FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


THE WORLD WILL END IN 2012...





HalfBloodPrince
...is what the Mayans believed. Can someone please shed some light on me as to who they were, where they got this belief (which I don't support, of course), when they were, etc...?

Please don't just give me a link, I don't want to read articles, just summarize it here please.
HereticMonkey
The quick version, then: The Mayan calendar was based on huge cycles of time, with destruction and rebirth at the end of period. However, there was a definite to the cycles, where the world will be no more, finally destroyed with no rebirth. This last cycle ends Decemeber 2011 (or 2012, depending on who says it, but it's usually 2011)...

HM
rvec
the mayas don't think the world will be destroyed. They think a new cycle starts, and when it does there will be big changes which will destroy a lot at first but that's needed to make it better.
HalfBloodPrince
Oh...this may be a stupid question, but are there Mayans today? I don't mean Mayan-fanatics, I mean real ones..?
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Oh...this may be a stupid question, but are there Mayans today? I don't mean Mayan-fanatics, I mean real ones..?


Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_peoples
Soulfire
Their calendar ends on the winter solstice. The Mayans were obsessed with timekeeping, and extremely good at it, so I think it's valid that something big may happen. That begs the question "What will happen?"
Peterssidan
Soulfire wrote:
That begs the question "What will happen?"

World war 3?
Eyre
If I'm correct (meaning I don't know if that's already calculated in) but I'm pretty sure the Mayans didn't start their calender at the birth of Jesus like we did, so...conflicting event times?
Soulfire
Eyre wrote:
If I'm correct (meaning I don't know if that's already calculated in) but I'm pretty sure the Mayans didn't start their calender at the birth of Jesus like we did, so...conflicting event times?
It could be, I but I believe 2012 was the "translation" of their time into our time, not that the Mayans actually listed 2012 as their actual year.
HalfBloodPrince
Wow, WW3 does sound like a candidate for that 'big something'... Neutral

Since Word war 3 means the end of the world, well at least the end of us, since its going to be nuclear...
burqe
Like what were the previous incidences that they cite as the end/start of eras. It may help us analyze thier belief.
eggg
The belief in the cyclical rising and falling of world ages is not limited to the Maya. Look up Vishnu taking the form of a boar and rescuing Privthi, the earth goddess, from the sea that results from the world-ending flood...

People love armageddon. It was supposed to happen in 2000, then 2001, and now 2012. We'll find another reason to anticipate the end of the world after that. I think the Mayan system for tracking Venus is far more remarkable than some doomsday prophesy...
miacps
Peterssidan wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
That begs the question "What will happen?"

World war 3?

Look, the Mayans weren't fortune tellers. If there proves to be any accuracy with their prediction, then the cause would be something like a meteor or asteroid impact or something cosmic. They had extremely advanced knowledge of the stars.
RubySlasher
I think 2012 marked the time when they were supposed to go home or something. Like to outer space.
I think most of them already did, though.
fpwebs
Didn't Nostradamus also predict that the world will end in 2012? What is so important about that date?
Whong
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy
Bikerman
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

Really? I think you've been reading a bit too much revelations, you should get out a bit..
Whong
Bikerman wrote:
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

Really? I think you've been reading a bit too much revelations, you should get out a bit..


Well I just believe what the Bible tells me. It really amazes me how many Bible profesies have been fulfilled and how accurate they are! Very Happy
Bikerman
Whong wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

Really? I think you've been reading a bit too much revelations, you should get out a bit..
Well I just believe what the Bible tells me. It really amazes me how many Bible profesies have been fulfilled and how accurate they are! Very Happy

No, it's not, honest. It's completely un-amazing how many prophecies have been fullfilled and the accuracy of such prophecies is extremely questionable.
roxys_art
Whong wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

Really? I think you've been reading a bit too much revelations, you should get out a bit..


Well I just believe what the Bible tells me. It really amazes me how many Bible profesies have been fulfilled and how accurate they are! Very Happy


Enlighten me. Which prophecies have been fulfilled? Just curious, because the Bible is vague and alot of passages could be argued to mean just about anything. Convenient isn't it?
JustCarol
To me, according to the Bible, Jesus will come back and take His church (as the Bible says, again) to heaven before the end but there's nothing there that could make Christians believe in any date. The Bible just "talk" about the signs of the end and does not speak in years (because again, according to the Bible, God's time is very different of our time).

So, 2012 can be the end? Yes, I believe it can, but I also believe that can be 2008 or 2058 or any random year since Jesus didn't say when He'd take us and come back.

But my personal opinion is: many people has talked about 2012 and so will be waiting... My guess is that the world can end in 2012 if God wants, but there are so many people waiting already, I think God will make it when nobody is expecting and all the talking about the end calm down.

but is just my humble opinion
bmrosol
rvec wrote:
the mayas don't think the world will be destroyed. They think a new cycle starts, and when it does there will be big changes which will destroy a lot at first but that's needed to make it better.


I agree with this gentelmen and I don't believe in world wars, end of worlds, nor cataclysms.
It is gona be a big change of all and for all, where every one will do its own bit. My prediction - fighting the climate change. But it's only my theory and philosophy of this is wider, I am just trying to give the picture.

take cares peeps Twisted Evil
mraek
miacps wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
That begs the question "What will happen?"

World war 3?

Look, the Mayans weren't fortune tellers. If there proves to be any accuracy with their prediction, then the cause would be something like a meteor or asteroid impact or something cosmic. They had extremely advanced knowledge of the stars.


I doubt they knew more about astronomy than we do now. It's just another made-up random prediction based on superstition. See you all in 2013 Wink
Coen
mraek wrote:
miacps wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
That begs the question "What will happen?"

World war 3?

Look, the Mayans weren't fortune tellers. If there proves to be any accuracy with their prediction, then the cause would be something like a meteor or asteroid impact or something cosmic. They had extremely advanced knowledge of the stars.


I doubt they knew more about astronomy than we do now. It's just another made-up random prediction based on superstition. See you all in 2013 Wink

I'll be there Razz
Almost every religion has some story of judgement day or the end of times. You find it almost everywhere and all the dates that are mentioned differ. There is no reason to assume the world will end in the next couple of decades and probably ages to come. The only time the world will end is once the sun becomes a supernova, that will destroy the earth and some of the other inner planets. That will happen over a couple of million years if not longer. Providing you are still around by then I wouldn't worry to much till that time Razz.
Bryan_Bezzle
mraek wrote:
miacps wrote:
Peterssidan wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
That begs the question "What will happen?"

World war 3?

Look, the Mayans weren't fortune tellers. If there proves to be any accuracy with their prediction, then the cause would be something like a meteor or asteroid impact or something cosmic. They had extremely advanced knowledge of the stars.


I doubt they knew more about astronomy than we do now. It's just another made-up random prediction based on superstition. See you all in 2013 Wink



Astronomy wasn't the science when the Mayans created their calender they used astrology which is basically the thought that the celestial bodies in the sky can be read and used to predict earthly happenings. When the Mayan calender ends in 2012, it is not necessarily the end of the world. It is the end of the current solar cycle.
irishmark
i believe the world will end when i finish my bowl of chicken and leek soup. The reasons for this are as follows:

Its a completely absurd idea but no more so than most predictions that have been made. As a Christian I dont take revelations literally. Anyone who does really shoud have their noggin examined. The bible gives some very vague suiggestions as to what MAY happen, not what WILL happen so a turtle in a tutu has just as good a guess as a well read biblical scholar.

Back to the soup. The combination of Chicken, leeks, and iother delightful things i have put in this soup mean that when i get to the end of it my hunger will cease to exist. My stomach is actually the center of the universe and shergar, marylin monroe and elvis all live inside it. I hjappen to know that shergar really doesnt like leeks so when that gets sploshed all over him he womt be happy and he will hit the self desrtuct button of my stomach cavities living quarters.

Now this will set of a chain reaction resulting ni my whole digestive system becoming unstable, thus the center if the universe becomeing unstable, thus the workds end.....or it could simply be a fart.
Philou
The only way, from what I know, I could predict the end of the world, is that it could be caused by our capitalist societies pushing too far the limits of our environment.

Further than that, I'm no expert in astrology or physics, and am troubled by how the Mayans could get to such a conclusion.
jmlworld
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy


In my religon I believe Jesus will come back days before the END of the World, but cannot estimate whether its 1000 years later or in 2009. It's hidden secret, by the way, I believe Jesus never dead!
jmlworld
JustCarol wrote:

But my personal opinion is: many people has talked about 2012 and so will be waiting... My guess is that the world can end in 2012 if God wants, but there are so many people waiting already, I think God will make it when nobody is expecting and all the talking about the end calm down.

but is just my humble opinion


I agree with you, In the religion of Islam, Quran states that the end of the World will be in someday, when nobody is expecting it!
irishmark
NO ONE KNOWS WHEN ANYTHING WILL HAPPEN.

The fact of the matter is no-one can predict the future. All one can do is prepare.
Coclus
Oh my god we all are going to die;)
HalfBloodPrince
Well...I guess we're all going to die some day...
Bryan_Bezzle
I doubt we will all die in 2012. If there is any truth to the prophecies, which I'm not saying there isn't, then it wold most likely just bring about mass change in the world.
ThePolemistis
roxys_art wrote:
Whong wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

Really? I think you've been reading a bit too much revelations, you should get out a bit..


Well I just believe what the Bible tells me. It really amazes me how many Bible profesies have been fulfilled and how accurate they are! Very Happy


Enlighten me. Which prophecies have been fulfilled? Just curious, because the Bible is vague and alot of passages could be argued to mean just about anything. Convenient isn't it?


Enlighten me also Smile
jmlworld
ThePolemistis wrote:
roxys_art wrote:
Whong wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

Really? I think you've been reading a bit too much revelations, you should get out a bit..


Well I just believe what the Bible tells me. It really amazes me how many Bible profesies have been fulfilled and how accurate they are! Very Happy


Enlighten me. Which prophecies have been fulfilled? Just curious, because the Bible is vague and alot of passages could be argued to mean just about anything. Convenient isn't it?


Enlighten me also Smile


Please, enlighten me, too Question
LimpFish
I dont have a lot of time right now so I cant look it up exactly, but I remember hearing someone speak about prophecies in the Bible. And from what I can remember was that Jesus being born alone, fullfilled a LOT of prophecies from the old testament. I'll get back to you but right now Im in a hurry. God Bless Smile
LimpFish
Ok here is some examples:

- Around 700 BC a prophet in english called Micah made a prophecy that Jesus would be born in the little village of Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2 in the Holy Bible). Do you understand? One man prophesied 700 years before Jesus birth where he would be born! According to an estimate done by scientists, the odds of this prophecy turning out true is about 1 to 10^5 (10^5 = 100 000)

- In the fifth centuy B C, a prophet (called Zechariah in the english bible) declared the amount of money Jesus when living would be betrayed for. Thirty pieces of silver. And that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for poor foreigners. Both Bible Writers and secular historians both record 30 pieces of silver as the sum of money Judas got to betray Jesus. And records also show that they were used to buy a piece of land that were used for buring aliens.

- The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.

- The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 B.C. and the second in 70 A.D. God's spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29; Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 25:11; Hosea 3:4-5 and Luke 21:23-24).
Fake
I am sure 1000s of people must have made wild predictions. But the world will not end in 2012, it didnt end in 2000. So dont worry. I think it maybe a mayan topic or smething.

The world will live on!
Aredon
I read somewhere about the earths poles shifting, and causing a slew of problems.

Few quick links:
- http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_poles_040407.html (just a general discussion about it from what I can tell)
- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html (bit more in depth, talks about how the magnetic north pole has moved to russia)

Oddly enough a lot of the predictions say something along the lines of 2012. There are all kinds of theories from the earth's rotation reversing to holes in the magnetic field allowing solar radiation in and etc.

So just a thought, is it possible the Myans were a culture long enough to have witnessed a reversal? If so did they base a lot of their time keeping around that?
EanofAthenasPrime
This topic is Moot. If the Mayans are right, then there would be no way of stopping the prophecy. There is no way of knowing either way. There is no point in this discussion.
LimpFish
how could the prophets in the Bible have known this without God telling them so? (see my previous post)
Bryan_Bezzle
LimpFish wrote:
how could the prophets in the Bible have known this without God telling them so? (see my previous post)


Some people just do not believe in prophets. Their mind-set is, "If God doesn't come to me and tell me something, why would he for anyone else?" Faith has been forgotten and needs to be remembered.
LimpFish
absolutely. I dont see how people can discard this kind of stuff, but believe in evolution? To me, evolution is way harder to believe in than that there is a God. Evolution simply cannot explain everything. Look deep into the eyes of your girlfriend, do you think that she is a product of evolution? Isnt there something more to her than that?
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
absolutely. I dont see how people can discard this kind of stuff, but believe in evolution? To me, evolution is way harder to believe in than that there is a God. Evolution simply cannot explain everything. Look deep into the eyes of your girlfriend, do you think that she is a product of evolution? Isnt there something more to her than that?
So what are you saying? Do you accept evolution or not? You don't have to 'believe' in evolution - it is something which happens whether or not you believe it. The eyes of your girlfriend are indeed the product of evolution, as is the rest of her physical body. Whether you choose to believe that there is something more to her than biology is up to you, but there is no doubt that the biological organism that you call your girlfriend is a product of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
HalfBloodPrince
And couldn't it be God causing and directing evolution?
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
And couldn't it be God causing and directing evolution?
Causing?Well evolution happens through purely physical and well understood mechanisms so why would we call that 'God'? Directing? Again the mechanism of natural selection is sufficient to explain the 'direction' of evolution, so why would we need to invoke God?
HalfBloodPrince
God isn't an old man with a white beard; He's a force. Perhaps every single physical law is a force of God.
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
God isn't an old man with a white beard; He's a force. Perhaps every single physical law is a force of God.
But we understand physical forces - there is nothing supernatural about them, they are, by definition, natural. Why then would we want to attach a label of 'God' to such forces? It simply adds a layer of complexity that explains nothing and is not needed. The physical laws work without the need for any intervention by a 'God'.
fx-trading-education
Bikerman wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
God isn't an old man with a white beard; He's a force. Perhaps every single physical law is a force of God.
But we understand physical forces - there is nothing supernatural about them, they are, by definition, natural. Why then would we want to attach a label of 'God' to such forces? It simply adds a layer of complexity that explains nothing and is not needed. The physical laws work without the need for any intervention by a 'God'.

Agreed.
God is just a label for people who don't understand things.
Before everything was thought to be driven by God(s), the wind, the sun, all natural causes because people just didn't understand. Now there are still many things to be discovered and to be understood, but we also have made so many discoveries that are quite complex that some people cannot even understand what this means and give a God label to things that are perfectly explained by rational thinking.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
absolutely. I dont see how people can discard this kind of stuff, but believe in evolution? To me, evolution is way harder to believe in than that there is a God. Evolution simply cannot explain everything. Look deep into the eyes of your girlfriend, do you think that she is a product of evolution? Isnt there something more to her than that?
So what are you saying? Do you accept evolution or not? You don't have to 'believe' in evolution - it is something which happens whether or not you believe it. The eyes of your girlfriend are indeed the product of evolution, as is the rest of her physical body. Whether you choose to believe that there is something more to her than biology is up to you, but there is no doubt that the biological organism that you call your girlfriend is a product of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

micro evolution is proved to actually happen. there is no proof whatsoever that macroorganism, new species evolving from other species, has ever taken or will take place. There has never been found remains of any of those "transition"-animals that there shoudlve been millions of if evolution actually took place. All there is, is remains of all species "final", not any evolving stages.

Figure that one out and come back.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
micro evolution is proved to actually happen. there is no proof whatsoever that macroorganism, new species evolving from other species, has ever taken or will take place. There has never been found remains of any of those "transition"-animals that there shoudlve been millions of if evolution actually took place. All there is, is remains of all species "final", not any evolving stages.

Figure that one out and come back.

Easy.
Firstly I presume you mean 'macroevolution' and not 'macroorganism' - maybe your religious sources got that wrong? Maybe you should read some stuff other than the normal religious apologist claptrap that you seem to be familiar with.
Let me refer you to a properly scientific discussion on the issue:
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1200880046

As for 'transition' animals - there are thousands. Check out early Whale fossils - with 4 legs (Ambulocetus) for example. You could also read a translation by my friend Trev Dykes of a paper on 'living' transitional features:
http://www.freewebs.com/ktdykes/kosmostransitionals1910.htm

The issue is not in doubt, however, since we can and have observed speciation (what you would probably call 'macroevolution').
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It always amazes me that people who claim to want a scientific understanding of theory never actually read any scientific work on the theory. It's really not too difficult - simply google on speciation or evolution.
Afaceinthematrix
LimpFish wrote:
absolutely. I dont see how people can discard this kind of stuff, but believe in evolution? To me, evolution is way harder to believe in than that there is a God. Evolution simply cannot explain everything. Look deep into the eyes of your girlfriend, do you think that she is a product of evolution? Isnt there something more to her than that?


No. I hate to make such a short post, without elaborating on anything, but you asked a question that deserves a simple "no."
HalfBloodPrince
As a last on this subject, I'm going to say one thing to people who don't believe in God.

Let's assume there isn't a God. Us who have believed will have nothing happen to us. You who didn't believe will have nothing happen to you. You die, life's over, end of story.

Now let's assume there is a God. Us who have believed are well...safe. You who haven't believed are in for a lot of ???


I think we're at the advantage. Thank-you.
fx-trading-education
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
As a last on this subject, I'm going to say one thing to people who don't believe in God.

Let's assume there isn't a God. Us who have believed will have nothing happen to us. You who didn't believe will have nothing happen to you. You die, life's over, end of story.

Now let's assume there is a God. Us who have believed are well...safe. You who haven't believed are in for a lot of ???


I think we're at the advantage. Thank-you.


I think that is a clear miscalculation.

Because if there is a God he knows that you have this thought and then you will be punished for it.
But people who don't believe and are sincere will be more rewarded than you.

The point is not to believe or not but have a honest life or not. And that has nothing to do with believing in God or not. So many crimes have been made in the name of God.
Bryan_Bezzle
Well then for all you atheists....if it IS real and the armageddon war breaks out....you taking God's side or the Devils? Or will you remain neutral?
HalfBloodPrince
And do you think that by publicly denouncing His existence, you're earning a lot of points with God?
Bikerman
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well then for all you atheists....if it IS real and the armageddon war breaks out....you taking God's side or the Devils? Or will you remain neutral?
The question does not arise. If the biblical (revelations) version of Armageddon did take place then that would be clear evidence of the existence of God. In that case I would accept the evidence and accept the existence of God. Most atheists I know are prepared to change their view if they see good evidence for the existence of a Divinity. Can the same be said for most religious?
HalfBloodPrince
Think about the Bible, Torah, and Quran. Do you think that ordinary men could write these books? From their own brain?
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Think about the Bible, Torah, and Quran. Do you think that ordinary men could write these books? From their own brain?
Not only do I think they could, I think they did.
HalfBloodPrince
The mathematical miracles? The miracles and secrets in those books not even the Prophets knew about until discovered thousands of years later?
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
The mathematical miracles? The miracles and secrets in those books not even the Prophets knew about until discovered thousands of years later?
We've been here before and last time, as I remember, the 'miracles' turned out to be rather less than miraculous...
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
micro evolution is proved to actually happen. there is no proof whatsoever that macroorganism, new species evolving from other species, has ever taken or will take place. There has never been found remains of any of those "transition"-animals that there shoudlve been millions of if evolution actually took place. All there is, is remains of all species "final", not any evolving stages.

Figure that one out and come back.

Easy.
Firstly I presume you mean 'macroevolution' and not 'macroorganism' - maybe your religious sources got that wrong? Maybe you should read some stuff other than the normal religious apologist claptrap that you seem to be familiar with.
Let me refer you to a properly scientific discussion on the issue:
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1200880046

As for 'transition' animals - there are thousands. Check out early Whale fossils - with 4 legs (Ambulocetus) for example. You could also read a translation by my friend Trev Dykes of a paper on 'living' transitional features:
http://www.freewebs.com/ktdykes/kosmostransitionals1910.htm

The issue is not in doubt, however, since we can and have observed speciation (what you would probably call 'macroevolution').
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It always amazes me that people who claim to want a scientific understanding of theory never actually read any scientific work on the theory. It's really not too difficult - simply google on speciation or evolution.


Yes macroevolution, I was a little tired when I wrote that Smile

By speciation I was (thought it would be obvious) referring to speciations that were somehow relevant to a hypothetical evolutionary process of the kind that evolution-believers like you believe in. And I could find none of that on the link you provided. It is all plants and flies.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well then for all you atheists....if it IS real and the armageddon war breaks out....you taking God's side or the Devils? Or will you remain neutral?
The question does not arise. If the biblical (revelations) version of Armageddon did take place then that would be clear evidence of the existence of God. In that case I would accept the evidence and accept the existence of God. Most atheists I know are prepared to change their view if they see good evidence for the existence of a Divinity. Can the same be said for most religious?


If armagedon takes place like it says in the Bible, you would NOT accept the existence of God, because, in the description of Armageddon, it says that even the angels will fly around the earth begging people to repent, but non-believers will still deny God. So, if Armagedon happens as the Bible says, which was what you were talkin about, you will per definition still deny it, and therefore, miss out on eternal life.

And by the way, yes, in case of GOOD evidence I would be prepared to change my view on our origin.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
Yes macroevolution, I was a little tired when I wrote that Smile

By speciation I was (thought it would be obvious) referring to speciations that were somehow relevant to a hypothetical evolutionary process of the kind that evolution-believers like you believe in. And I could find none of that on the link you provided. It is all plants and flies.

Well that's very odd because the translation by Trev Dykes is called 'Transitional forms in the living world of animals by Dr Th. Arldt, Langebrück' and contains no references to either flies or plants.
If you followed the link to the discussion I provided you would see that your whole idea of 'macroevolution' is flawed.
I'm also interested why you seem to believe speciation happens in plants and flies but not in other animals. Plants and flies are often given as examples for the simple reason that they can be easily observed in lab conditions whereas it is much harder to do that with, say, tigers. If speciation can, however, be observed in plants and flies - both of which share a great deal of DNA with ourselves, then why do you think it cannot happen in 'higher' lifeforms?
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
If armagedon takes place like it says in the Bible, you would NOT accept the existence of God, because, in the description of Armageddon, it says that even the angels will fly around the earth begging people to repent, but non-believers will still deny God. So, if Armagedon happens as the Bible says, which was what you were talkin about, you will per definition still deny it, and therefore, miss out on eternal life.

Oh...so you know me well enough to state what I will and will not believe do you? Or perhaps you are saying that God ordains that I will not believe, in which case it would be a nasty trick to punish me for it wouldn't it?
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
Yes macroevolution, I was a little tired when I wrote that Smile

By speciation I was (thought it would be obvious) referring to speciations that were somehow relevant to a hypothetical evolutionary process of the kind that evolution-believers like you believe in. And I could find none of that on the link you provided. It is all plants and flies.

Well that's very odd because the translation by Trev Dykes is called 'Transitional forms in the living world of animals by Dr Th. Arldt, Langebrück' and contains no references to either flies or plants.
If you followed the link to the discussion I provided you would see that your whole idea of 'macroevolution' is flawed.
I'm also interested why you seem to believe speciation happens in plants and flies but not in other animals. Plants and flies are often given as examples for the simple reason that they can be easily observed in lab conditions whereas it is much harder to do that with, say, tigers. If speciation can, however, be observed in plants and flies - both of which share a great deal of DNA with ourselves, then why do you think it cannot happen in 'higher' lifeforms?


I was talkin about that other link about speciation. And it did not impress me. That dear friend of yours is talkin about fossils, so that can not be accepted as observation of speciation
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
I was talkin about that other link about speciation. And it did not impress me. That dear friend of yours is talkin about fossils, so that can not be accepted as observation of speciation
But you said
Quote:
There has never been found remains of any of those "transition"-animals that there shoudlve been millions of if evolution actually took place.
Now I have provided you with evidence that your statement is wrong. The fact that you choose to ignore or disbelieve it is up to you.
You still have not explained how you think speciation can happen in plants and flies but not other animal forms.
Bryan_Bezzle
Bikerman wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Well then for all you atheists....if it IS real and the armageddon war breaks out....you taking God's side or the Devils? Or will you remain neutral?
The question does not arise. If the biblical (revelations) version of Armageddon did take place then that would be clear evidence of the existence of God. In that case I would accept the evidence and accept the existence of God. Most atheists I know are prepared to change their view if they see good evidence for the existence of a Divinity. Can the same be said for most religious?



Thats what Im talkin bout. Thats a good answer. A determined answer I might say if I were to include what Ive already found out about atheists (not saying bikerman speaks for all atheists).

One thing to ponder though..if you are willing to except God if you have proof he exists, then why wait for proof? If in fact one day you find proof well then hooray but faith is the key word here. To believe in him without what skeptics say is definitive proof is what the Bible teaches.


Nevertheless I'm satisfied if an atheist says he or she would "accept the existence of God" given proof. You know..my sister used to tell me she didn't believe in God. I saw it in her eyes that she wanted to though. Well believe, dont believe, want, or do not want....he exists.
Bikerman
Well I'm not prepared to believe in God without proof for the same reason that I'm not prepared to believe in anything else without some evidence. If you are prepared to believe without evidence then why choose Christianity? Why not Islam, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism?
Bryan_Bezzle
Bikerman wrote:
Well I'm not prepared to believe in God without proof for the same reason that I'm not prepared to believe in anything else without some evidence. If you are prepared to believe without evidence then why choose Christianity? Why not Islam, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism?



Thats simple, I was born into Christianity. It taught me my morals and helped build my ethics. Same way you learned it from something else. I could change religion...but why when there is no proof of any? On top of that they all teach you to live a good life.
medievalman26
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Think about the Bible, Torah, and Quran. Do you think that ordinary men could write these books? From their own brain?
Um...yeah ordinary people did write them. According to what you said there you just kinda screwed your whole argument. Also, the Bible IS the Torah, and the Qur'an, the Christian Bible as well. The all believe in the same God. The problem is the Bible has so many versions since it was originally written. Also it is a known fact that the established church picked the version that they wanted. Also, the original version was written Aramaic, the New testament(the christian version) was written in Greek. Also the translation process is subject to the translator's interpretation. That is why you can't use the Bible or any of the other religion's holy book to prove a point. Also remember this, History is written by the victors.


BACK ON TOPIC PEOPLE!(whoops caps lock heh heh)

I don't know, none of us know. But the thing I can say is al;sdhfqaeoinqoienvpqoenrvqpoeinvqpo. Joking. Seriously though, I think that they just didn't get the chance to make the next calendars before they "disappeared". What I am suggesting is that they didn't get to finish their calculations before they were conquered by the Spanish Conquistadors. Obviously it takes quite a lot of mathematical and other calculations for their calendars.

There is an interesting phenomena that will happen in 2012, the Planets in our solar system will line up with a super black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It is not known what the effect of this will be. Still, it is interesting. Oh and the event you are talking is not going to happen in 2012, it will be in December of 2011, around the Winter Solstice.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
I was talkin about that other link about speciation. And it did not impress me. That dear friend of yours is talkin about fossils, so that can not be accepted as observation of speciation
But you said
Quote:
There has never been found remains of any of those "transition"-animals that there shoudlve been millions of if evolution actually took place.
Now I have provided you with evidence that your statement is wrong. The fact that you choose to ignore or disbelieve it is up to you.
You still have not explained how you think speciation can happen in plants and flies but not other animal forms.


Correct me if Im wrong, but from flies to speciate into another fly species (which might happen or not happen, Im not sure), to fish to get legs and walk on land (or whatever ridiculous explanations evolutionists might have) is a pretty huge leap if you ask me. It's like showin a pebble and using that as an evidence of that mountains exist.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
Correct me if Im wrong, but from flies to speciate into another fly species (which might happen or not happen, Im not sure), to fish to get legs and walk on land (or whatever ridiculous explanations evolutionists might have) is a pretty huge leap if you ask me. It's like showin a pebble and using that as an evidence of that mountains exist.

OK, you are wrong so I'll correct you.
Firstly you need to understand that evolution is not a 'ridiculous' explanation of species - it is the only one that is not actually ridiculous, and the only one that has any scientific validity.
Secondly the evolution of fish into land-based vertebrates was a gradual process. Evolution works by gradual change, not all at once. The first limbs in fish probably evolved to allow the fish to navigate swamp and marshlands. It was only later that the marine creatures actually took to the land. There is abundant fossil evidence of this happening.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_03.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/
Speciation of flies is not something that 'might happen'. It does happen and has been observed to happen.
The facts of evolution are clear. Your objection is either based on ignorance or religious belief or, most likely, a combination of the two. I suggest you do some reading before further comment - that way you will at least be aware of the strength of the theory before continuing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The only alternative to evolution is creationism - in one form or another (Young Earth, Old Earth or Intelligent Design). Creationism really is a ridiculous hypothesis. Creationism unlike evolutionary theory, is directly contradicted by physical evidence - the fossil record, genetics and existing atavistic and vestigeal features in animals. None of these can be explained by any version of creationism and all of them are explained wonderfully by evolutionary theory.
The different versions of creationism all have their own ridiculous elements. The most ridiculous is, of course, Young Earth creationism, which is contradicted by so many scientific observations it would take too long to give complete list. The other two flavours of creationism are slightly less mad but ridiculous nontheless.

PS - This particular issue is well off-topic so if you want to pursue this debate about evolution I would suggest starting a new thread on the matter.
jwellsy
The Mayans were not predicting the end of the world.
They were students of the observable movements of celestial bodies.

The earth rotates about it axis once a day.
The moon rotates around the earth once a month.
The earth rotates around the sun once a year.
The sun rotates around the milkyway once every 29,000 years.

On Dec 21, 2012 the sun will be in the exact center of the milkyway.
After that the Mayan celestial observations don't fit into their predictive algorithms.

It's just like 50 years ago, fractal equations were thought to be meaningless because of the infinite number of possible answers. Then after the super computer was invented we could see that fractals can be used to describe many things such as an infinitely irregular surface.

The Mayan's did an outstanding job with the tools they had.
We now have a greatly advanced understanding of celestial movements and patterns.

The world will still be on Dec 22, 2012.
Bikerman
jwellsy wrote:

On Dec 21, 2012 the sun will be in the exact center of the milkyway.
After that the Mayan celestial observations don't fit into their predictive algorithms.

Well, sort of, but not quite.
The exact centre of the milky-way is occupied by a Supermassive Black Hole so you will be happy to know that we will NOT be going there Smile
We are actually towards the outside of the Galaxy in one of the spiral arms.

(source ; http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/solarsystem/where.shtml)

If you imagine looking at the Milky-Way side-on, what you see is a thin disk. We are currently at the top end of the disk and in 2012 we will be in the centre of the disk, on our way down.

(source ; http://www.viewzone.com/endtime.html)
BigMo420
Bikerman wrote:
Secondly the evolution of fish into land-based vertebrates was a gradual process.


Actually, if you take a look at a couple of species that exist today, you'll find a very good indication of how things like this work.

Take the frog as an example. It starts out as basically a water-based species. No legs, no arms, and a tail. As it grows, it evolves to become a land based species. It grows legs and arms, and the tail recedes.

Another example is the common butterfly. It evolves from a land based worm to an air based winged thingy.

Evidence of evolution is all around us. It has been proven repeatedly, just as religion has not.
Bikerman
BigMo420 wrote:
Take the frog as an example. It starts out as basically a water-based species. No legs, no arms, and a tail. As it grows, it evolves to become a land based species. It grows legs and arms, and the tail recedes.

Another example is the common butterfly. It evolves from a land based worm to an air based winged thingy.
Evidence of evolution is all around us. It has been proven repeatedly, just as religion has not.
I understand what you are saying but we need to be careful with definitions. Technically this is not evolution by natural selection, although it does, as you say, provide a nice picture in 'fast motion' of the sort of processes that might have happened. You are, of course, quite correct to say that evidence for evolution is abundant and that there is no alternative theory worth speaking of.
Shamankingdom
I don't know... Nobody knows, but I think it will not happen.
kerryworkman
I think that the world ended years ago. It is just that nobody has realized it yet.
liljp617
The world ends when oil becomes incredibly scarce or non-existent.
{name here}
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
...is what the Mayans believed. Can someone please shed some light on me as to who they were, where they got this belief (which I don't support, of course), when they were, etc...?

Please don't just give me a link, I don't want to read articles, just summarize it here please.

The mayans also believed in several gods and that planets looped around in circles around the Earth and other beliefs of terracentricism (earth as the center of the universe).

You've got 5 billion years to worry about the end of the world.

As for the end of civilization, the bulletin of Atomic Scientists places the doomsday clock currently at five minutes to midnight, so we aren't exactly close to a nuclear holocaust, at least at this point (the clock is advancing foward, however). Our resources should stay in-tact for many years after 2012.

I am ignorant about the state of global warming, but I do not think that that will bring down civilization.

The only thing which could end civilization would be U.S. troops leaving South Korea (as planned) in 2012, making North Korea take a chance on burning down Seoul in hellfire and taking over all of Korea, provoking China to invade North Korea.
LimpFish
liljp617 wrote:
The world ends when oil becomes incredibly scarce or non-existent.


Man I sure hope they found something to replace it by then! It shouldnt be that hard should it? I mean with all the knowledge in the world. MAking energy off of other things shouldnt be so much harder than makin it out of oil?
imera
If the world is goin gto end while I'm still alive I hope I won't know when it is, I know I'll die but I don't want to know it.
Soulfire
Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, the sun has about 5 billion years worth of hydrogen to burn up ... after that, we're screwed.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
Correct me if Im wrong, but from flies to speciate into another fly species (which might happen or not happen, Im not sure), to fish to get legs and walk on land (or whatever ridiculous explanations evolutionists might have) is a pretty huge leap if you ask me. It's like showin a pebble and using that as an evidence of that mountains exist.

OK, you are wrong so I'll correct you.
Firstly you need to understand that evolution is not a 'ridiculous' explanation of species - it is the only one that is not actually ridiculous, and the only one that has any scientific validity.
Secondly the evolution of fish into land-based vertebrates was a gradual process. Evolution works by gradual change, not all at once. The first limbs in fish probably evolved to allow the fish to navigate swamp and marshlands. It was only later that the marine creatures actually took to the land. There is abundant fossil evidence of this happening.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_03.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/
Speciation of flies is not something that 'might happen'. It does happen and has been observed to happen.
The facts of evolution are clear. Your objection is either based on ignorance or religious belief or, most likely, a combination of the two. I suggest you do some reading before further comment - that way you will at least be aware of the strength of the theory before continuing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The only alternative to evolution is creationism - in one form or another (Young Earth, Old Earth or Intelligent Design). Creationism really is a ridiculous hypothesis. Creationism unlike evolutionary theory, is directly contradicted by physical evidence - the fossil record, genetics and existing atavistic and vestigeal features in animals. None of these can be explained by any version of creationism and all of them are explained wonderfully by evolutionary theory.
The different versions of creationism all have their own ridiculous elements. The most ridiculous is, of course, Young Earth creationism, which is contradicted by so many scientific observations it would take too long to give complete list. The other two flavours of creationism are slightly less mad but ridiculous nontheless.

PS - This particular issue is well off-topic so if you want to pursue this debate about evolution I would suggest starting a new thread on the matter.


Im sorry to say this, but evolutionism, viewed from an objevtive perspective, is way more ridiculous than creationism. You mention fossil records serveral times. There are many assumptions made that are not able to validate when trying to guess (cuz thats what they do, GUESS, because they cant know) how old fossils are. No matter what kinda of method used, they still assume a lot of things that we cant know if they are correct. For one thing, the sediment layers they find fossils in and sometimes judge age based upon, there are findings where one single tree has been found penetrating many or all of those sediment layers, that according to the "fantastic" theory of evolution should have been created millions of years apart. Doesnt add up to me. Same thing has been found with footprints, etc.
When judging age based on Carbon-14 methods (which might be irrelevant for fossils, since carbon-14 methods cant be used accurately for things older than 50000 years), assumptions are made that the ration between the coal isotops c-12 and c-14 has been constant throughout the whole history. This is weird since humans affect that ratio by using fossil fuels, and research has shown that the amount of c-14 created is bigger than the amount of c-14 being decomposed.
Same thing with other radiometric age-estimate methods. Assumptions that cannot be verified.
Bikerman
You haven't really got a clue, have you? You have obviously read some creationist nonsense and believe it utterly.
Here's the news - it's crap.

C14 dating has already been explained comprehensively. The fossil record is beyond doubt. The genetic and biological evidence is overwhelming. If you want to cling to your creationist beliefs then that is your privilege but please don't try to pretend it has any scientific or philosophical validity - it's a nursery tale told to immature children, the adults know better.

If you want to debate specifics that have not already been covered then go ahead and I'll help ...otherwise..
[ignore mode on]
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
You haven't really got a clue, have you? You have obviously read some creationist nonsense and believe it utterly.
Here's the news - it's crap.

C14 dating has already been explained comprehensively. The fossil record is beyond doubt. The genetic and biological evidence is overwhelming. If you want to cling to your creationist beliefs then that is your privilege but please don't try to pretend it has any scientific or philosophical validity - it's a nursery tale told to immature children, the adults know better.

If you want to debate specifics that have not already been covered then go ahead and I'll help ...otherwise..
[ignore mode on]


You cant see it yourself that you actually are the one who desperately cling to your beliefs can you? Your beliefs requires as much, or more, faith as I have in mines, but since you call yours science instead of religion, you feel more intelectual than the "uneducated stupid fanatics" that believe in something greater than what we can see. I've seen it so many times. People who believe in evolution get way more agressive and fanatic about it when you question their beliefs than religious people do if you question theirs (islamic terrorists and other extremists etc excluded). Yes Im religious, but Im not denying science. If there was convincing proof of evolution, that make me restate my opinions. But there isnt. And if you ask me there never will be, because it didnt happen like that.

Evolution is your religion and you cling on to it like an immature child to a nursery tale, to use your own words. I believe in Jesus Christ, and I'd die for my beliefs. Call me a crazy fanatic if you will, just dont consider yourself any different.
Bikerman
The reason you've seen it so many times is simple - even the most patient of us get exasperated eventually.
You believe in creationism. You believe that we were created as we are. That is so patently absurd that is is hardly worth repeating the fallacies, but, one more time;

1) We know the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The evidence is comprehensive and comes from several different lines of enquiry.
2) We think the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The evidence comes from several different lines of enquiry.
3) We have geological, genetic, biological and archaeological evidence that is consistent with evolution.
4) Carbon 14 dating is explained fully in a previous posting - in short it is calibrated by tree-ring growth and ice-core data. We know the C12-C14 decay ratio doesn't change because scientists have tried their best to change it by altering temperature, radiation, pressure and just about every other variable you can name. We also know that the C14 pattern fits with the oldest tree-rings and ice-cores. We therefore know it is sound data. The range of error is known and included in any datings made.
5) Other radiodating methods (lead-uranium for example) do not depend on atmospheric factors and cannot be explained away.
6) We can watch evolution happen in the labs
7 ) The Genesis account of creation doesn't work - it contains an account which cannot, physically, be true.
8 ) The timeline for Genesis is absurd - it would date the earth at about 6-7 thousand years
9) The other events described in genesis (the flood, the 900 year old people and so on) have no supporting evidence

Now. You ask me to disregard the scientific explanation (and it is an explanation, not a belief - I have personally gone into each of the things I mention here to make sure they are valid).
In return you offer an account from a 2-3 thousand year old book that we know contains many errors and we know contains an account of creation that simply cannot be true.

It is not unreasonable of me to ask you for some evidence. I have plenty of evidence for my view - that is why I hold my view. If you can show me evidence that it is wrong then I will change my view. That is the nature of rationality - we accept things on the evidence, we do not believe things blindly.

So, I ask you, what evidence have you for creationism?
How do you manage to dismiss from your mind the overwhelming scientific consensus and accept a view based on nothing but faith?

PS - yes I do call you a fanatic and no, I am not the same. You start from the position that the bible is correct - a faith position. I start from the position that nothing is correct unless demonstrated with appropriate evidence.
kerryworkman
While we are discussing the end of the world. Do you think this thread will end before the world does? I mean, according to the title, we only have about 4 years to discuss the posabilities of it ending, before we see it for our selves. Mabye, we should consider postponing the end of the world another couple of years, so everyone has a chance to voice their opinion on the subject. Smile

Seriously though, for all you out there that believe, shouldn't you be out there doing something meaningful with your last four years of life instead of being here trying to convincing everyone else they are going to die too.
kreative
i dont believe (or cant?) that the world´ll end in ´12... In our country slovakia there are too some religious fanatics who say that, but i dont believe, they are stupid fags...
medievalman26
LimpFish wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The world ends when oil becomes incredibly scarce or non-existent.


Man I sure hope they found something to replace it by then! It shouldnt be that hard should it? I mean with all the knowledge in the world. MAking energy off of other things shouldnt be so much harder than makin it out of oil?
Man, you have no idea. They have already developed the technologies but since our world economy is so dependent on crude oil we are not going to see most of them for quite some time. Some people made their own way of doing it. Look up Biodiesel.

Bikerman wrote:
The reason you've seen it so many times is simple - even the most patient of us get exasperated eventually.
You believe in creationism. You believe that we were created as we are. That is so patently absurd that is is hardly worth repeating the fallacies, but, one more time;

1) We know the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The evidence is comprehensive and comes from several different lines of enquiry.
2) We think the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The evidence comes from several different lines of enquiry.
3) We have geological, genetic, biological and archaeological evidence that is consistent with evolution.
4) Carbon 14 dating is explained fully in a previous posting - in short it is calibrated by tree-ring growth and ice-core data. We know the C12-C14 decay ratio doesn't change because scientists have tried their best to change it by altering temperature, radiation, pressure and just about every other variable you can name. We also know that the C14 pattern fits with the oldest tree-rings and ice-cores. We therefore know it is sound data. The range of error is known and included in any datings made.
5) Other radiodating methods (lead-uranium for example) do not depend on atmospheric factors and cannot be explained away.
6) We can watch evolution happen in the labs
7 ) The Genesis account of creation doesn't work - it contains an account which cannot, physically, be true.
8 ) The timeline for Genesis is absurd - it would date the earth at about 6-7 thousand years
9) The other events described in genesis (the flood, the 900 year old people and so on) have no supporting evidence

Now. You ask me to disregard the scientific explanation (and it is an explanation, not a belief - I have personally gone into each of the things I mention here to make sure they are valid).
In return you offer an account from a 2-3 thousand year old book that we know contains many errors and we know contains an account of creation that simply cannot be true.

It is not unreasonable of me to ask you for some evidence. I have plenty of evidence for my view - that is why I hold my view. If you can show me evidence that it is wrong then I will change my view. That is the nature of rationality - we accept things on the evidence, we do not believe things blindly.

So, I ask you, what evidence have you for creationism?
How do you manage to dismiss from your mind the overwhelming scientific consensus and accept a view based on nothing but faith?

PS - yes I do call you a fanatic and no, I am not the same. You start from the position that the bible is correct - a faith position. I start from the position that nothing is correct unless demonstrated with appropriate evidence.
Ok, now are we automatically asuming that time for God is the same 24hours as for us? Or could 1 day for God be 1000 years? Not starting the debate here, just something for you to think about. Besides, there are two perfectly good threads about this topic already. http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42480&start=540 and http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=85994&start=150
Zuex
I know something big that happens in 2012.


The London Olympics


Go London<3 Very Happy
xtupie
For those of you who say the bible has not predicted anything that has happened. I will not use Jesus Christ even though there are over 70 prophesies fulfilled by His birth, death and resurrection found in the old Testament. And neither would I use Moses, Elijah, Elisah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel or John, some of their prophesies have relevance to today.

One thing I want you to note that ALL the predictions of Jesus Christ were made more than 500 years before He was born, even His name, Emmanuel was predicted in Scripture. Also Remember there was 480 years between the closing of the Old Testament and the New Testament and Daniel predicted many thing in this period which came true.

I will take only one person in the bible that God gave prophets inspiration to prophesy about. This was a Persian King called Cyrus, all the prophesies in Isaiah we made 300 years before Cyrus was born, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

There are 39 scriptures that particularly mentions of Cyrus by NAME in the bible. Ezra, Daniel and Jeremiah were alive during Cyrus' reign but Jeremiah and Daniel were old when this happened. Jeremiahs prophesy is made about 50 years before Cyrus was even born, also Jeremiah predicted that the exile would last 70 years and that is exactly how long it was, if you want I can give these references to this.

Unlike other "Prophets", which we make much hype about, which you have to adapt to the situation to predict anything and the events must first happen before you can get the prediction the bible is very clear, precise and extremely accurate.

So here they are the predictions about Cyrus, enjoy the reading -

God would Call Cyrus BY NAME
============================
Isaiah 46:11 - Calling that eagle, Cyrus, out of the east, from a far country the man I chose to help me. I've said it, and I'll most certainly do it. I've planned it, so it's as good as done.

Isaiah 45:1 - God’s Message to his anointed, to Cyrus, whom he took by the hand to give the task of taming the nations, of terrifying their kings-- He gave him free rein, no restrictions:

Cyrus fulfilled Jeremiah' prophesy
=========================

2Chronicles 36:22-23 - In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia--this fulfilled the message of GOD preached by Jeremiah--GOD moved Cyrus king of Persia to make an official announcement throughout his kingdom; he wrote it out as follows: "From Cyrus king of Persia a proclamation: GOD, the God of the heavens, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. He has also assigned me to build him a Temple of worship at Jerusalem in Judah. All who belong to God’s people are urged to return--and may your GOD be with you! Move forward!"

Ezra 1:1 - In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia--this fulfilled the Message of GOD preached by Jeremiah--GOD prodded Cyrus king of Persia to make an official announcement throughout his kingdom. He wrote it out as follows:

Cyrus becomes King
=============
Ezra 1:1 - In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia--this fulfilled the Message of GOD preached by Jeremiah--GOD prodded Cyrus king of Persia to make an official announcement throughout his kingdom. He wrote it out as follows:

Daniel 1:21 - Daniel continued in the king's service until the first year in the reign of King Cyrus.

Daniel 6:28 - Dan 10:1 In the third year of the reign of King Cyrus of Persia, a message was made plain to Daniel, whose Babylonian name was Belteshazzar. The message was true. It dealt with a big war. He understood the message, the understanding coming by revelation:

Cyrus would allow the Jewish Exiles to return to Israel (Jerusalem)
==========================================

Ezra 6:3 - In his first year as king, Cyrus issued an official decree regarding The Temple of God in Jerusalem, as follows:

Isaiah 44:28 - He says to Cyrus, "My shepherd-- everything I want, you'll do it." He says to Jerusalem, "Be built," and to the Temple, "Be established."

Cyrus would allow the Jewish Temple to be rebuilt
================================
Ezra 6:3 - 15 - In his first year as king, Cyrus issued an official decree regarding The Temple of God in Jerusalem, as follows: The Temple where sacrifices are offered is to be rebuilt on new foundations. It is to be ninety feet high and ninety feet wide with three courses of large stones topped with one course of timber. The cost is to be paid from the royal bank. The gold and silver vessels from The Temple of God that Nebuchadnezzar carried to Babylon are to be returned to The Temple at Jerusalem, each to its proper place; place them in The Temple of God. Now listen, Tattenai governor of the land beyond the Euphrates, Shethar-Bozenai, associates, and all officials of that land: Stay out of their way. Leave the governor and leaders of the Jews alone so they can work on that Temple of God as they rebuild it. I hereby give official orders on how you are to help the leaders of the Jews in the rebuilding of that Temple of God: 1. All construction costs are to be paid to these men from the royal bank out of the taxes coming in from the land beyond the Euphrates. And pay them on time, without delays. Whatever is required for their worship--young bulls, rams, and lambs for Whole-Burnt-Offerings to the God-of-Heaven; and whatever wheat, salt, wine, and anointing oil the priests of Jerusalem request--is to be given to them daily without delay so that they may make sacrifices to the God-of-Heaven and pray for the life of the king and his sons. I've issued an official decree that anyone who violates this order is to be impaled on a timber torn out of his own house, and the house itself made a manure pit. And may the God who put his Name on that place wipe out any king or people who dares to defy this decree and destroy The Temple of God at Jerusalem. I, Darius, have issued an official decree. Carry it out precisely and promptly. Tattenai governor of the land across the Euphrates, Shethar-Bozenai, and their associates did it: They carried out the decree of Darius precisely and promptly. So the leaders of the Jews continued to build; the work went well under the preaching of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah son of Iddo. They completed the rebuilding under orders of the God of Israel and authorization by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. The Temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.

Ezra 6:8 - I hereby give official orders on how you are to help the leaders of the Jews in the rebuilding of that Temple of God: 1. All construction costs are to be paid to these men from the royal bank out of the taxes coming in from the land beyond the Euphrates. And pay them on time, without delays.

Isaiah 45:13 - And now I've got Cyrus on the move. I've rolled out the red carpet before him. He will build my city. He will bring home my exiles. I didn't hire him to do this. I told him. I, GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies."

Isaiah 44:28 - He says to Cyrus, "My shepherd-- everything I want, you'll do it." He says to Jerusalem, "Be built," and to the Temple, "Be established."

Ezra 6:14 - So the leaders of the Jews continued to build; the work went well under the preaching of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah son of Iddo. They completed the rebuilding under orders of the God of Israel and authorization by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia.


The bible is accurate. There are even prophesies which are being fulfilled around us including the European Union, the Birth of the nation of Israel, in ONE day as predicted. In Matthew 24 – Jesus Christ predicted there would be wars, famines, natural disasters, disease etc – Okay you say they have always happened but not so many as in the last 100 years.

Lets take wars – There have been wars fought and people killed in the last 100 years that in the entire history of the world. World War 1, World War II, The Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, The Namibian War, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Bosnia, Israeli wars, six day war, war of independence, to name a few and we can go on and on.

Famines – Currently many countries in Africa and the world are devastated by famine. The United Nations predicted that more than 50% of the world population are under nourished.

Natural disasters – must I comment, just check what has happened in the past two weeks!!!

Disease – Cancer is out of control, Obesity, Heart disease, Diabetes, HIV/AIDS cannot be cured, Ebola, Malaria

Not the bible has more to say about the future than even today’s news papers and it has yet to be proved incorrect by countless millions of people who want to bring it in disrepute.

Hope this answers you questions. If you want more just ask I can give you hundreds of prophesies in the bible and their fulfilment, which you can even verify in any major history books and encyclopaedia’s.
Bikerman
xtupie wrote:
One thing I want you to note that ALL the predictions of Jesus Christ were made more than 500 years before He was born, even His name, Emmanuel was predicted in Scripture. Also Remember there was 480 years between the closing of the Old Testament and the New Testament and Daniel predicted many thing in this period which came true.
ROFLMAO. 'Immanuel' is simply Hebrew for 'God is here'. Jesus was not called Emmanuel...now I could be wrong here, but I thought he was called Jesus. The idea that Jesus was 'Immanuel' is just another example of the new Christians stealing bits of the Jewish Bible and calling it their own.

The idea that the bible is accurate has been dealt with in other threads (it isn't). The sort of after-the-fact 'predictions' we see here are normally associated with Nostradamus and are baloney in both cases.

PS - The notion that the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible were fullfilled is controversial - many historians take issue over dates, events and names. Even if true, however, that would surely show that the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong. These 'predictions' were made half a millenium before Jesus. Smile
There are a number of prophecies in the Hebrew Bible - some of them were patent nonsense, some of them were just wrong, and some of them are disputed.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/ot_list.html
Spartan
Soulfire wrote:
Their calendar ends on the winter solstice. The Mayans were obsessed with timekeeping, and extremely good at it, so I think it's valid that something big may happen. That begs the question "What will happen?"


I graduate from Highschool in 2012, that big enough? Smile
I personally don't believe that anything big like the world's end is going to happen just about yet; but then again: I'm only a human who judges really fast, but then again, the Mayans are humans as well.
unknown_123
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
...is what the Mayans believed. Can someone please shed some light on me as to who they were, where they got this belief (which I don't support, of course), when they were, etc...?

Please don't just give me a link, I don't want to read articles, just summarize it here please.



Lol, That's just a rumor........The World is not ending in 2012, Just like a lot of people thought the world was going to end on 6/6/06....It didn't happen.
Poetsunited
lol... nothing is set, I don't believe in a predestined world... if that is the case then why bother living at all, trying to make the best out of everything...


There were people who said the world would end in 2000... did it?
no.

So why would it end in 2012? just because some calendar ends?

Then lets all go to the stores then and buy a new one! solves everything. lol Very Happy
Bikerman
That's pretty much the way it is. The Mayan calendar operates on a 5000 year cycle. It then resets to 0 and carries on - no apocalypse. As far as I know the Mayans regarded the end of a cycle as an opportunity for a big party - not the end of the world.

Other 2012 apocalypse predictions are based on:
  • Michael Drosnin's awful book - The Bible Code. Complete trash, thoroughly discredited.
  • A misunderstanding of cosmology. In 2012 the solar system will be 'aligned' with the centre of the milky-way galaxy. If you look edge-on at the milky-way, the solar system moves up and down through the disk. It so happens that, in 2012, it will be at the halfway point (it is a 26,000 year cycle). Various cranks and pseudo-scientists think that some mysterious energy will then bathe the earth. Complete crap - it's happened thousands of times in earth's history (I make it about 170,000 times) and there is no evidence of any 'apocalypse' on previous occasions - nor is there any conceivable way in which it could cause such an apocalypse.
  • People making money out of deliberately misinterpreting the Mayan calendar. The last example would be a bunch of truly awful books, newly released on the subject (which I'm not going to give publicity to by naming), and which are playing on the interest aroused by Mel Gibson's film Apocalypto (2006).*

*Which I actually quite enjoyed
barmstonian
I wonder what people used to think the calendar was counting down to in BC times?
Bikerman
barmstonian wrote:
I wonder what people used to think the calendar was counting down to in BC times?

LOL...which calendar would that be? The early Roman calendar didn't number the years - it recorded years in terms of who were the Consuls at the beginning of that particular year. Later Roman calendars use a numbering system from the supposed foundation of the Roman Empire (approx 753 BCE). Such dates are called AUC (ab urbe condita), so the Romans would have called the year 1BCE - 752 AUC.
WicCaesar
RUN TO THE HILLS!
joomla
Quote:
Man, you have no idea. They have already developed the technologies but since our world economy is so dependent on crude oil we are not going to see most of them for quite some time. Some people made their own way of doing it. Look up Biodiesel.


.. and you find it is causing more problems then gasoline is. more trees are cut down to grow fuel.
less food is made.

you truly have no idea indeed.[/quote]
Aredon
barmstonian wrote:
I wonder what people used to think the calendar was counting down to in BC times?
An interesting thought... if the calendar that currently uses BC had existed back then, hehe.

On topic however, I'm going to have to agree with Bikerman on this one. I'm feeling that most of the "evidence" is cooked-up nonsence to give people something else to be scared of. If it isn't Y2K its 06-06-06, and if its not that it must be 2012. Give it a rest in my opinion. Very Happy
deadswan
Yes all this prediction stuff is a load of rubbish, the end of the world had been predicted so many times and I do believe that we are still here.

And that bit about God will make the world end when people aren't predicting it, why would he make it end? and why would you want to believe in something that would do something like that? lol


(Really seems like a comment that should have been said before and if it was a appologise for stealing it...)
Kyohtee
Guy's... the only few possible things that could end the world on 2012 are: Polar shifting-Are magnetic field will drop near 0 allowing the sun to burn us to death. 2:Armaggedon-The final battle between good and evil and/or Jesus and Satin. and finally 3:Atom crusher-This is basicly a long tunnel in which will crush Atoms together showing us how the universe was made, this is the Big Bang theory.It could possibly create blackholes on Earth and desrtoy it.(also may i not that Polar Shifting roughly takes 5,000 years to complete.) Shocked
Kyohtee
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
...is what the Mayans believed. Can someone please shed some light on me as to who they were, where they got this belief (which I don't support, of course), when they were, etc...?

Please don't just give me a link, I don't want to read articles, just summarize it here please.


A short explanation would be that they are people who were good in physics and Astronamy.They predicted something about the end of their calender being on.. well you may know... December 21,2012. so really there is nothing to be afraid of from what the Mayans said. Its just the start, or the end, of their calender. Cool
c'tair
The world really ends in 2012. Believe me. I have all the evidence. What kind of evidence?

The kind that there are already thousands of people who believe this bullpoop. They are people who never understood science. Nothing of it. For them magnetism, heat, electricity is all magic. For example, to my grandmother, the fact that electricity makes a washing machine wash is the same kind of magic that she reads about the end of the world or bioenergotherapists. One uses a mysterious force to wash, the other to heal.

And nowadays its popular to be unscientific. Its good to believe in eastern religions, wonderdiets, faithhealers just because it shows the bad guys in labcoats that science sucks. Oh, the folly.

So yeah, people believe what they want to believe but I know that in order to have a fully knowledgable world view a human should be taught physics, especially the part about the genesis of the universe and some of the theories. It really sheds light on many aspects of life.[/code]
supernova1987a
I hate those people who are making up their own stories like polar shift or asteroid clash, as there is no such thing happening as clarified by scientists.
Everyone must first read this: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/19/no-doomsday-in-2012/
and then think about what the reality behind all this is:

    Maya calendar started on August 11, 3114 BC and Ends December 21, 2012 AD. (Our calendar starts January 1 and ends December 31 and repeats the cycle)

    Maya civilization was disconnected from every other civilizations in Asia-Africa-Europe for thousands of years. People are believed to have crossed a land bridge that existed between Siberia, Asia and Alaska, North America during the ice age (when northern parts were mostly covered with ice, sea level was lower, and yeah, civilization could flourish only in warm areas, like the indian subcontinent below the himalayas, or somewhere in africa or around meso-america, the places that run through the equator)

    Most surprisingly, Indians believed that the current age of deterioriation, or the Kali Yuga started just 12 years after mayan calendar started i.e. on February 18, 3102 BC. Well, its 5000 years ago, both of them and one ends in 2012. Is there any relation? Is this the end of the Kali Yuga? Well, according to existing hindu texts, it is unclear when it is going to end. Some agree its 432,000 years long. But what about Jesus revealing that the world is ruled by Satan, the demon and Kali Yuga is the age ruled by demon Kali? Sounds similar.

    Jesus said Repent! No more sins. Follow his commandments. Follow the rule of the Nature. Forget 2012. Just remember what he said. You don't need to go to Church, YOU are the church.
Bikerman
Err....OK, until you mention Jesus.
You should know that the early Christians were an apocalpytic sect - they believed that the end of the world was imminent, just as the people who try to read such a message into the Mayan calendar believe the same thing.....
deanhills
Can't believe this, totally crazy Website including survival and disaster kits for 212012.

http://www.december212012.com/articles/religion/index.shtml

OK, my motto is to show respect to people who have different beliefs to mine. Then this week I learned about Richard Dawkins' memes, and am now worried as memes like the 2012 ones can't be good for the human race as they seem to have this ability of infecting minds? Then arrived at the Website below:

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

Center for the Study of Complex Systems ... now memes from this Center (attached to the University of Michigan) well maybe this can even things out a bit?

Maybe there is still hope for the world. Smile
deanhills
Can't believe this, totally crazy Website including survival and disaster kits for 212012.

http://www.december212012.com/articles/religion/index.shtml

OK, my motto is to show respect to people who have different beliefs to mine. Then this week I learned about Richard Dawkins' memes, and am now worried as memes like the 2012 ones can't be good for the human race as they seem to have this ability of infecting minds? Then arrived at the Website below:

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

Center for the Study of Complex Systems ... now memes from this Center (attached to the University of Michigan) well maybe this can even things out a bit?

http://cscs.umich.edu/about/about.html

Then when I search a little further I land with the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics. Powerful memes in the making! Well hope they will replicate to their heart's content:

http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/Docs/hist.links.docs/mctp_annual_report08.pdf

Maybe there is still hope for the world. Smile
Zombie
This is probably a myth, just like Y2K. Everyone expected the worst but nothing happened.
tchaunt
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

I know where you're getting that 1000 years thing from (the latter parts of Revelations), ans I would like to give you my opinion on it.
Yes, the Bible does mention the 1000 years, but I don't think it is literally 1000 years. I think it was just more hyperboles/mind games that were thrown in the Bible. And just to let you know, I am a Christian and I believe the Bible is inspired by/"directed by" God. But I don't think the Bible is as pure as most people make it. Remember, the editing of the Bible has went through thousands, if not larger amounts, of human hands. There are mistakes in the Bible. For instance, most of the Old Testament is completely out of order. Plus, I'm not so sure that people haven't went along and changed things in the Bible. Yes, it is a sin to do that, but I'm sure that humans, craving sin, went and changed stuff making the Bible less of God's word and more of Man's word.
That's just my two cents.
deanhills
tchaunt wrote:
Whong wrote:
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. Wink

Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy

I know where you're getting that 1000 years thing from (the latter parts of Revelations), ans I would like to give you my opinion on it.
Yes, the Bible does mention the 1000 years, but I don't think it is literally 1000 years. I think it was just more hyperboles/mind games that were thrown in the Bible. And just to let you know, I am a Christian and I believe the Bible is inspired by/"directed by" God. But I don't think the Bible is as pure as most people make it. Remember, the editing of the Bible has went through thousands, if not hundreds of human hands. There are mistakes in the Bible. For instance, most of the Old Testament is completely out of order. Plus, I'm not so sure that people haven't went along and changed things in the Bible. Yes, it is a sin to do that, but I'm sure that humans, craving sin, went and changed stuff making the Bible less of God's word and more of Man's word.
That's just my two cents.


Thanks tchaunt, I love your two cents worth. I feel exactly the same. And to be truthful, Revelations is not a chapter that I like to read either. I wonder whether it got added in by one of the sinners you referred to? Smile
Bikerman
Little is known about the author of Revelations. (To be truthful little is known about any of the authors of the NT). The author is generally held to be a person known as John of Patmos. The traditional view is that this is John the Apostle, but most modern biblical scholars think this is wrong and that John of Patmos is an entirely separate person.
There is little doubt in my mind that the author is a very disturbed person. The apocalyptic nature of Revelations reveals a very disturbed mind - which is why many factions in early Christianity did not wish to include it in the cannon.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
Little is known about the author of Revelations. (To be truthful little is known about any of the authors of the NT). The author is generally held to be a person known as John of Patmos. The traditional view is that this is John the Apostle, but most modern biblical scholars think this is wrong and that John of Patmos is an entirely separate person.
There is little doubt in my mind that the author is a very disturbed person. The apocalyptic nature of Revelations reveals a very disturbed mind - which is why many factions in early Christianity did not wish to include it in the cannon.


Very few people wanted to include it in the Bible (like you said) and even fewer people (I think) want to encourage any type of literal interpretation. The only people who really want to take it literally are "Bible Literalists" like Hovind and his fellow YECs.

I'd have to agree that the person was either disturbed, or he had a very cynical and wild imagination. Revelations is the only book of the Bible that I actually enjoy reading. It seems like one big and crazy fantasy book. It can be quite entertaining.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Little is known about the author of Revelations. (To be truthful little is known about any of the authors of the NT). The author is generally held to be a person known as John of Patmos. The traditional view is that this is John the Apostle, but most modern biblical scholars think this is wrong and that John of Patmos is an entirely separate person.
There is little doubt in my mind that the author is a very disturbed person. The apocalyptic nature of Revelations reveals a very disturbed mind - which is why many factions in early Christianity did not wish to include it in the cannon.


Thanks Chris. I did not know that. Feels good to hear about this. Also interesting to learn about this.
tchaunt
I knew there was something along the lines of the mysterious author, I just couldn't remember it clearly enough to want to post it.

This is sort of random, but, it makes me really mad how everyone says "God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Yes, he does know the first two, but I don't think too highly of the last one.
Here's a few examples:
If God knew what the temptation of the fruit in the garden was going to do to Adam and Eve, why even put them in the garden?
If God "hates sin" as much as most people say, then why did he tempt Adam and Eve with the fruit? Did he want them to suffer? If so, would he not be the Devil?
Why do we even live on Earth if God knows how we will all live our lives? And don't say we may change our lives, because, if God knows everything that will happen, he would know that.

I'm not saying God is evil at all. I'm just saying that humans' interpretations of inferences about God make no sense what-so-ever.
liljp617
tchaunt wrote:
I knew there was something along the lines of the mysterious author, I just couldn't remember it clearly enough to want to post it.

This is sort of random, but, it makes me really mad how everyone says "God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Yes, he does know the first two, but I don't think too highly of the last one.
Here's a few examples:
If God knew what the temptation of the fruit in the garden was going to do to Adam and Eve, why even put them in the garden?
If God "hates sin" as much as most people say, then why did he tempt Adam and Eve with the fruit? Did he want them to suffer? If so, would he not be the Devil?
Why do we even live on Earth if God knows how we will all live our lives? And don't say we may change our lives, because, if God knows everything that will happen, he would know that.

I'm not saying God is evil at all. I'm just saying that humans' interpretations of inferences about God make no sense what-so-ever.


Actually it just means God makes no sense and we have no free will in the religious sense.

We've already been through this many times on these forums and it's an incredibly old thought (Epicurus, for instance, brought it up). Evil exists because God wants it to and continues to allow it to exist.

Paraphrased from what I remember of Epicurus' statements:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able to?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then why does evil exist?
Is he neither able, and thus unwilling?
Then why call him God?
Greatking
No one knows when the world will end, and know one should beleive any fade that someone has had a vision as to when it will end. History, Prophecies and theology has thought that nobody knows except the creator Himself.
supernova1987a
Ok, Adam and Eve story is not the real story, Bible has been mistranslated and edited many times, maybe for people's own convenience. According to an even older version (1000 BC or sth) of Bible was found in 1915 Adam of "Adam and Eve" was the same person as Noah. And in Indian subcontinent there is the same story of Noah or Nuh or Manu and they have a more elaborative story: Matsya Purana or "Fish incarnation History".

The similarities in Bible and Matsya Purana (around 5000 yrs old book, the story itself tens of thousands years old):
Bible: In the time of Nuh, people were corrupt. Matsya Purana: It was the end of last Kali Yuga, age of corruption, hypocrisy and quarells and start of new satya yuga when Fish incarnation warned Manu or Nuh.

Eastern Texts reveal we are in a new Kali Yuga, which started 5000 years ago, and religious texts were the main target of "the demon ruler of this Yuga". they changed them and kept people in darkness, in confusion. Before the start of this yuga, the religious texts were not mere 'religious texts' they were 'science', 'the complete science'. Today's science is not complete.

Moreover, even Jesus said that he had discovered the world was ruled by a 'demon'. And he announced it would end soon. He 'denied' many old testament ideas because they were edited by mere humans (satan made them do so). But people are not trying to understand or accept the truth. But it is also good to be skeptic.

The world is not going to end. Yeah, Jesus said that such rumors about the end of the world would come. 2012 is the rumor. Its not the end of the world, it could be end of an age or just a confusion created by satan. Be skeptic and ask questions, "Seek and you will find".
Xanatos
supernova1987a wrote:
Be skeptic and ask questions, "Seek and you will find".


And you believe in that^^ stuff?Brick wall
supernova1987a
Quote:
But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
-Stephen Hawking


The creator is beyond your senses, beyond the science, or physical laws, because he is the one who created these laws.
Xanatos
supernova1987a wrote:
Quote:
But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
-Stephen Hawking


The creator is beyond your senses, beyond the science, or physical laws, because he is the one who created these laws.


Right and your evidence for that?
deanhills
supernova1987a wrote:
The world is not going to end.


This should probably be rephrased to: The world is probably not going to end. There is no evidence that is going to end, nor evidence that it is not going to end.
The-Nisk
If 2012 is the end of the world,
I say roll on 2012!

But I doubt that jesus is going to descend from the clouds on a golden pony and save your sorry asses before a bigger herd of angry ponies comes and kills you all. To anyone who believes that: good luck!
I'm off to build my spaceship.
liljp617
supernova1987a wrote:
Quote:
But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
-Stephen Hawking


The creator is beyond your senses, beyond the science, or physical laws, because he is the one who created these laws.


And yet you and billions of other people seem to have quite an understanding and relationship....

This is boring, generic religious rhetoric that absolutely does not even begin to hold up under scrutiny.
spinout
The creator IS your senses, the science, physical laws...
Out side the nutshell (the universe) is another universe, and another one and ano... the creator has many domains.

2015 may be a breakthrough! Then perhaps other civilizations will contact us formally.
Xanatos
spinout wrote:
The creator IS your senses, the science, physical laws...
Out side the nutshell (the universe) is another universe, and another one and ano... the creator has many domains.

2015 may be a breakthrough! Then perhaps other civilizations will contact us formally.


How do you know this? Where is your evidence that the creator is everything, or that there are multiple universes?
deanhills
The-Nisk wrote:
I'm off to build my spaceship.


I like that! Can imagine it will be a super spiffy spaceship, which planet do you think you will be venturing to? Smile
supernova1987a
Xanatos wrote:
supernova1987a wrote:

The creator is beyond your senses, beyond the science, or physical laws, because he is the one who created these laws.


Right and your evidence for that?


Vedas reveal this truth. That is my evidence. What's yours?
supernova1987a
spinout wrote:
The creator IS your senses, the science, physical laws...
Out side the nutshell (the universe) is another universe, and another one and ano... the creator has many domains.

2015 may be a breakthrough! Then perhaps other civilizations will contact us formally.


Creator is both! Again, Vedas reveal that.

and to Xanatos, once again, vedas reveal multiple universes do exist.
deanhills
supernova1987a wrote:
Again, Vedas reveal that.


Is that real evidence? Think it would be referred to as hear-say? I don't think real evidence exists both for or against. I say this of course with respect as I know this means a lot to you. When people ask you for evidence, it is not as bad as it sounds. They know that there is no real evidence. But then they also know that there is no evidence for their position either.
liljp617
supernova1987a wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
supernova1987a wrote:

The creator is beyond your senses, beyond the science, or physical laws, because he is the one who created these laws.


Right and your evidence for that?


Vedas reveal this truth. That is my evidence. What's yours?


good evidence

deanhills wrote:
supernova1987a wrote:
Again, Vedas reveal that.


Is that real evidence? Think it would be referred to as hear-say? I don't think real evidence exists both for or against. I say this of course with respect as I know this means a lot to you. When people ask you for evidence, it is not as bad as it sounds. They know that there is no real evidence. But then they also know that there is no evidence for their position either.


Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. It is not on the opposition to prove he is wrong, it is on him to prove he is right.
vineeth
The world is not going to "end" on a single day or time period as it is not created, in the common meaning of "creation".

But we may argue; whether it will end this day or the other day... never ending.

Anyhow, 2012 is not that far away and we would discuss the issue after the proposed "end" Smile
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. It is not on the opposition to prove he is wrong, it is on him to prove he is right.

So do you have a comment on his evidence? Or where do you stand on this exactly?
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
xtupie wrote:
One thing I want you to note that ALL the predictions of Jesus Christ were made more than 500 years before He was born, even His name, Emmanuel was predicted in Scripture. Also Remember there was 480 years between the closing of the Old Testament and the New Testament and Daniel predicted many thing in this period which came true.
ROFLMAO. 'Immanuel' is simply Hebrew for 'God is here'. Jesus was not called Emmanuel...now I could be wrong here, but I thought he was called Jesus. The idea that Jesus was 'Immanuel' is just another example of the new Christians stealing bits of the Jewish Bible and calling it their own.

The idea that the bible is accurate has been dealt with in other threads (it isn't). The sort of after-the-fact 'predictions' we see here are normally associated with Nostradamus and are baloney in both cases.

PS - The notion that the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible were fullfilled is controversial - many historians take issue over dates, events and names. Even if true, however, that would surely show that the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong. These 'predictions' were made half a millenium before Jesus. Smile
There are a number of prophecies in the Hebrew Bible - some of them were patent nonsense, some of them were just wrong, and some of them are disputed.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/ot_list.html


Here we go again, Bikerman pretending to know the Bible. You might fool other but you don't fool me. Immanuel is hebrew for "God with Us". The prophecy says he will be called Immanuel which is not the same thing to say he would be given that name. In other places it says the Messiah will be called "Prince of Peace, "Wonderful", "Counselor", etc. (Isaiah 9:6). None of these Titles were his name either, but that's what he'd be called by the people. Same thing with Immanuel. People would understand that through Him God was with Us, through the physical person of the Messiah. It is a common misconception that the prophecy means that the Messiah would be given the NAME Immanuel, which is just based in a lack of knowledge.

Sorry Bikerman. But that's how it is. And regarding the accuracy of the Old Testament, every now and then there arceological finds that confirms the accuracy of the Bible's historical accuracy. Findings of proof of Kings mentioned in the Bible that has been dated to the time when they according to the Bible were ruling.
Bikerman
LimpFish wrote:
Here we go again, Bikerman pretending to know the Bible. You might fool other but you don't fool me. Immanuel is hebrew for "God with Us". The prophecy says he will be called Immanuel which is not the same thing to say he would be given that name. In other places it says the Messiah will be called "Prince of Peace, "Wonderful", "Counselor", etc. (Isaiah 9:6). None of these Titles were his name either, but that's what he'd be called by the people. Same thing with Immanuel. People would understand that through Him God was with Us, through the physical person of the Messiah. It is a common misconception that the prophecy means that the Messiah would be given the NAME Immanuel, which is just based in a lack of knowledge.
ROFLMAO. So, let me get this right then, there is a prophecy that when God arrives he will be called 'God is with us' as a sort of title?
You do know what a tautology is don't you?
Incidentally, my translation of Immanuel (God is with us) is not significantly different from yours (God is here). I am happy to accept either. It doesn't change my point at all. My point was EXACTLY that Jesus was NOT given the name Immanuel, and to say that it was predicted that he would be given that title is simply an example of a tautology. It is rather like saying the next manager of Chelsea football club will be given the title 'Manager of Chelsea' - entirely true but containing NO new information (ie a classic tautology and certainly NOT a prediction in any meaningful sense of the word).
deanhills
There has been some talk about a "mini-iceage" and "ice age" visiting earth again and that we are due for those times. I came across the Geographic Magazine article below of 2005 following the movie of that time: "Day after tomorrow", which actually I saw and thought was quite entertaining. Back to 2012, I wonder whether that could be something related to the weather. The weather patterns seem to be changing anyway. Feels as though we have different weather, and global warming is real as well. Some say global warming may contribute to an ice age as well:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html

Has anyone else seen the move "Day after tomorrow", and what are your thoughts on an ice age coming soon?
Tuvitor
I predict that in 2012, there will be wars, natural disasters, and great political upheavals. Just like every other year. On the morning of January 1, 2013... the sun will rise in the east, and in the evening of that day, the sun will set. The world will end in 2012 for all those who die that year, just as the world comes to an end for all those who die any year.
deanhills
Tuvitor wrote:
I predict that in 2012, there will be wars, natural disasters, and great political upheavals. Just like every other year. On the morning of January 1, 2013... the sun will rise in the east, and in the evening of that day, the sun will set. The world will end in 2012 for all those who die that year, just as the world comes to an end for all those who die any year.

I believe everything is possible, including a meteorite that can fly from anywhere, or some special event leading to the beginning of a new ice age. Or everything can still be the same with the appearance of more different than before.
LimpFish
Bikerman wrote:
LimpFish wrote:
Here we go again, Bikerman pretending to know the Bible. You might fool other but you don't fool me. Immanuel is hebrew for "God with Us". The prophecy says he will be called Immanuel which is not the same thing to say he would be given that name. In other places it says the Messiah will be called "Prince of Peace, "Wonderful", "Counselor", etc. (Isaiah 9:6). None of these Titles were his name either, but that's what he'd be called by the people. Same thing with Immanuel. People would understand that through Him God was with Us, through the physical person of the Messiah. It is a common misconception that the prophecy means that the Messiah would be given the NAME Immanuel, which is just based in a lack of knowledge.
ROFLMAO. So, let me get this right then, there is a prophecy that when God arrives he will be called 'God is with us' as a sort of title?
You do know what a tautology is don't you?
Incidentally, my translation of Immanuel (God is with us) is not significantly different from yours (God is here). I am happy to accept either. It doesn't change my point at all. My point was EXACTLY that Jesus was NOT given the name Immanuel, and to say that it was predicted that he would be given that title is simply an example of a tautology. It is rather like saying the next manager of Chelsea football club will be given the title 'Manager of Chelsea' - entirely true but containing NO new information (ie a classic tautology and certainly NOT a prediction in any meaningful sense of the word).

My point was not about the differences in translation of Immanuel, obviously they're really small and just different interpretations by different translators or something and doesn't change anything. I have never heard the word tautology, but I do understand what you mean (self-fullfilling prophecy?) I think. I totally understand what you mean but I encourage you to think deeper. Is it a tautology to say that he would be called all those things by the people? It would be a tautology to say that there would be someone born who would call himself that. But a prophecy saying that someone will be born that will be called certain things by the people is not a tautology if you ask me. How is the person writing the prophecy to know that will happen? Obivously it takes extraordinary things for huge masses of people to be convinced that someone is God in the shape of a physical person.

As for the Chelsea comparison, everyone puts the title "Manager of Chelsea" on the person managing Chelsea solely because they KNOW HE IS the manager of Chelsea. Obviously Jesus was called Immanuel and many other things like prophesied, so according to your comparison, he was called that because they KNEW that he was God in human form. Seems you're agreeing with me anyway? =)

With all respect
Bikerman
Pure nonsense.
The prediction from Isaiah contains the word Emmanuel (or Immanuel depending on translation).
The only time the word appears at all in the New Testament is in Matthew when he quotes from Isaiah.
As I said, a tautology. Christians naturally wanted to say that Jesus was the son of God and one way to do that was to associate him with the prophesy in Isaiah - in other words invent a title. Show me one reference in the New Testament that says the people called Jesus 'Immanuel'. The only such reference in Matthew 1:28, which apes the passage in Isaiah 7:14. There is not a single mention of it in any other gospel. It is clear that the author of Matthew was trying to make events fit earlier prophecies in an attempt to bolster his case.

You say that Jesus was called Emmanuel by the people....where is your evidence? Certainly not in the bible...do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
Related topics
Beginning of the End of the World?
when will the world end?
Fortran Tutorials(77)
Programming in a lot of languages
Could the end of the world be near?
World ending in 2012
Mayan End of world
Mars as big as the moon from Earth!
Is time travel possible?
UFO, or an advanced spy ship...? (Iran Missile UFO video)
The 2012 Phenomenon
End Of the world --> 2012 (NewAge)
The great big thread of Woe
Do you Believe in 2012?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.