Does the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:1 leave the door open that Go

[Guest shiloh357]

The writers of the NT  had no incentive to make the life of Jesus fit the OT prophecies.    The reason being is that Jesus, as He came was not what the people of Israel were expecting as their Messiah.     Plus, if you were wanting to fabricate  story about your religious leader, claiming he was conceived out of wedlock  would not have made it into the story.    We are far removed from that cultural paradigm.

 

Remember when Jesus was born in Bethlehem and had to be laid in a manger because they could not find a place to stay?    They were in Joseph's hometown and so were others that Joseph would have known.  It was HIS hometown.  Who do expect to see in your hometown?   Old friends, relatives, family, etc.    So why could they not find a place to stay?   Because they were shunned.  Mary was pregnant during their betrothal period and she brought shame on their families. 

 

If you were wanting to promote your guy as the Messiah and you needed to make Him appear as holy as possible, and out of wedlock conception is bad news.    They were expecting a King Messiah and not a Galilean peasant.     If you wanted to make up the story, you would have had Jesus born in a royal family and made him a great military leader.   You would not have made him a poor carpenter.

 

You certainly would not have made his disciples look foolish, selfish, uneducated, disloyal, fearful, and you would not have made one of them a thief.  

 

The entire Gospel narrative is antithetical an  counter-intuitive to how one would portray the Messiah if one were fabricating the story.   

[Bonky]

Enoch if you use the same requirements you have for secular science as you do for the Bible you would quickly toss it aside as rubbish. Remember we don't have time machines to verify any of this and no specific names or dates are given . Checkmate.

[Enoch2021]

Chuck Missler is a kook and a thief. And other then that his pictur from Numbers 2 is faulty in a number of ways. First it is not scale, the top of the cross would be much longer than he makes it apperar. Second that is really not what Numbers 2 states, to a cardinal direction does not have to be a single line of people. The phrase "to the east of" covers a lot of ground.

Third, as a military veteran and a history major and an SME on military history, no army would ever camp that way. Do you have any idea how many miles 186,000 people camped that way would cover. It would literally be a multipe hour journey from the back to the middle.

It makes for a very pretty picture, but it is a fantasy.

 

==================================================================================================

 

 

Chuck Missler is a kook and a thief.

 

 

Ad Hominem (Fallacy) and a Baseless Assertion (Fallacy).

 

 

First it is not scale

 

 

Baseless Assertion (Fallacy).  Well then go ahead and put it "to Scale" to support your Claim.....?

 

 

PROTIP: Fallacies....are Fallacious.

 

the top of the cross would be much longer than he makes it apperar

 

 

Go ahead....?

 

 

....to a cardinal direction does not have to be a single line of people. The phrase "to the east of" covers a lot of ground.

 

 

Ahhh yes it does.....and Especially with the Numbers we're talking about here.  Remember these are "Fighting Men"  NUMBERS....not their families.

 

 

Third, as a military veteran and a history major and an SME on military history, no army would ever camp that way

 

 

1. Relevance of Military Veteran and History Major....?  I'm retired military (half of that, COMBAT ARMS    )...I also like jogging in the rain.

 

2.  "no army would ever camp that way" ----  Subjective "Opinion".  And I don't think The CREATOR of The Universe had any "Tactical" concerns.  

 

 

Do you have any idea how many miles 186,000 people camped that way would cover. It would literally be a multipe hour journey from the back to the middle.

 

 

So?  How about going to the bathroom?

 

 

It makes for a very pretty picture, but it is a fantasy.

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

Any "coherent" Support......?

 

fyi, when there's a red squiggly line underneath a word....it's misspelled.

 

 

regards

[walkonwater]

Psalm 115:16   The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the "earth" hath He given to the children of men. 

Psalm   89:11    The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fullness thereof, Thou has founded them.

 

The fullness of the Lord is founded here on this "earth" for us, and the heavens belong to the Lord, I trust His word alone.  

[Enoch2021]

Enoch if you use the same requirements you have for secular science as you do for the Bible you would quickly toss it aside as rubbish. Remember we don't have time machines to verify any of this and no specific names or dates are given . 

 

=======================================================================================================

 

Well Scripture is Historical and is VALIDATED by a different method. (Reliable Historical Documentation)

 

Empirical Science is VALIDATED by the Scientific Method.   (SEE: Below)

 

Apples and Orangutans.

 

 

Remember we don't have time machines to verify any of this and no specific names or dates are given .

 

 

Don't need a "TIME Machine",  just this....

 

 

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life.  Ya see....

 

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.

http://TBioMed | Full text | Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information) ...

 

"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

 

Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:

 

What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

 

Null hypothesis #1

Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2

Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3

Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4

Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

 

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."

 

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...? 

 

Hope it helps.

 

Checkmate.

 

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

Chuck Missler admired to plagiarism. Plagiarism is theft, that would make him a thief. No fallices there.

This site does not allow to post graphs that I created, but if you were really in the military I have faith you can do 5th grade math, so figure it out for yourself. Or just blindly accept what Mr Missler is feeding you, you have a choice to make.

Let me know what you decide.

Also, the tent of meeting and it fense were not square, another thing he made up

 

 

 

Chuck Missler admired to plagiarism. Plagiarism is theft, that would make him a thief. No fallices there.

 

 

"admitted" not "admired".  And....(Romans 3:23) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

 

Have you ever stolen anything?

 

And another ad hominem (Fallacy)---in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

btw, "Theft or "stealing" isn't a Fallacy....it's Theft or Stealing.

 

 

This site does not allow to post graphs that I created

 

 

Yes it does. 

 

 

but if you were really in the military I have faith you can do 5th grade math, so figure it out for yourself.

 

 

Yes, I surely was....My BACK is Proof!! lol.

 

I already figured it out...it's as right as rain.

 

Or just blindly accept what Mr Missler is feeding you, you have a choice to make.

 

 

I don't blindly follow anyone or anything.  Every postulate has to survive my own personal crucible...not much makes it past the first step.

 

And,  How do you know I didn't scrutinize it?  Do you have Special Mind Powers we're unaware of?  If so, Lets TEST it.... What's my Favorite Color?

 

 

Also, the tent of meeting and it fense were not square, another thing he made up

 

 

Did it look something like this...

 

 

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

I know you didn't scrutinize it yourself because it is wrong and If you had, you would know that it is wrong. I don't need any special mind powers for that.

 

================================================================================================

 

 

I know you didn't scrutinize it yourself because it is wrong

 

 

Ipse Dixit.  And another: Baseless "Bare" Assertion (Fallacy)--- A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/bare-assertion-fallacy

 

Still waiting...  

[Bonky]

Enoch you'll have to post something that isn't a copy and paste nightmare if you want my attention.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch you'll have to post something that isn't a copy and paste nightmare if you want my attention.

 

Copy and Paste, eh? geez. Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)?

 

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure) and Hydrogen Bonding".

Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text for emphasis, but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.

Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??    

 

What was such a "Nightmare"....so as to elevate your Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) to a Supported Claim?

 

regards

[Tristen]

 

I believe that's called moving the goalposts.

From your perspective I guess you can claim that you aren't adding anything to scripture, but an outsider can still accuse that of those who potentially have.

 

 

Hey Bonky,

 

You said, “From your perspective I guess you can claim that you aren't adding anything to scripture, but an outsider can still accuse that of those who potentially have”

 

From my “perspective”, the Bible is the Word of God (both Old and New Testaments). Therefore, the ultimate Author expanding on His own words cannot be considered to be eisogesis.

 

 

Regarding the human authors, using messianic information in the OT to support a claim in the NT is a perfectly rational strategy. That is, to claim Jesus to be the Messiah, then support that claim from the OT is not reading information into the OT (eisogesis), but deriving information from the OT (exegesis). The very reason such information exists in the OT is to support recognition of the Messiah/Saviour at His incarnation.

 

Examples include;

The OT claims that the Saviour would be born of a virgin - Jesus was born of a virgin

The OT claims that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, but also that He comes from Egypt and Nazareth – Jesus was born on Bethlehem, then spent time in Egypt, then grew into adulthood in Nazareth

The OT claims that the Saviour will be a direct descendant of king David – Jesus was a direct descendant of David through both maternal and legal-paternal lineage.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

[NOTE that these examples are provided to explain the logical methodology. It is not meant to be an exhaustive exposé of Jesus fulfilment of OT prophecy. Others have already done that – you can google it if interested (or maybe read the Bible for yourself – in this context I’d start at Matthew). As a thought experiment, decide for yourself how many such fulfilments would be required to make such a claim convincing before you look.]

 

 

The human authors also had other evidence. They personally witnessed the supernatural power of Jesus, including; the healing of incurable diseases, the raising of people from the dead, walking across the surface of the Sea of Galilee during a storm etc. etc [again - not intended to be an exhaustive list of miracles]. They also witnessed His authority over the demonic – which was explicitly recognised by His enemies (though they interpreted this authority as Him being their leader). They also saw Jesus alive and healthy three days after a Roman crucifixion.

 

So the authors built there argument that Jesus is the promised Saviour based on OT scripture and eye-witness accounts of miracles. No eisogesis here.

 

 

Claims of an “outsider” are irrelevant in the absence of rational argument and evidence.