Jesus Christ in the garden immediately the fall took place. They replaced Jesus with one of their own.

Nice story to tell your children before they sleep, right after the story about the Easter bunny and Santa.

" Flood didn't happen. Ninus' existence has not been proven by several (and unbias) sources. Nimrod's life is only written of in the Bible and therefore without enough unbias source material to be backed up."

Oh, but it did. And as far as Ninus, Nimrod, is concerned take a look at Hyslop's Two Babylons to see all the expert expositions regarding that man. Therefore you are quite wrong in saying that only the Bible mentions him.

Experts...?
Ninus (Greek: Νίνος), according to Greek historians writing in the Hellenistic period and later, was accepted as the eponymous founder of Nineveh (also called Νίνου πόλις "city of Ninus" in Greek), Ancient capital of Assyria, although he does not seem to represent any one personage known to modern history, and is more likely a conflation of several real and/or fictional figures of antiquity, as seen to the Greeks through the mists of time.
Nimrod: Found only in the bible and I don't trust that without corroborating evidence to support it.
Flood: No, it didn't. Earth was "flooded" (technically, it's impossible to flood land that isn't there yet) prior to the forming of the land masses and the continent of Pangea, but not since, at least not in that scale.

" Moses could read, write and probably speak several languages. I know several people capable of the same thing, I still wouldn't trust everything they said or wrote without proper analysis, rationalization and/or scientific peer-review."

But we are not talking about your peers, rather about the man whom God called out to write down how we came about for the benefit then of the Israelites and today, us. If you don't mind me saying so, you appear to be just like them, why? Because anyone who believes that nothing can make something all by itself has to be a penny short of a shilling.

You claim your god called out to him, there is still no reason to believe that. I could claim Thor called out to me, leaving you with no choice, but to believe me - according to your logic. "Oh, right, got it! Thanks, Master!" Thor just said that he just killed your god after a duel that took 500 years... Well done, Thor! I will drink in your honour tonight!
You claim your god came out of nothing, what's the difference? At least, I got plenty of crowns (hurrah for using your own currency!).

" God didn't say anything in the Bible... The Bible is based on WITNESS ACCOUNTS by mere mortals. Only the Quran is believed to be god speaking through Muhammed."

Yet Jesus Christ said that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that cometh from out of the mouth of God. Peter said that all Scripture is God breathed so, where does that leave you and your assertion? Jesus believed that Genesis was God breathed as was the rest of Scripture, you not only makes another assumption on your part.

More assumptions... Any man can say he had contact with a god. It doesn't really qualify it as proof. Your god is rather weak, if he can't speak out to a whole town, city, nation, continent or every human being at the same time. Personally, if I wanted people to know about me, I would get in touch with a lot more people at the same time, instead of using one man there, and another man there, oh and that guy there.

" Most probable way? HAHA!! Written... Those things that "man believes" have also been written down in countless numbers of books "

I kept that for last because each one of these scientists by their research cannot see the evolutionary model as being how life came about. My own assertion is that there is no evolutionary model because no evolutionist can ever establish how it is that nothing can make something all by itself. As Jesus said to Paul, why do you strive against the current that is God? My words but nonetheless the very same meaning. All you're doing is kicking the wind, making blind, note that, blind assumption for which science has no answer to.

Evolution is about the complexity of life, not how it came to be. That's a whole other scientific field (Abiogenesis and some other name that escapes me at this moment).

At least, science brought us out of the cave, gave us fire, gave us the knowledge to use crops/plants for food and medicine, gave us the knowledge to heal a broken body, gave us knowledge to build ships and how to use the wind to sail, gave us the wheel, gave us the knowledge to build houses, etc. Every invention has, is and will always be due to SCIENCE.
All your god has given us is... wait for it... wait for it... actually, I not sure, the Egyptians, the Gauls, the Assyrians, the Hittites, the Japanese, the Romans (they did most of their legendary work and conquest prior to being Christened), the Scandivanians and a lot of other unchristian people achieved a lot without believing in your god. I guess, Christianity can be credited for a lot of good things in regards to architecture, but the rest didn't really depend on your religion. It did give us another reason for killing eachother... Different beliefs, what an awesome casus belli.

Want a truce? I'm getting tired of refuting your tales.
You acknowledge the existence of Thor (being a deity of superior strength to your deity) and I will acknowledge that your god exists, deal?

[basics]

"^First Babylonian dynasty was in the 3rd millenium BC, Noah and his ark was later (according to your earlier claim). The Babylonians believed in the religious practice of the Chaldeans. The first thing you should notice about the story of Noah... He lived to the age of 950 and then conclude -without reading further- that it's a fairy tale."

Aeneas Veneratio,

First off, my old friend, is that if the Bible is the word of God, and, the Old Testament was seen as such by the Lord Jesus and His disciples, then we must accept what it lays down as being what actually happened since, if there is a God, He obviously cannot lie. So, what does it say, the word that is? Well in the beginning at creation, the world He created was covered by water. There was no land to be seen. Then it is written that God raised up land, the water replacing where that came from and the rest raised into the sky which stayed there until the flood.

So, the world then was quite different to the world now. It's inhabitants lived to a greater age under that mantle and where water was needed it was provided by a mist that rose up from the land. The people now fallen made what they could of their lives but did that according to the lusts of their fallen hearts which did not please God at all so He decided to begin life all again with the exception of Noah and his family plus the numbers allocated from the other kinds.

The land we must assume because of what is written did not have the high mountain ranges that we see now at that time because when the flood waters covered the land they did so to the height of some twenty odd feet over the very top. That water had fallen from the mantle and had sprung back up from the depths from where it had replaced the gaps left by the raising of the land. So again we see all the planet coverd by water until all the living things were dead apart from them inside the Ark.

Perhaps the thing not elaborated on yet is quite obvious to geologists is that catastrophic activity began when the waters began to recede. The sheer power of them returning in greater volume back under the land caused great earthquakes and plate distortion whilst at the same time carving out great chasms on the surface which resulted in things like the Grand Canyon all across the planet. Mud and silt was on the move in huge quantities like nothing ever seen before plus great mountain ranges were sprung up under the pressure. This geologists can see quite clearly, but only if that is what they want to see, the evidence being quite clear.

That is the world that Noah and sons found when they stood once again on dry land. It wasn't the world they had before, nor would it remain that way ever again as plate and earthquake activity continues even into our day. So, at that time there was only the family of Noah, no-one else and from him came peoples who spread across the land to make homes, villages, towns and then cities which you refer to. Noah, Shem, Ham and Japeth were the fathers of these and the accepted language was Chaldean/Aramaic until Nimrod also known as Ninus broke away to form what is called the apostasy. That by the way was third generation from Noah still alive at the time. Ham begat Cush who begat Nimrod.

It was at this time the apostasy sought to build themselves into heaven with a tower and the time when God reacted, Shem killing Nimrod and God dispersing that people all across the globe diversifying their language into the bargain. Linguistic experts have been acknowledging all this for very many centuries and Hislop's Two Babylons gives great detail of how and when these things occurred. The Bible having a greater interest does not elaborate on the things that glorify unbelief, rather concentrates on the things that bring belief so we are left to discover from other sources the strength of the apostasy. This we interpret as mythology.

So, I put it to you and all the others who think like you, given that Moses was commanded to write these things down for the Israelites in particular and us eventually, why would it be a lie? What purpose would it serve? I mean what was the sense of having all those prophets whose prophecies would come true in Jesus Christ if it were lies? Is that some trick that evolution once again proposes like it proposes nothing making something that resulted in all of us? Come on people, if you cannot see the wood for the trees at least acknowledge that what was written has come true in Jesus Christ.

Face it, there was no big bang, no geologic column and no transitional fossils to make any record other than the record that is the Bible for where we came from and what we are. What's so funny is that whist you lot are still adamantly searching for them, God, yes God, is still building His church all around you. Time my friends is not on your side. You just don't have it. That is what is written according to the prophets, to Jesus Christ and now that same church whose body He is Head of. When Jesus asked the disciples who they thought He was it was God who put the very words into their mouths. He is the Rock on which all things stand otherwise all is but sand. Is that really where you want to stand?

[Diocle]

If the rabbi of Nazareth might watch at the Church today he would kill himself on the spot for sure!

[Colossus]

Basics, you are just wasting time with such a lengthy post when the whole thing is just begging the question; it pretty much says 'if the bible is the word of God, it must be true, because it's the word of God'.