...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 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
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.
Oh...this may be a stupid question, but are there Mayans today? I don't mean Mayan-fanatics, I mean real ones..?
| 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_peoplesTheir 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?"
| Soulfire wrote: |
| That begs the question "What will happen?" |
World war 3?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?
| 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.Wow, WW3 does sound like a candidate for that 'big something'... 
Since Word war 3 means the end of the world, well at least the end of us, since its going to be nuclear... Like what were the previous incidences that they cite as the end/start of eras. It may help us analyze thier belief.
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...
| 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 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.
Didn't Nostradamus also predict that the world will end in 2012? What is so important about that date?
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years. 
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! 
| Whong wrote: |
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years.
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! |
Really? I think you've been reading a bit too much revelations, you should get out a bit.. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Whong wrote: | According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years.
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! |
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! | 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.
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! |
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! |
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. | 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.
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! |
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! |
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?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
| 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 
| 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 | 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 |
I'll be there 
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 . | 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 |
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.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.
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.
| Whong wrote: |
According to the Bible the world won't end very soon... there's still time over a 1000 years.
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! |
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! | 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!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.
Oh my god we all are going to die;)
Well...I guess we're all going to die some day...
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.
| 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.
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! |
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! |
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 
| 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.
Btw over 80% of all Bible profesies have been fulfilled and under 20 for Jesus to come back!!! |
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! |
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 |
Please, enlighten me, too 
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 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).
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!
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? 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.
how could the prophets in the Bible have known this without God telling them so? (see my previous post)
| 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.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?
| 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/EvolutionAnd couldn't it be God causing and directing evolution?
| 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?God isn't an old man with a white beard; He's a force. Perhaps every single physical law is a force of God.
| 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'. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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."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.
| 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.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?
And do you think that by publicly denouncing His existence, you're earning a lot of points with God?
| 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?Think about the Bible, Torah, and Quran. Do you think that ordinary men could write these books? From their own brain?
| 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.The mathematical miracles? The miracles and secrets in those books not even the Prophets knew about until discovered thousands of years later?
| 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...
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:08 am; edited 1 time in total | 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
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. | 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. | LimpFish wrote: |
Yes macroevolution, I was a little tired when I wrote that
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? | 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? | Bikerman wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | Yes macroevolution, I was a little tired when I wrote that
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 | 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. | 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.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?
| 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. | 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. | 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. | 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.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.
| 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
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) | 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. | 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.I don't know... Nobody knows, but I think it will not happen.
I think that the world ended years ago. It is just that nobody has realized it yet.
The world ends when oil becomes incredibly scarce or non-existent.
| 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. | 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?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.
Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, the sun has about 5 billion years worth of hydrogen to burn up ... after that, we're screwed.
| 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.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]
| 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.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.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
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.
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. 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...
| 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=150I know something big that happens in 2012.
The London Olympics
Go London<3 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.
| 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.
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 | Soulfire wrote: |
| Their calendar ends on the winter solstice. The Mayans were obsessed with timekeeping, and ex |