Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[bhsmte]

The thing about errors, contradictions and supposed additions they seem to only be such to those who don't believe the answers to those "problems". Prophecy is one such thing. There are past, present and future prophecies that unless one has studied deeply they are not going to understand the differences.

I would like to say too that I find it strange that people who write about people or events some 50 to 100 years in the past do so without anyone questioning the accuracy of the event/person. However, you see someone writing in that time span in the Bible and it is called into question. It is not unusual for that time period for everything that was said was remembered in remarkable accuracy. It is also true for that time period and much much earlier for important information to be written down at the time and passed on. So even if the authors wrote it anywhere from 38- even 65 years later would not be a concern to the accuracy of the material. We are talking about an era where the spoken words and written manuscripts were imperative to communication.

Writing about history from 50-100 years ago, is a heck of a lot easier than writing the gospels 40-70 years after Jesus lived. Verifiable records, and modern methods of documenting history would be more readily available.

A historian has one job, apply the historical method to determine "what likely happened in the past". Sometimes they know for sure, video tape, recordings etc., sometimes they are highly confident; numerous eye witness accounts that are independent of one another, have no motivation to tell a specific story, don't tell exactly the same story but corroborate each account and physical evidence that also matches the eye witness accounts. The NT has none of the above for a historian to verify, which is why most legit historians, will not say the NT is a historically accurate document, but it is a document of theology.

And how reliable do you really believe telling stories from person to person is going to be over several decades? Well, no matter how important it was to people of that time, the stories will be changed by each person to some degree, for various reasons. After 40-50-60-70 years, good luck with predicting the accuracy of what is left of the story.

Again, what I find strange, are christians may have overwhelming objective evidence available and they will shun that evidence, because it is science and goes against the bible. Then, they turn to a book written 2000 years ago, with the obvious flaws mentioned and hang on every word and kick and scream when someone points out the flaws.

If it works, then knock yourself out, but it is the ultimate double standard used as confirmation bias.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Writing about history from 50-100 years ago, is a heck of a lot easier than writing the gospels 40-70 years after Jesus lived. Verifiable records, and modern methods of documenting history would be more readily available.

Why? They wrote down all the saying that Jesus said at the time and copies were sent around for decades before the Bible authors set it all down. One way people communicated was by letter and it was the only way unlike today. They didn't have phones or cars or computers. If something was important they had to write it down and send it out in letters.

A historian has one job, apply the historical method to determine "what likely happened in the past". Sometimes they know for sure, video tape, recordings etc., sometimes they are highly confident; numerous eye witness accounts that are independent of one another, have no motivation to tell a specific story, don't tell exactly the same story but corroborate each account and physical evidence that also matches the eye witness accounts. The NT has none of the above for a historian to verify, which is why most legit historians, will not say the NT is a historically accurate document, but it is a document of theology.

The gospels were written down most likely during the period that Jesus was with them. These were the most important events in their lives, they would not have just walked around with Jesus and not written down His words. They were eye witnesses to Jesus. Two of the gospel biographies were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus' life.

And how reliable do you really believe telling stories from person to person is going to be over several decades? Well, no matter how important it was to people of that time, the stories will be changed by each person to some degree, for various reasons. After 40-50-60-70 years, good luck with predicting the accuracy of what is left of the story.

That simply is untrue. It was written down, in fact, the question of Moses writing the parts that are said not to have been written by him are currently being hypothesized as being written by Adam and passed on. Adam was the first spiritual man IMHO and not the first "man" on earth. Genesis 2 gives the spiritual creation of man. Regardless, I digress. So the copying in those times was very exact and the evidence proves it. The Dead sea tablets show almost word for word what we have in our Bible today.

Again, what I find strange, are christians may have overwhelming objective evidence available and they will shun that evidence, because it is science and goes against the bible. Then, they turn to a book written 2000 years ago, with the obvious flaws mentioned and hang on every word and kick and scream when someone points out the flaws.

Well there you go. You think that the Bible can't even be accurate and you ignore the way people lived and communicated in the eras it was written down. You look at what we do today to explain how it couldn't be possible then which is just not the way they lived and then claim we are not looking at it logically. I think you are not looking at it accurately.

If it works, then knock yourself out, but it is the ultimate double standard used as confirmation bias.

Double standard?

 

[bhsmte]

Why? They wrote down all the saying that Jesus said at the time and copies were sent around for decades before the Bible authors set it all down. One way people communicated was by letter and it was the only way unlike today. They didn't have phones or cars or computers. If something was important they had to write it down and send it out in letters.

What is your evidence that people wrote down what Jesus was saying in real time and copies were sent around to be used to write the gospels?

The gospels were written down most likely during the period that Jesus was with them. These were the most important events in their lives, they would not have just walked around with Jesus and not written down His words. They were eye witnesses to Jesus. Two of the gospel biographies were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus' life.

What is your evidence to back this claim?


That simply is untrue. It was written down, in fact, the question of Moses writing the parts that are said not to have been written by him are currently being hypothesized as being written by Adam and passed on. Adam was the first spiritual man IMHO and not the first "man" on earth. Genesis 2 gives the spiritual creation of man. Regardless, I digress. So the copying in those times was very exact and the evidence proves it. The Dead sea tablets show almost word for word what we have in our Bible today.

How does the evidence prove the copying was exact?

Well there you go. You think that the Bible can't even be accurate and you ignore the way people lived and communicated in the eras it was written down. You look at what we do today to explain how it couldn't be possible then which is just not the way they lived and then claim we are not looking at it logically. I think you are not looking at it accurately.

No, I don't believe it would be possible to accurately verbally communicate a story over 40-70 years with a multitude of people being involved and having what was written after all that time, be accurate.

Double standard?

Yes, an obvious double standard.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, an obvious double standard.

Ok, about what? That is what I meant.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, about what? That is what I meant.

That was explained in one of my previous posts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dark energy is here to stay. Thanks to the link that concurs with mainstream cosmology. You posted links that accept mainstream cosmology and none agree with your God did it philosophy. What's your point?

Dark matter and dark energy is dying the death of SUSY theory.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qu...mmetry-fails-tests-physicists-seek-new-ideas/

"But there is little to build on. So far, no hints of “new physics” beyond the Standard Model — the accepted set of equations describing the known elementary particles — have shown up in experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, operated by the European research laboratory CERN outside Geneva, or anywhere else. (The recently discovered Higgs boson was predicted by the Standard Model.)"

But they will ignore the data for as long as possible, continuing to believe in their beloved fantasies as long as they can.

"“It’s a difficult question that most of us are trying not to answer yet,” said Adam Falkowski, a theoretical particle physicist from the University of Paris-South in Orsay, France, who is currently working at CERN."

There is no Fairie Dust dark matter, merely electrical currents in plasma, what 99% of the universe is made of.

Even NASA understands this.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

It is these what mainstream theorists term halos of "hot gas" that surrounds every galaxy that is responsible for galactic rotation curves, not Fairie Dust. It is mainstream theorists refusal to accept Plasma for what it is, instead calling it a hot gas, which it certainly is not.

Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter."

It is mainstreams constant refusal to treat plasma like plasma, and instead treat it like nothing more than a gas, that it has properties quite unlike, so unlike in fact it is considered a distinct state of matter, that causes you to invent Fairie Dust in order to fudge the math.

What your scientists are telling you is that there is a force at work that they do not understand, and while ignoring this electrified gas, plasma, invent Fairie Dust in an attempt to explain their observations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/s...ound-nothing-scientists-say-proudly.html?_r=0

yes, only in Dark Matter research would a negative result be considered a success. A clean signal just means that they do not even have background noise to check in an attempt to find what does not exist. The real success is that you continually let them dupe you out of billions of tax dollars in the search for nothing.

Huge Dark Matter Experiment Finds Nothing but More Mysteries - Wired Science

"“Basically, we saw nothing. But we saw nothing better than anyone else so far,” said particle physicist Daniel McKinsey of Yale, a member of the LUX collaboration."

The most ignorant scientific statement to date. Slapping themselves on the back for finding absolutely nothing. Sounds like a good time to ask for more funding. Look, we have found nothing, so now we need a few billion more to find more nothing.

"When astronomers look out in the universe, they see dark matter everywhere. Ok, they don’t see it directly (it’s dark after all). But they know how gravity works and their equations suggest that in order for stars to spin around in galaxies at the speeds they do, there must be a whole bunch of invisible mass tugging on them. Furthermore, simulations of the universe show that dark matter is necessary for the cosmos to have the large-scale structure that it does."

No, it just needs astronomers to actually take a course in plasma physics, since 99% of the universe they are studying is plasma. Being so-called scientists, one might think it would be a good idea to learn something about what you are studying is made up of.

But at least plasma is now NASA's next science target. It's about time we started studying plasma in space, considering it makes up 99% of the universe. better late than never I guess.

Wake up already, mainstream cosmology with all their Fairie Dust died years ago. Let it rest in peace. Move on and accept reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really, that is not an interpretation. Since it does not say what the mark is, there can be no interpretation one way or the other. Just like the fruit of the tree of life. No one really knows exactly what kind fruit it was.

Mainly it was a Baptist and Mormon assumption. The majority of Christian Churches in the world, the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them.

Some so-called Christians claim that black skin color is the result of a divine curse placed upon Canaan and his descendants, consigning them to a position of servitude. But this cannot be correct in many ways. The black race descended not from Canaan but from Cush and possibly Put. And no curse was placed upon either of them. (Genesis 9:24, 25; 10:6) Additionally, Canaan was not black skinned, nor were his descendants who settled in the land that became known as Palestine. (Gen. 10:15-19)

The Bible mentions a time when there were not, as yet, any races. Back then, it could be said of mankind that “they are all a single people with a single language!” (Genesis 11:6 in The Jerusalem Bible)

However, the account in Genesis 11:1-9 talks about an attempt that was made to keep mankind in one location for religiopolitical purposes. But this ran contrary to God's original purpose for mankind when He said: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” - Gen. 9:1; see also 1:28.

So the account goes on to mention that God suddenly caused men to speak different languages so they could not understand one another. Unable to communicate as one people, little groups, now isolated by the barrier of language, moved off on their own. As they spread farther afield, distance added another barrier to communication. The record of these events says that “Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.” (Gen. 11:8; NWT) Isolated by location and by language, the descendants of each group multiplied and developed the distinct features of their “race.

Notice that when the sons of Noah are listed, Ham is described as being ‘the father of Canaan.’ The names of the other two sons are mentioned, but Ham is particularly singled out as being the father of Canaan. Why is this so?
Now Ham had four sons, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. However, consider the descendants of Canaan.

The descendants of Canaan were some of the most wicked people to ever live on the earth—the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for instance. What is interesting to note is that the Bible seems to indicate, in Genesis 9:22, that when Ham was disrespectful to his father Noah, this involved some sort of sexual connotation.

It is indeed possible that Noah saw in Canaan the same sin problem that his father Ham had. It is a sad fact of history (there are a number of recorded instances in the Bible) that when the father sins, the next generation learn from the father and are often more wicked than their father.

Therefore, it seems that Noah understood that Canaan’s descendants would also reflect this rebellious nature. Remember, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for their sexual perversion.

The curse of Canaan has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color, but is in fact an example warning fathers to train their children in godly principles. If this is not done in one generation, then generations to come will express their rebellious nature as seen in the wickedness of Canaan’s descendants.

The Canaanites were, in time, subjugated by the Israelites, descendants of Shem, and later by Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, descendants of Japheth. This subjugation of the Canaanites fulfilled the prophetic curse on their ancestor Canaan. The curse thus had nothing to do with the black race.

 

[stevevw]

The fabric of the cosmos.

I just finished watching the series called the fabric of the cosmos again. Part 4 is of most interest as it goes into dark energy and the theories scientist have come up with to explain the surprising finds dark energy has shown. Parts 1 to 3 go into newtons theory then Einstein and then expands on how time and space work together and then covers quantum mechanics.

The big bang theory has been around for some time and scientist believed according to known laws of gravity that everything would eventually slow and then start to contract. Then it was discovered that the universe is actually speeding up and galaxies and planets are moving away from each other. They were surprised by this result as it went against what they believe should happen. They have tried to come up with different explanations as to why this is happening.

Then comes the discovery of dark energy which makes up 70% of the universe. The dark empty space out there isn't empty and has activity within it of particles popping in and out of existence. This mysterious forces has an effect on gravity and all matter in the universe. It seems as gravity attracts, dark energy is pushing things apart.

Scientist expected the amount of influence dark energy had would be great but as it turned out it is very small. In fact its energy is so small its like 122 zeros then .1 and this has completely baffled scientists. The results were so far away from what they predicted that scientist couldn't believe it. It was classed as one of the biggest miscalculations of modern times.

In fact if you were to take only 5 of those zeros away to make it a little stronger, you would still have a very small number but then we wouldn't be here. The universe would be expanding so fast it would not have time to form anything. If it was slower then everything would be in chaos. So it seemed that the amount of energy this dark energy has is just the perfect amount to keep everything in its place.

Now scientist after being thrown out so much had to re think their theories as things didn't add up to what they predicted according to all the known laws. So they have been coming up with different hypothesis to account for this including the multi universe theory and the string theory. Both of these are pretty far fetched and there is absolutely no proof but it seems many are getting on board as there is nothing else that fits. There are many opposed to this as they say it doesn't address the problem of dark energy being so small an influence.

These theories work on the basis that because dark energy has such a small amount of influence then there must be many universes with varying amounts of dark energy affecting them so that our number can be accommodated. That means there has to be millions of universes to accommodate the large numbers. Some will have nothing in them, some will have chaos and some may be very close to how our universe has panned out. In fact they are saying there could be another you and i somewhere out there in another dimension that may have lived the life we should have lived. Crazy stuff and its hard to believe and understand.

To me this is more far fetched than evolution itself. Just like when scientist observe our genetics and find it is producing some unusual and contradictory results to what they have predicted. They are coming up with all sorts of stories to try and account for this as it goes beyond the bounds of what they considered to be normal and the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

To me this is just another indication that as we discover more about how life began, how things came into existence and what are the driving forces behind it all we will continue to be baffled and see that it wont make sense because God is behind it. For something to be so complex and magnificent that goes beyond our comprehension we will never work it out. All we are doing is pulling apart Gods work and trying to understand it and the more we do the more we will see that only God could have done this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYlZYFL34z4
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. Psalm 147:5

 

[Golan]

To me this is more far fetched than evolution itself. Just like when scientist observe our genetics and find it is producing some unusual and contradictory results to what they have predicted. They are coming up with all sorts of stories to try and account for this as it goes beyond the bounds of what they considered to be normal and the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

Why don't you take a look at what you believe and see how far fetched and ridiculously impossible that is?
even if you show that evolution is wrong how does that make what you believe true? you will still need to show there is a magic man, sorry I forgot, when you need it in the absence of evidence you are able to call on 'faith'.

Do you know why faith is just another name for gullibility? you must first be gullible to even think of calling on faith.

 

[Black Akuma]

It was classed as one of the biggest miscalculations of modern times.

When?

By who?

In what publication? Where?

 

[biggles53]

The gospels were written down most likely during the period that Jesus was with them. These were the most important events in their lives, they would not have just walked around with Jesus and not written down His words. They were eye witnesses to Jesus. Two of the gospel biographies were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus' life.

Oh wow......

You have a lot invested in that book and it's messages,right...? So, have you ever taken the trouble to actually research it, or have you just accepted whatever has been told you by pastors, parents, whatever...?

The gospels were not written by the apostles. None of them. They were written decades after the supposed death of Jesus. This has been well established by biblical scholars.

If the truth is important to you, as opposed to pretending to know things, do yourself a favour and undertake some research.....

 

[stevevw]

Why don't you take a look at what you believe and see how far fetched and ridiculously impossible that is?
even if you show that evolution is wrong how does that make what you believe true? you will still need to show there is a magic man, sorry I forgot, when you need it in the absence of evidence you are able to call on 'faith'.

Do you know why faith is just another name for gullibility? you must first be gullible to even think of calling on faith.

Thats funny. I am no more gullible than you. You underestimate me. I have lived a mixed life and been on both sides of life. I have done enough in life to know if i am gullible or not. I can spot a scamer a mile away. What makes you God that you can judge who i am you dont know me.

If i am not gullible in other areas of my life then what makes you think i am in my belief. Why because you say so, because you have judged what is right and what is not. I maybe every bit as together if not more than you for all you know. But you make an assumed judgement of me and you haven't met me. That shows your prejudice and lack of understanding.

If i am good enough to have had business's and success in judgements in other areas then surely i am switched on enough to know whats going on. Besides who said that people who believe are gullible. How do you know that they dont derive some meaning from their beliefs. How do you know they may be happy and well adjusted because of their beliefs. They have every bit as much success as you or anyone else.

Belief has also been shown to bring peace and well being to many and they have every bit as much success as anyone. Those who dont believe are subject to gullibility as well with being fooled by money schemes and love on many occasions. This is a human trait not one that is susceptible to believers.

My belief is based on a faith and that faith is personal and you dont know what that means to me. I respect your right to have your beliefs and opinions so you should mine. Everyone has the right to have their say and opinion and they shouldn't be judged because of their beliefs, religion, culture, race or lifestyle. That just shows intolerance and a lack of understanding.

For all you know God maybe true in the end but you have already made your mind up and closed it to any other possibilities. Why didn't you just comment on the subject of what the video was about rather than make some personal remarks. I find the subject interesting. Just because i have that opinion shouldn't take away from the topic and what you think about it.

 

[Golan]

For all you know God maybe true in the end but you have already made your mind up and closed it to any other possibilities.

Absolutely right, there may well be a God, but surly you don't believe in everything that MAY exist?
It has absolutely nothing to do with closed minds and everything to do with evidence, just because you can imagine a God that's no reason to believe it actually exists, if it was you would end up believing in everything you could imagine just because you could imagine it being real.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The fabric of the cosmos.

I just finished watching the series called the fabric of the cosmos again. Part 4 is of most interest as it goes into dark energy and the theories scientist have come up with to explain the surprising finds dark energy has shown. Parts 1 to 3 go into newtons theory then Einstein and then expands on how time and space work together and then covers quantum mechanics.

The big bang theory has been around for some time and scientist believed according to known laws of gravity that everything would eventually slow and then start to contract. Then it was discovered that the universe is actually speeding up and galaxies and planets are moving away from each other. They were surprised by this result as it went against what they believe should happen. They have tried to come up with different explanations as to why this is happening.

Then comes the discovery of dark energy which makes up 70% of the universe. The dark empty space out there isn't empty and has activity within it of particles popping in and out of existence. This mysterious forces has an effect on gravity and all matter in the universe. It seems as gravity attracts, dark energy is pushing things apart.

Scientist expected the amount of influence dark energy had would be great but as it turned out it is very small. In fact its energy is so small its like 122 zeros then .1 and this has completely baffled scientists. The results were so far away from what they predicted that scientist couldn't believe it. It was classed as one of the biggest miscalculations of modern times.

In fact if you were to take only 5 of those zeros away to make it a little stronger, you would still have a very small number but then we wouldn't be here. The universe would be expanding so fast it would not have time to form anything. If it was slower then everything would be in chaos. So it seemed that the amount of energy this dark energy has is just the perfect amount to keep everything in its place.

Now scientist after being thrown out so much had to re think their theories as things didn't add up to what they predicted according to all the known laws. So they have been coming up with different hypothesis to account for this including the multi universe theory and the string theory. Both of these are pretty far fetched and there is absolutely no proof but it seems many are getting on board as there is nothing else that fits. There are many opposed to this as they say it doesn't address the problem of dark energy being so small an influence.

These theories work on the basis that because dark energy has such a small amount of influence then there must be many universes with varying amounts of dark energy affecting them so that our number can be accommodated. That means there has to be millions of universes to accommodate the large numbers. Some will have nothing in them, some will have chaos and some may be very close to how our universe has panned out. In fact they are saying there could be another you and i somewhere out there in another dimension that may have lived the life we should have lived. Crazy stuff and its hard to believe and understand.

To me this is more far fetched than evolution itself. Just like when scientist observe our genetics and find it is producing some unusual and contradictory results to what they have predicted. They are coming up with all sorts of stories to try and account for this as it goes beyond the bounds of what they considered to be normal and the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

To me this is just another indication that as we discover more about how life began, how things came into existence and what are the driving forces behind it all we will continue to be baffled and see that it wont make sense because God is behind it. For something to be so complex and magnificent that goes beyond our comprehension we will never work it out. All we are doing is pulling apart Gods work and trying to understand it and the more we do the more we will see that only God could have done this.
The Fabric of the Cosmos 4 of 4) Universe or Multiverse - YouTube
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. Psalm 147:5

Simply because astronomers have a false belief in redshift. The universe is not expanding, it is this misinterpretation of redshift that has led them down this false trail.

Hubble himself did not agree with redshift as an indicator of distance.

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

Because astronomers ignored observational evidence when the 200 inch telescope came online, and continue to ignore it to this day.

Faint Quasars Give Conclusive Evidence for Non-Velocity Redshifts - Halton Arp's official website

Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific - Halton Arp's official website

Quasars and Gamma Ray Bursters - Surprise! - Halton Arp's official website

But astronomers continue to ignore the fact that redshift has been oberved in the laboratory with plasma, the substance that makes up 99% of the universe

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1105.0010, Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The Laboratory - a Discussion in Terms of New Tired Light.

[astro-ph/0401420] Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma

http://www.plasmaredshift.org/Article_Archive_files/10CCC2AReviewFinal.pdf

But of course astronomers continue to ignore laboratory results in favor of Fairie Dust, because to admit they were wrong would show them not to be the experts they claim to be. Because if redshift is not a reliable indicator of distance, then we must admit that we can no longer claim with certainty how far any object in space is.

One day soon science will go back to experimental based science instead of theoretical science based upon no experiments. It is this reliance on theory instead of actual data and experiments that has lead astronomy down a road that leads in a dead end.

 

[stevevw]

Oh wow......

You have a lot invested in that book and it's messages,right...? So, have you ever taken the trouble to actually research it, or have you just accepted whatever has been told you by pastors, parents, whatever...?

The gospels were not written by the apostles. None of them. They were written decades after the supposed death of Jesus. This has been well established by biblical scholars.

If the truth is important to you, as opposed to pretending to know things, do yourself a favour and undertake some research.....

The Gospel of john was written by John the apostle. It even says that in chapter 21. This book is written by the disciple who Jesus loved which was attributed to john. If it wasn't john it was still a disciple of Jesus. He is also attributed with the letters john 1,2 and 3 and the book of revelations though some say there may be another john who wrote revelations as it is in a different style. But this maybe because of it be a book of visions rather than a narrative. Some say that parts of John have been added to by other writers who were associated with him.

The Gospel of Matthew is attributed to The apostle Matthew. Outside the New Testament, a statement of importance about him is the passage from the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis preserved by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea: “So then Matthew composed the Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.”

The Gospel of Mark is attributed to who was a companion of the apostle Peter. According to Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by "Mark, (who) having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.


The book of Peter is attributed to the apostle Peter.
On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[7] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Peter did not write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[8] and the earliest attestation of Peter's authorship comes from 2 Peter (80–90 CE) and the letters of Clement(70-140ce).[3] Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.

The book of James is attributed to James the brother of Jesus.
evidence points to James the brother of Jesus, to whom Jesus evidently had made a special appearance after his resurrection described in the New Testament. This James was prominent among the disciples.[7][8] The writer of the letter of James identifies himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” in much the same way as did Jude, who introduced the letter of Jude by calling himself “a slave of Jesus Christ, but a brother of James.” (Jas 1:1; Jude 1) Furthermore, the salutation of James’ letter includes the term “Greetings!” in the same way as did the letter concerning circumcision that was sent to the congregations. In this latter instance it was apparently Jesus’ brother James who spoke prominently in the assembly of “the apostles and the older men” at Jerusalem.—Adam Clarke,1821, commentary on 5:13, 22, 23.

The book of Jude is attributed to Jude the brother of James who was the brother of Jesus.
The Epistle title is written as follows: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James"

Though there is some debate over some of the authors many say these are the true writers of the books. Conjecture stems from certain words and meanings. But in some books the author names themselves and this is backed by the writing style and certain other attributes that aline them to the authors. Certainly there are some eye witness accounts because of the detail and knowledge. At the very least there is also accounts from those who were closely associated with those who knew Jesus.

The actual bible was put together later and developed into what we have today.

 

[Golan]

The actual bible was put together later and developed into what we have today.

With every word of it being a record of what actually happened, that's not exactly 100% true,
in fact less than 0.1% is true other than the place names.

The people who told you the bible is true only want your money.

 

[stevevw]

Simply because astronomers have a false belief in redshift. The universe is not expanding, it is this misinterpretation of redshift that has led them down this false trail.

Hubble himself did not agree with redshift as an indicator of distance.

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

Because astronomers ignored observational evidence when the 200 inch telescope came online, and continue to ignore it to this day.

FaintÂ[bless and do not curse]QuasarsÂ[bless and do not curse]GiveÂ[bless and do not curse]ConclusiveÂ[bless and do not curse]Evidence for Non-VelocityÂ[bless and do not curse]Redshifts - Halton Arp's official website

Observational Cosmology: FromÂ[bless and do not curse]HighÂ[bless and do not curse]RedshiftÂ[bless and do not curse]Galaxies toÂ[bless and do not curse]theÂ[bless and do not curse]BlueÂ[bless and do not curse]Pacific - Halton Arp's official website

QuasarsÂ[bless and do not curse]andÂ[bless and do not curse]GammaÂ[bless and do not curse]RayÂ[bless and do not curse]Bursters - Surprise! - Halton Arp's official website

But astronomers continue to ignore the fact that redshift has been oberved in the laboratory with plasma, the substance that makes up 99% of the universe

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1105.0010, Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The Laboratory - a Discussion in Terms of New Tired Light.

[astro-ph/0401420] Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma

http://www.plasmaredshift.org/Article_Archive_files/10CCC2AReviewFinal.pdf

But of course astronomers continue to ignore laboratory results in favor of Fairie Dust, because to admit they were wrong would show them not to be the experts they claim to be. Because if redshift is not a reliable indicator of distance, then we must admit that we can no longer claim with certainty how far any object in space is.

One day soon science will go back to experimental based science instead of theoretical science based upon no experiments. It is this reliance on theory instead of actual data and experiments that has lead astronomy down a road that leads in a dead end.

Brian Schmidt who is an Australian won the Nobel peace prize for the discovery that the universe is speeding up.
Our Universe is getting bigger, faster

 

[stevevw]

With every word of it being a record of what actually happened, that's not exactly 100% true,
in fact less than 0.1% is true other than the place names.

The people who told you the bible is true only want your money.

If your talking about the new testament well the gospels are talking mostly about Christs ministry, his crucifixion and resurrection. According to historical accounts from non biblical sources there was a Christ who was crucified and was said to have had a ministry so most of that is true. That equates to more than 1%. You can question what he said as not being true but then what does that prove. What he says are just how to live and other parables which cant be proved or disproved. The fact that it is one of the most read books in the world and is used by countless thousands as an inspiration and to follow his teachings is testimony in itself.

Many of the towns, people artifacts, alters and other historical events are being verified all the time. So it is up for debate as to how true it is and i would say much more than 1%. You obviously dont do much investigation into the bible and history and have seen some of the finds they have made. Even writings of emperors and other people have mentioned some of the events the bible talks about. In fact some disputed some of the people and cities that the bible mentions until they actually found them and were verified. Many archeologist use the bible as a reference book for their research as it gives some very good clues to the history of those times.

And no they dont want my money, the government wants my money, the rent man wants my money and the power company wants my money. I bought a bible 30 years ago and still have it and all the message in it comes absolutely free. The teaching talk about god giving his only son for our sins as a gift for free. What the bible promotes is for free the only thing you have to do is accept it. The religions that take money in the name of God and use it for their own advances are nothing more than hypocrites and like any money scammers you see around that try to sell you bad goods or some unreal investment.

What you fail to mention is the good work that many Christians do with the sacrifice of their own time and money to help others like the salvation army and the many others that help the needy. You choose to focus on the negative only and dont see the positive.

 

[Golan]

If your talking about the new testament well the gospels are talking mostly about Christs ministry, his crucifixion and resurrection. According to historical accounts from non bibilcal sources there was a christ who was crucified and was said to have had a ministry so most of that is true. That equates to more than 1%. You can question what he said as not being true but then what does that prove. What he says are just how to live and other parables which cant be proved or disproved. The fact that it is one of the most read books in the world and is used by countless thousands as an inspiration and to follow his teachings is testimony in itself.

Many of the towns, people artifacts, alters and other historical events are being verified all the time. So it is up for debate as to how true it is and i would say much more than 1%. You obviously dont do much investigation into the bible and history and have seen some of the finds they have made. Even writings of emperors and other people have mentioned some of the events the bible talks about. In fact some disputed some of the people and cities that the bible mentions until they actually found them and were verified. Many archeologist use the bible as a reference book for their research as it gives some very good clues to the history of those times.

You have been told lies and you believe them because you want to believe them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

With every word of it being a record of what actually happened, that's not exactly 100% true,
in fact less than 0.1% is true other than the place names.

The people who told you the bible is true only want your money.

And yet for a book you claim is only .01% true, archeologists rely on the Bible to date finds and artifacts, to find new dig sites, etc, etc. it is the most historically accurate book in existence. The only history book that told the good and the bad. All other history books rarely tell you of the bad things they did, only the good.

For example, most history books imply the civil war was fought for freedom of slaves. This is not true at all. it was fought because the south wanted to succeed from the US and form its own confederacy. They tell you the war against England was fought over taxes, again not true. It was fought because England refused to let the colonies print their own money, and so had to borrow money at interest, forcing them into finiancial slavery, which anyone who read the writings of the founding fathers would know.

History is written by the winners and tells you what you want to hear to make you feel good about the countries history. The Bible on the other hand lists both good and bad and has been proven time and time again to be the most historically accurate book known to exist. Yet everything that can be checked has proven accurate.

What you mean to say is that scientists only doubt .01% of it, that concerning God, that must be taken by faith, even though the rest has been shown to be accurate.

So your thought pattern is if someone tells you things that are shown to be accurate 10,000 times, and then tells you one thing that admittedly can't be proven, you automatically consider that 1 thing a lie, even though this person has always been shown to be correct?

So why do you accept Dark matter on "faith"? No experiment has ever shown its existence, no mathematical theory that includes it has ever worked out, and has instead been shown to be wrong. Why do you then accept words written by men without a single scientific result as fact?