B flat B♭

jonojim1337 said:

Given the many Jews that are working for NASA, I don’t think that connection slipped their mind.

Again, magic wands are made out of the Holly tree. There’s a lot more witchcraft, Druid reference to substantiate this.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how many Jews work for NASA, but even if the majority of NASA workers were Jews (which I doubt), NASA workers didn't choose the acronym, just as the soldiers in a particular regiment didn't choose the regiment's name.

As for wands, some may be made from holly wood, but by no means all are. I did a google search for "what are wands made of" and found many sites saying that various woods are used. Here is just one example, from https://www.tudorhouse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Magic-Wands.pdf

"According to the Book of Honorius, wands are traditionally made of wood and a wand maker might cut a branch from a hazel tree or any nut tree. The wood must be new or green wood and ideally should be cut at sunrise on a Wednesday! It was cut and then carved it into shape and then decorated to personalise it."

Apple Sky said:

The problem is that there are so many who are turning their back on God, this is so sad to hear

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's got nothing to do with whether people can understand/study science and know God.

jonojim1337 said:

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Click to expand...

Messenger?
You mean your job is to announce, "thus saith TikTok"?
Oh, however did people know anything without social media? Poor Isaiah; denied the chance to search Instagram he was forced to ask, and listen to, the Lord.

Apple Sky said:

No, and besides it's not a Godly thing to do.

Click to expand...

If it is ungodly to believe in the moon landings, show us from the bible.

Strong in Him said:

Yes, but that's got nothing to do with whether people can understand/study science and know God.

Click to expand...

But it is what we have come to expect from @Apple Sky Changing the subject when the conversation isn't going to her liking.

Apple Sky said:

Did you know that Ice melts at 33 degrees, all's I can say 'lets hope we don't have a heat wave in Antarctica'.

Click to expand...

Whatever has the melting point of ice got to do with the shape of the earth?

Stronginhim in reference to your post 2560 God certainly wrote a literal account with enough information to realise there are boundaries to what the creation account says. You mention 2 creation accounts. A relatively new interpretation from the mid 20th century from the likes of Bruce Waitke and John Walton who seems to think that he is Gods final authority on Jewish and ancient thought. You mention 7 other neighbouring countries worshipping different gods . I don’t have a problem with that. Only that Israel was not much better they continued harlot after other gods all throughout their histories even after they had been shown the true God. You then say Moses was not writing for scientists. And why not ? The Bible is for everyone . Or perhaps they are not answerable to the scientific boundaries God has proclaimed like creating the the world in 6 literal days and not million and billions of years as proclaimed by many in the scientific world but certainly not all. You then mention Genesis chapter 1 in relation to God creating male and female and than in Genesis 2 you say that God creates Adam out of dust and Mother Eve out of Adam’s rib a little later. Stonginhim God makes it abundantly clear In Genesis 1 : 31 ( And God saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ) Including the creation of Adam & Eve. Stronginhim Genesis chapter one is a overview of the cosmic events of creation wk. Genesis chapter 2 is a more detailed report on the creation of Adam & Eve and the events of day six . It has nothing to with two different creations . You must remember there were no chaptering as we have in our bibles today. You mention in Genesis 2 also concerning other countries . That’s right Syria, Ethiopia Etc. But that in no way states that that they were flourishing countries with populations at the time of creation meaning that there humans present from another creation. The countries and rivers mentioned are merely there to point out the location of Eden . So I would ask what is the proposition of the theory of two creations . I would say like old age Earth theory from the 19th century and its many offshoots that it is merely to appease evolutionary thought and billions of years to make the Bible conform to the science of men and not the science of men conforming to the Bible . And we must evaluate where in Genesis 1 & 2 does the specifically mention two creation accounts. It doesn’t. Genesis 5:1-2 only speaks of one creation not two . Yours Prim. I will will reply to your other post soon

Kathleen30 said:

Stronginhim in reference to your post 2560 God certainly wrote a literal account with enough information to realise there are boundaries to what the creation account says.

Click to expand...

No.
The Bible reveals God; it does not give a detailed account of how he created.

Kathleen30 said:

You mention 2 creation accounts. A relatively new interpretation from the mid 20th century from the likes of Bruce Waitke and John Walton who seems to think that he is Gods final authority on Jewish and ancient thought.

Click to expand...

What does that mean?
Genesis 2 was in the Bible long before the mid twentieth century.

Kathleen30 said:

You mention 7 other neighbouring countries worshipping different gods .

Click to expand...

I said "several", not "seven".
My point was that they believed that different gods were responsible for different parts of creation. Moses wanted people to know that one God created everything.

Kathleen30 said:

You then say Moses was not writing for scientists. And why not ?

Click to expand...

Because he wasn't.
The immediate group of people that he wrote for were Israelites; former Hebrew slaves who, if they knew any science, certainly didn't know what we know today.

If he had been writing specifically for scientists, he would have given lots of scientific detail, because that's what they would have been interested in.

Kathleen30 said:

The Bible is for everyone .

Click to expand...

Of course it is.
But scientists - and most people - are wise enough to know that they don't look in the Bible for scientific information - there isn't any.
Someone studying Zoology/chemistry/Physics would be given textbooks in those subjects to teach them about animals, plants, chemicals, atoms etc etc. They would not be given a copy of the Bible - that information is not in there.

Kathleen30 said:

You then mention Genesis chapter 1 in relation to God creating male and female and than in Genesis 2 you say that God creates Adam out of dust and Mother Eve out of Adam’s rib a little later. Stonginhim God makes it abundantly clear In Genesis 1 : 31 ( And God saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ) Including the creation of Adam & Eve. Stronginhim Genesis chapter one is a overview of the cosmic events of creation wk. Genesis chapter 2 is a more detailed report on the creation of Adam & Eve and the events of day six . It has nothing to with two different creations .

Click to expand...

I didn't say it did have anything to do with different creations.
My point was that if people take ALL of the Bible to be literal, they will have to explain the differences between Genesis 1&2.

Kathleen30 said:

You must remember there were no chaptering as we have in our bibles today.

Click to expand...

I know.

Kathleen30 said:

You mention in Genesis 2 also concerning other countries . That’s right Syria, Ethiopia Etc. But that in no way states that that they were flourishing countries with populations at the time of creation meaning that there humans present from another creation.

Click to expand...

I never said any of that; you're missing my point.
I said that if people take ALL of the Bible to be literal, they have to explain the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 says that God created trees, animals, water etc. Genesis 2 doesn't say that. It tells of a garden with a river that divides and goes into other countries.
If someone believes that every word of the Bible is literal; which account do they go with?

Kathleen30 said:

So I would ask what is the proposition of the theory of two creations .

Click to expand...

No idea.
But you only need to worry about that if you believe that every word of the Bible is literal and that Genesis 1 & 2 are literal, scientific accounts of God's creation.

I don't believe they are, and for me, there is no problem or contradiction.

Strong in Him said:

I said, you can't debate science from the Bible.
@Apple Sky was unable to answer any of the questions that I asked, using the Bible as reference.

Some people read the Bible literally when it was not meant to be read that way.
You won't find scientific explanations in the Bible; that is not its purpose.
We use, have and do many things today which are not mentioned in the Bible.

It's not in any way a science textbook - not even partially.

No, it isn't.
It is the final authority on God; on his nature, his will, his actions and his relationship with mankind.

You can't give the Bible to someone studying physics to use as a textbook. You won't learn Biology, Zoology, Chemistry, Astrophysics or any other science subject from the pages of Scripture.
In the same way that you won't learn Spanish from a cookery book that mentions Paella and Spanish wine.
You won't become an artist because you read a novel about someone who learns to draw.
Someone could read a biography about the Beatles; it doesn't mean they can sing. Or you could find out all about Mozart; it doesn't mean you'll be able to play the piano/clarinet/violin.

If you're interested in science, quantum physics, chemistry, astronomy and so on - go and read the appropriate books.
If you want to know God and have a relationship with him; read the Bible.
There are people who do both and find no contradiction.

Click to expand...

Stronginhim you say Gods word not be the final authority in all things. I say when it clashes with scripture it most certainly does and is to be challenged accordingly by the word of God. That is what I’m trying to explain to you. . You Then mention the many professions. The Bible certainly does not show us how learn Japanese or Russian but if you were to Curse God in those languages that would still make you accountable according to the word of God. Nothing wrong with learning other languages. You than mention music again nothing wrong with music until you come across such music groups such music like AC/DC like Bonn Scott’s Highway to hell and and you shook me all night long you told me to go cum but I was already there. Along with numerous other groups of such songs . Are these songs appropriate to play at church. No they are not . You mention the cookery book and what’s say it promotes rare meat meaning that blood is not fully cooked but still raw that would go contrary to the New Testament that meat must be cooked fully. As to the Spanish I have mentioned prior with language. You could even add dress wear . even the Scottish kilt has a distinction between men’s and woman’s kilts and the Bible has always be rather specific on women’s and men’s clothing . You mention physics, chemistry, astronomy there is no harm in all in all those things including science. Until they are used to override the word of God and what the Bible says. You could also jaded the arts . Art is beautiful but you also have pornographic art. Is it acceptable to have a statue of the god Pan bending a lady over and giving her the full measure of his flute in a church No . And the same goes for science. The word of God is the final authority when it comes to truth. More so those boundaries have been crossed . The word of God is the final authority in all things . So I not agree you and yu probably not agree with me. Yours Kathleen

Apple Sky said:

It is Antarctica that encircles the earth, as ice melts at 33 degrees, therefore lets hope Antarctica doesn't have a heat wave,

Click to expand...

But you keep saying that with no evidence. Nobody who has been to Antarctica has encountered a huge wall of ice encircling the earth. Certainly if all the ice at Antarctica or the Arctic were to melt, it would cause problems. I imagine that the melted ice would cause sea-levels to rise.

Apple Sky said:

Yes there has what about Admiral R. Byrd & all his fleet of ships in 'Operation High Jump' ? Why do you think they called it 'Operation High Jump' ?

Click to expand...

I have only heard about Admiral Byrd through your posts. Are you saying he jumped over the supposed huge ice wall? Why did Roald Amundsen, Robert Falcon Scott, Ernest Shackleton, Ranulph Fiennes, and the many others who have reached the South Pole not encountered such an ice wall?

You

Strong in Him said:

No.
The Bible reveals God; it does not give a detailed account of how he created.

What does that mean?
Genesis 2 was in the Bible long before the mid twentieth century.

I said "several", not "seven".
My point was that they believed that different gods were responsible for different parts of creation. Moses wanted people to know that one God created everything.

Because he wasn't.
The immediate group of people that he wrote for were Israelites; former Hebrew slaves who, if they knew any science, certainly didn't know what we know today.

If he had been writing specifically for scientists, he would have given lots of scientific detail, because that's what they would have been interested in.

Of course it is.
But scientists - and most people - are wise enough to know that they don't look in the Bible for scientific information - there isn't any.
Someone studying Zoology/chemistry/Physics would be given textbooks in those subjects to teach them about animals, plants, chemicals, atoms etc etc. They would not be given a copy of the Bible - that information is not in there.

I didn't say it did have anything to do with different creations.
My point was that if people take ALL of the Bible to be literal, they will have to explain the differences between Genesis 1&2.

I know.

I never said any of that; you're missing my point.
I said that if people take ALL of the Bible to be literal, they have to explain the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 says that God created trees, animals, water etc. Genesis 2 doesn't say that. It tells of a garden with a river that divides and goes into other countries.
If someone believes that every word of the Bible is literal; which account do they go with?

No idea.
But you only need to worry about that if you believe that every word of the Bible is literal and that Genesis 1 & 2 are literal, scientific accounts of God's creation.

I don't believe they are, and for me, there is no problem or contradiction.

Click to expand...

Strong in Him said:

No.
The Bible reveals God; it does not give a detailed account of how he created.

What does that mean?
Genesis 2 was in the Bible long before the mid twentieth century.

I said "several", not "seven".
My point was that they believed that different gods were responsible for different parts of creation. Moses wanted people to know that one God created everything.

Because he wasn't.
The immediate group of people that he wrote for were Israelites; former Hebrew slaves who, if they knew any science, certainly didn't know what we know today.

If he had been writing specifically for scientists, he would have given lots of scientific detail, because that's what they would have been interested in.

Of course it is.
But scientists - and most people - are wise enough to know that they don't look in the Bible for scientific information - there isn't any.
Someone studying Zoology/chemistry/Physics would be given textbooks in those subjects to teach them about animals, plants, chemicals, atoms etc etc. They would not be given a copy of the Bible - that information is not in there.

I didn't say it did have anything to do with different creations.
My point was that if people take ALL of the Bible to be literal, they will have to explain the differences between Genesis 1&2.

I know.

I never said any of that; you're missing my point.
I said that if people take ALL of the Bible to be literal, they have to explain the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 says that God created trees, animals, water etc. Genesis 2 doesn't say that. It tells of a garden with a river that divides and goes into other countries.
If someone believes that every word of the Bible is literal; which account do they go with?

No idea.
But you only need to worry about that if you believe that every word of the Bible is literal and that Genesis 1 & 2 are literal, scientific accounts of God's creation.

I don't believe they are, and for me, there is no problem or contradiction.

Click to expand...

Stonginhim in my post 2549 I asked you whether you were referring to the creation account as one of the parts of the Bible that shouldn’t be taken literally. You said yes . In the bottom part of your post 2560. You write much about contradictions in the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 you kept back and forth pointing out alleged problems if taken literally. My apologies there is a doctrine that promotes 2 seperate creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 that’s what I thought you were referring too. But no I still disagree with you that there be any contradictions in those two chapters in taking the chapters literally. I’m not saying the entire Bible should taken literally . Ok . But Genesis 1 and 2 I have no problem taking them as literal accounts . So We disagree on the issue

jonojim1337 said:

Copernicus presented his theory to the pope as a way to explain certain certain celestial movements but not all. He admitted it was a flawed model.

Click to expand...

It was flawed because he didn’t take into account that the orbits were elliptical at various angles, but his calculations were very close considering the limited data he had to work with.

jonojim1337 said:

Again, magic wands are made out of the Holly tree.

Click to expand...

You know magic wand’s aren’t real right?

jonojim1337 said:

The moon is focal point of polarised light that creates a plasma in our atmosphere

Click to expand...

Crikey. How is the light focussed? What is it hitting to make the plasma?

David Lamb said:

I have no idea how many Jews work for NASA, but even if the majority of NASA workers were Jews (which I doubt), NASA workers didn't choose the acronym, just as the soldiers in a particular regiment didn't choose the regiment's name.

As for wands, some may be made from holly wood, but by no means all are. I did a google search for "what are wands made of" and found many sites saying that various woods are used. Here is just one example, from https://www.tudorhouse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Magic-Wands.pdf

"According to the Book of Honorius, wands are traditionally made of wood and a wand maker might cut a branch from a hazel tree or any nut tree. The wood must be new or green wood and ideally should be cut at sunrise on a Wednesday! It was cut and then carved it into shape and then decorated to personalise it."

Click to expand...

Magic wands were the compact version. Real magic was done with a staff.