Creation Story: Did God lie?

[lesliedellow]

View attachment 200410

Two words: Textual criticism.

In his more honest moments even Bart Ehrman will admit that we have far more, and closer in time, documentary evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text, and that, with few exceptions, we know what the authors originally wrote.

 

[Colter]

Two words: Textual criticism.

In his more honest moments even Bart Ehrman will admit that we have far more, and closer in time, documentary evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text, and that, with few exceptions, we know what the authors originally wrote.

I'm ok with that, the NT is much more authentic to the originals and to truth than the OT. With the UB we now have the records made by those celestial beings who were actually on the earth during the times of Michaels bestowal.

 

[AV1611VET]

* pic *

I actually like that picture, Colter.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Did Urantia get it right the first time?

2. In view of the fact that scientists don't have 100% agreement on everything, have knock-down-drag-out peer reviews, is myopic (as opposed to omniscient), change their paradigms with almost every new discovery, use trial-and-error until they get the result they're looking for, make mistakes (some of which have deadly consequences both to themselves and the innocent public), and can't wait until the next discovery shatters their existing paradigms ... in view of all that, does your cartoon apply to science as well?

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm ok with that, the NT is much more authentic to the originals and to truth than the OT.

Wherever the Masoretic Text can be compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls, they match almost exactly, with the exception of things like punctuation and spelling mistakes.

With the UB we now have the records made by those celestial beings who were actually on the earth during the times of Michaels bestowal.

Baloney.

 

[CrystalDragon]

God did not lie. Within 960 years, Adam and Even both died - a "day" equivalent to scripture that says "a thousand years is but a day to the Lord, and a day as a thousand years." Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8. And Satan lied. They did die.


In the next passage you refer to, the "us" God is referring to is to the Heavenly Host who is watching the whole thing. This could include all the angels, or the other persons of the Trinity, or both - because the next phrase codifies specifically who "us" is - an "us" who "lives forever."

There were two trees in the Garden. One tree could not be eaten from. Hebrew tradition states that when God gave Adam the choice "to eat from any tree in the Garden, except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" it was actually a choice between the eating from the Tree of Life (which he did eat of course before the fall) or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The moment Adam sinned and ate from the wrong tree, death entered - a process that would take less than 960 years to complete. Had he eaten again from the Tree of Life, death would have halted, and Adam would not have died. But God did not want Adam to live forever, because if he did, then Adam would be just like the fallen angels that rebelled: Lucifer, who became Satan, and the angels that became demons: their ability to live forever has made their rebellious, sinful, and now imperfect condition - PERMANENT - forever. God loved man so much that he wanted to give them a second chance, but he had to withold the Tree of Life from him, until a day came when He Himself would BE the Tree of Life hanging on a cross 4000 years later, and man's sinful nature could be completely changed and reversed. - the debt of sin, death, would be paid in full. And now, man can live forever as perfect...again.

Lucifer is not Satan. Never was. "Lucifer" was a term for a Babylonian king in a proverb.

I do agree about Adam dying though. The serpent—for that's all it was, Genesis even says so—decieved by telling a half-truth. It told the truth that Adam and Eve would know good from evil, but the falsehood was that they wouldn't die. Once they ate of the tree they started to die.

 

[lesliedellow]

I actually like that picture, Colter.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Did Urantia get it right the first time?

2. In view of the fact that scientists don't have 100% agreement on everything, have knock-down-drag-out peer reviews, is myopic (as opposed to omniscient), change their paradigms with almost every new discovery, use trial-and-error until they get the result they're looking for, make mistakes (some of which have deadly consequences both to themselves and the innocent public), and can't wait until the next discovery shatters their existing paradigms ... in view of all that, does your cartoon apply to science as well?

The paradigm used by the physical sciences hasn't changed since the time of Newton. Arguably the fact of consciousness will either force a paradigm shift, or it will remain forever unexplained.

 

[Colter]

I actually like that picture, Colter.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Did Urantia get it right the first time?

2. In view of the fact that scientists don't have 100% agreement on everything, have knock-down-drag-out peer reviews, is myopic (as opposed to omniscient), change their paradigms with almost every new discovery, use trial-and-error until they get the result they're looking for, make mistakes (some of which have deadly consequences both to themselves and the innocent public), and can't wait until the next discovery shatters their existing paradigms ... in view of all that, does your cartoon apply to science as well?

Apart from some punctuation and spelling errors in the nickle plate settings at R.L. Donnelley, the Urantia papers say what the revelators wanted to say, were allowed to say, governed by the revelation mandate in the age of the 5th epochal revelation. They were frank about the fact that revelation is always relative and carefully governed. Jesus, aka Christ Michael, was given a specific set of pre-incarnate instructions as to how to proceed.


Both science and religious evolution are backing into the truth. So yes, science also gets things wrong and must change. Religion only changes when revelation is forced upon its conclusions.

 

[AV1611VET]

The paradigm used by the physical sciences hasn't changed since the time of Newton. Arguably the fact of consciousness will either force a paradigm shift, or it will remain forever unexplained.

What?

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus, aka Christ Michael,

That's blasphemy (meaning scientists will do everything they can to either justify it, or deny it).

Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel,

Hebrews 1:4 [Jesus] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

 

[lesliedellow]

What?

There is really no head scratching needed. The underlying assumption in Newton's day was that the universe was made up of "stuff" which got pushed around by forces. Sometimes those forces were mediated by an invisible force field.

That is still the underlying assumption of the physical sciences, even though it is becoming a bit frayed at the edges.

 

[Colter]

Wherever the Masoretic Text can be compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls, they match almost exactly, with the exception of things like punctuation and spelling mistakes.




Baloney.

Because the Hebrews completed their conversion of secular history into a miraculous fiction before the Dead Sea scroll copies were made.

Revelation will be ongoing regardless of mans craving for doctrine formation.

 

[Colter]

That's blasphemy (meaning scientists will do everything they can to either justify it, or deny it).

Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel,

Hebrews 1:4 [Jesus] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Their is more than one Michael in the Bible. Pig headed religious people think every new truth is blasphemy. That's how Jesus got killed. It was inevitable on such a narrow minded world.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is really no head scratching needed. The underlying assumption in Newton's day was that the universe was made up of "stuff" which got pushed around by forces. Sometimes those forces were mediated by an invisible force field.

That is still the underlying assumption of the physical sciences, even though it is becoming a bit frayed at the edges.

Are you making a point? if so, what is it?

 

[lesliedellow]

Because the Hebrews completed their conversion of secular history into a miraculous fiction before the Dead Sea scroll copies were made.

Ah yes, that secular history, of which nobody has found so much as a trace.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the Hebrews completed their conversion of secular history into a miraculous fiction before the Dead Sea scroll copies were made.

Revelation will be ongoing regardless of mans craving for doctrine formation.

Antisemitism will be destroyed along with Earth 1 (Urantia).

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you making a point? if so, what is it?

The point, my dear boy, is that the paradigm of the physical sciences hasn't changed; in direct contradiction to what you said.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point, my dear boy, is that the paradigm of the physical sciences hasn't changed; in direct contradiction to what you said.

You're kidding me ... right?

Did you know that Aristotle's paradigm stunted the growth of science for almost two thousand years?

But for the sake of arguing, let's say nothing has changed.

In that case, let me reiterate:

Scientists would get excited if it did.

 

[Colter]

Ah yes, that secular history, of which nobody has found so much as a trace.

Because the Hebrew priest carefully destroyed it after recasting their history. Although they did leave mention of them in their new records. Not that the Jews could possibly EVER be wrong about anything, because they are the super special apple of Gods eye, he even gave them their own eternal nation which they have oddly been more out of than in.

 

[lesliedellow]

You're kidding me ... right?

Did you know that Aristotle's paradigm stunted the growth of science for almost two thousand years?

But for the sake of arguing, let's say nothing has changed.

In that case, let me reiterate:

Scientists would get excited if it did.

If you care to look back, you will discover that I said since the time of Newton. Besides which, Aristotle's science can hardly be called science in the modern sense, because it had not yet occurred to anybody to check their speculations against observation.

 

[AV1611VET]

... he even gave them their own eternal nation which they have oddly been more out of than in.

As opposed to what?

A whole world that your Head Honcho gave us?

The one that Marshall Applewhite and his followers couldn't wait to leave?

In fact, when scientists (erroneously, as usual) reported a UFO behind Hale-Bopp, they couldn't wait to climb aboard.