Did God Create Fossils?

[Colter]

Hi again colter,

Let me give you an example of our need to actually determine truth. There are many, many people who are muslim and wholeheartedly and with all that is in them believe that Muhammad is God's prophet. That Jesus was also a prophet of the same God, but lower than Muhammad. What say you? Is that claim the truth?

Now, merely take that same understanding and apply it to all the various teachings that are found on these boards regarding the things of the one true and living God that we worship and honor and His Son, Jesus. Some are completely contradictory and others are sort of maybe so and maybe not. But there is a truth. We must find it. The righteous seek for the truth in everything that they say, believe and teach.

This is the reason that I continued to press you for an answer to the question of why you believe the book of urantia relays the truth to its readers. Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't. I think it's a very bad reason to believe something is true just because your gut tells you so or your emotions say that it feels right. Of course, here again, we all have a tendency to do this and is exactly why God warns us against leaning on our own understanding. Our hearts are wicked. There just isn't anyway of getting around that truth. Our hearts will lead us into lies just like it does for muslims and buddhists, etc. We must always and continually be on the look out for the yeast of the devil. It's always out there!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I believe their is One God, unified in divinity with his divine subordinates such as our creator Son. Muhammed may have been sincere but technically wrong on facts. Buddhism is largely a religion without a God at all.

But what you have proven is an inability to think for yourself, this was the terrible bondage that the Jews found themselves in when rejecting Jesus just because he was different than their scripture based expectations. Fear based religious indoctrination has done that to you. You are afraid to use the intuitive mind that God gave you out of the sheer terror that if you used that intuition the monster God of the Old Testament and the Book of incoherent Revelation is going to torture you and punish you for not believing exactly right.

I look at the lives of the apostles and can see that man is capable of great and extraordinary things regardless of his inherent imperfections.

 

[Papias]

Anyone who believed these stories were true wouldn't be changing the text AND having a group of priests support them in this heresy.

Sure they would, in a heartbeat - if they thought that someone had made a mistake in copying (or changed it intentionally), and they thought they were just changing it "back to" what they thought it was supposed to say. Human nature.

miamited wrote:

If the Bible said the earth was flat it would be so.​

The Bibles clearly and repeatedly say that the earth is flat, in dozens of verses.

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Many Christians today have recognized this. Deciding to actually take their Bible literally, they are honest, and hence ascribe to a flat earth. Here is but one example of many:

In Christ-
Papias

 

[Colter]

Genesis was written in an enchanted age for the child like mind of the average bronze age, Israelite sheep herder. In their minds anyone outside of their sect was a Gentile dog. This thread is proving that not only are people willing to act like Gentile dogs but we still have the child like mind of Bronze age sheep headers living in the 21st century.

 

[James Wilson]

Sure they would, in a heartbeat - if they thought that someone had made a mistake in copying (or changed it intentionally), and they thought they were just changing it "back to" what they thought it was supposed to say. Human nature.

miamited wrote:

If the Bible said the earth was flat it would be so.​

The Bibles clearly and repeatedly say that the earth is flat, in dozens of verses.

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Many Christians today have recognized this. Deciding to actually take their Bible literally, they are honest, and hence ascribe to a flat earth. Here is but one example of many:

In Christ-
Papias

I read through several of the verses but they don't have the same meaning to me as they do you. Most of them did not speak to me of a flat planet. Some caused some concern: circle of the deep, but I need to chew on that for a while. Again, maybe 'circling' the deep meant to say, restricted the places the deep could go. I don't know.

In discussing the "ends of the earth", it's a figure of speech. In the wilds of Idaho, one of the jokes is, "This isn't the end of the earth, but you can see it from here." I've used that joke a couple of times and I guarantee you that I know we don't live on a flat earth.

Matt. 4:8 tells of Satan taking Jesus to an exceedingly high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. The 'world' here is the Greek word 'Cosmos'. One of the meanings of Cosmos in the Greek/English Lexicon is 'mankind'. If that's the meaning, the seeing of all the kingdoms of man throughout all time would take some kind of visual aid, which Satan is pretty good at (he can even appear to be an angel of light).

Many of the references talk about "earth". As you know, earth can either be "dirt" or "planet". I checked several of these references in the Old Testament and came up with many different Hebrew words. I have a little familiarity with Greek, but know nothing of Hebrew. I presume you've checked through these words and distinguished between 'dirt' and 'planet'?

Daniel spoke of the king being represented by a tree reaching the heights of heaven. You apparently objected to the one-dimensional expression for tree, but many trees are measured by one dimension: their height. Also, 'heaven' has three meanings for the Jews: The first heaven is inhabited by the birds, the second by the stars and the third by what we normally mean by 'heaven' in English. Paul talked about being swept up into the third heaven, being the only 'heaven' that we would call 'heaven' in English. A tree reaching the highest height that birds could fly would indeed by very high, but acceptable for a symbol shown in a dream. It certainly doesn't mean we live on a flat earth.

Some passages talk about 'land' being on the foundations of the deep. This is really a neat scientific concept. In areas where glaciers are melting, the land is rising because of less weight there after the ice melts and flows away. The entire crust of the earth is very thin compared to the volume of magma contained. It's often referred to as a paper bag full of water, just to illustrate the thickness of the crust of the earth vs. the depth of liquid and liquid/solid material contained (near the center of the earth, the pressure is so high that the liquid is turned to solid).

Thus, the statement about being on the foundations of the seas has some meaning beyond-ancient-man's-understanding. When the skies rained for 40 days during the Genesis Flood, this significant amount of water would have flowed to the low spots, creating seas and buoying up the continents.

I think you're underestimating God's ability to speak to multiple audiences. Old Testament prophecies often have two fulfillments. "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall call him Immanuel." When this prophecy was given, one meaning of this was the birth of a child to a maiden (possibly a wife of the prophet) so that the king hearing the utterance of the prophecy would have a fulfillment in his time. But another fulfillment had to wait until Christ's birth. The meaning of the first fulfillment was a maiden bearing a child and the fulfillment of the second was a true virgin bearing Christ.

I've heard many Christians say, "I've read that verse all my life, and now I see a new meaning." I've heard many Christians say that they see layered meanings depending upon their own maturity at the time they read it.

To strip down all this multitude of meaning in both time and individual maturity to the scientific awareness of the people in the Old Testament or New Testament times is to do a great disservice to the intellect of God. The end times prophecy about a mountain being thrown into the sea is possibly a nuclear weapon or a meteorite. We don't know yet, but when we see it, prepare to be amazed at the accuracy of Scripture.

 

[Colter]

The theory that Adam and Eve brought death to the world by way of an original sin has created stumbling blocks for contemporary minds.

 

[classicalhero]

Hello Ted,

You bring your own bias to a common saying. If the Israelites had really killed all the Canaanites, as the redactors claimed, then there would be no Canaanites left to write anything. So your point would have been slaughtered with them. But each time the history revisionist redid the history, they left tell tale signs of the original in the records. The Hebrew nation came into being as the result of the union of the so-called Israelites and the Canaanites. "And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites. And they took their daughters to be their wives and gave their daughters to the sons of the Canaanites." The Hebrews never drove the Canaanites out of Palestine, notwithstanding that the priests' record of these things unhesitatingly declared that they did.

The Jews of today are not pure line descendants of father Abraham and frankly never were. If you look into the genetic makeup of the Palestinian people you will find a lot of Jewish blood because they were all mixed long ago.

If you look at what the Bible says, some of the Canaanites left before Israel took over. You can see this that they went westward and you can see based on archaeology that they form the city of Carthage.

 

[Colter]

If you look at what the Bible says, some of the Canaanites left before Israel took over. You can see this that they went westward and you can see based on archaeology that they form the city of Carthage.

The Canaanites intermarried with the Israelites. The Jews are the remnants of the Canaanites that they interbreed with. The Babylonian redactors left this in the record when they declared that they killed them all.

 

[James Wilson]

The theory that Adam and Eve brought death to the world by way of an original sin has created stumbling blocks for contemporary minds.

There are stumbling blocks in Scripture because of man's changing of Scripture to win theological arguments (a common practice in Gnostic communities even while the letters of Paul were being written and down to modern times).

In the same way that Jesus spoke in parables so that only those who persist would understand the message of God, God put stumbling blocks into Scripture (Jesus said, "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood..." This has caused many to fall away.)

God also teaches by object lessons in history. Many times He commands a man to do a strange thing, because He knows He will teach people a lesson later. For instance, when Moses hit the rock rather than speaking to it, God became mad and forbid him to enter the Promised Land. Because God wanted to use the symbol of speaking to the rock for a future lesson.

I would rather have the stumbling blocks God inserted into Scripture... and His lessons hidden there as well, than to have degenerate man tinker with manuscripts trying to get the Word of God to agree with man's own theology, because it felt good in his gut to do that tinkering.

To demythologize the Bible, just because Higher Critics don't believe in God in the first place or believe in a weak god, is to hide precious truths from seeking sinners and hidden messages that are only revealed to the persistent. I've been where you are, trying to spread my doubts to poor struggling people who only want a glimpse of God's love and forgiveness. I'm now ashamed that my actions hurt God seekers. I thank God for His forgiveness.

 

[Riberra]

Why do you think God reject Cain? Because h offered up an unsuitable sacrifice.

Cain was a gardener (tiller of the ground).The reason God rejected Cain's offering was because Cain have not offered the best products -fruits and vegetables -of his garden.

Genesis 4:7
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

An example related to that:
Another example would be the Words of Christ, “by their fruit ye shall know them,” (Matthew 7:20). People do not literally put forth fruit, it is symbolic of their works and by that we are able to tell if that person is righteous or not.

God rejected him and as a result he got jealous of Abel and killed him.

Genesis 4:7
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

-....I will put enmity betwen thy seed and her seed-....Genesis 3:15b

BTW Cain's wife was his sister, since the exclusion of such marriages doesn't happen until Moses, who comes after all these events. Even many evolutionists I talk admit that the first humans would have had to interbreed since that is the only option for them also.

The problem is that there was no sisters born yet.... the next child was Seth that Adam and Eve have made when Adam was 130 years old... ONLY after Seth was born that the Bible tell us that Adam begat daughters:

The reason why it took so long before they decided to get another child after Cain and Abel may be because Eve was in some kind of fear after the curse....
Genesis 3
16 Unto the woman he said, I will GREATLY MULTIPLY THY SORROW and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

Genesis 5King James Version (KJV)
Genesis 5
5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

But here are two articles about scieintific evidence that points out some flaws in current scientific thinking. The fist one is about carbon dating and how many samples that should have no carbon 14 have plenty and many samples used as blanks, are not carbon 14 blank as they were assumed, but were assumed because they were hundreds of millions of years old, or so they believe.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

If their only argument is that we have no proof that the decaying of the atomic element used to determine the aging have always been constant.This has already been rejected as being a flawed argument.

The second article is about the universe and the many assumptions used in tradition cosmology that are basically fudge factors and are useless in real science.http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

2 quotes from the page you have linked
"And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy."

Their claim does not support a 6,000 years old Universe.

Another claim
"Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end."

Plasma cosmology and the steady-state theory propose a model of the universe without beginning or end.
That is in stark contradiction with the Bible who say -in the beginning God created the universe and the Earth.
Genesis 1:1

 

[miamited]

They say that history is written by the victorious. In the Old Testament we have the Hebrew priest of Babylonian captivity redacting the history of the Israelites under the devastating pressure of having lost their homeland.

Hi colter,

I don't understand your point. You posted the comments that I quoted above which says:

They say that history is written by the victorious.

Ok? Then you go on to say that the Hebrew priests in captivity in Babylon were redcting the history of the Iraelites under the devastating pressure of having lost their homeland.

So, if, according to your last statement to me that you don't believe that history is necessarily written by the victors, what's your point in making that statement followed by the explanation that the Hebrews were writing history under some tremendous pressure in captivity. Quite frankly, Daniel, seems to have been fairly comfortable living in Babylon. He was, for most of the time, honored by the king. In fact, when he is tricked into making a law against Daniel's practice of prayer and worship, he seems to be sorry that he did such a thing. When he sets Daniel in the lion's den because he has to honor his own law, he seems very anxious about Daniel's safety and very early in the morning goes to see if Daniel is ok.

I just don't understand where you get your understanding of these things. I understand that you think I'm biased in my explanations, but honestly, from where I sit, the Scriptural explanations set against your explanations, would seem to show that you are the biased one. So, why did you write that history is written by the victors before making the rest of your post? Wasn't it supposed to apply to your point?

Of course, your answer was:

I agree with your point that, just because victors write a history that doesn't mean that what they write is wrong.

I didn't say that any historical account written by the victors was necessarily wrong either. What I said was that it wasn't necessarily true nor necessarily not in keeping with the factual account of what's being written about. Victors don't always write history. Some history is written by people who aren't even involved in warfare. It's just history. Things that have happened in the past are historical.

My main point is that the statement that history is written by the victors just isn't a necessarily true statement to make. History is written by a lot of people.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Colter]

There are stumbling blocks in Scripture because of man's changing of Scripture to win theological arguments (a common practice in Gnostic communities even while the letters of Paul were being written and down to modern times).

In the same way that Jesus spoke in parables so that only those who persist would understand the message of God, God put stumbling blocks into Scripture (Jesus said, "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood..." This has caused many to fall away.)

God also teaches by object lessons in history. Many times He commands a man to do a strange thing, because He knows He will teach people a lesson later. For instance, when Moses hit the rock rather than speaking to it, God became mad and forbid him to enter the Promised Land. Because God wanted to use the symbol of speaking to the rock for a future lesson.

I would rather have the stumbling blocks God inserted into Scripture... and His lessons hidden there as well, than to have degenerate man tinker with manuscripts trying to get the Word of God to agree with man's own theology, because it felt good in his gut to do that tinkering.

To demythologize the Bible, just because Higher Critics don't believe in God in the first place or believe in a weak god, is to hide precious truths from seeking sinners and hidden messages that are only revealed to the persistent. I've been where you are, trying to spread my doubts to poor struggling people who only want a glimpse of God's love and forgiveness. I'm now ashamed that my actions hurt God seekers. I thank God for His forgiveness.

I'm not sure that higher critics do or don't believe in God, but as a person of unapologetic faith in God, the errors of the Bible have no effect on my faith. They are to be expected. In fact I think we've reached a point where claiming that God wrote the Bible is having a detrimental effect on leading people to God.

From the beginning the idea that Adam brought death to the earth is fraught with huge problems. The stumbling blocks of the Bible is the human error.

 

[Hoghead1]

Many contemporary biblical scholars into the Higher Criticism are ordained clergy. The Higher Criticism is taught in many seminaries.

 

[Colter]

Hi colter,

I don't understand your point. You posted the comments that I quoted above which says:

They say that history is written by the victorious.

Ok? Then you go on to say that the Hebrew priests in captivity in Babylon were redcting the history of the Iraelites under the devastating pressure of having lost their homeland.

So, if, according to your last statement to me that you don't believe that history is necessarily written by the victors, what's your point in making that statement followed by the explanation that the Hebrews were writing history under some tremendous pressure in captivity. Quite frankly, Daniel, seems to have been fairly comfortable living in Babylon. He was, for most of the time, honored by the king. In fact, when he is tricked into making a law against Daniel's practice of prayer and worship, he seems to be sorry that he did such a thing. When he sets Daniel in the lion's den because he has to honor his own law, he seems very anxious about Daniel's safety and very early in the morning goes to see if Daniel is ok.

I just don't understand where you get your understanding of these things. I understand that you think I'm biased in my explanations, but honestly, from where I sit, the Scriptural explanations set against your explanations, would seem to show that you are the biased one. So, why did you write that history is written by the victors before making the rest of your post? Wasn't it supposed to apply to your point?

Of course, your answer was:


I didn't say that any historical account written by the victors was necessarily wrong either. What I said was that it wasn't necessarily true nor necessarily not in keeping with the factual account of what's being written about. Victors don't always write history. Some history is written by people who aren't even involved in warfare. It's just history. Things that have happened in the past are historical.

My main point is that the statement that history is written by the victors just isn't a necessarily true statement to make. History is written by a lot of people.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

The bottom line is that after the captivity the Hebrew preist redacted their entire history, they converted a secular history into a miraculous one. There is no secular history of the Jews that accompanies their religious history. Secular history books mentioned in their scriptures ironically were not preserved.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bear in mind, James Wilson, that I have a doctorate in theology, am a theologian, and follow the higher criticism. Many contemporary biblical scholars are ordained clergy. So your claim we don't believe in God or have a weak God really is a caricature.

 

[miamited]

The bottom line is that after the captivity the Hebrew preist redacted their entire history, they converted a secular history into a miraculous one. There is no secular history of the Jews that accompanies their religious history. Secular history books mentioned in their scriptures ironically were not preserved.

Hi colter,

And you base that on what evidence?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

I can't speak for Colter, Ted, but I will say for myself that one line of evidence is the fact the Pentateuch, for example, is a composite of at least four sources dating from different time periods. We know this based on the literary structure of the Hebrew texts. Also, there appears to be a real whitewash job done on Israel. They are the innocent victims. They were slaves in Egypt. However, there is no evidence of this. Egypt used highly skilled, motivated labor, not slaves. They are the Chosen People and therefore have a divine right to go into the Promised Land and exterminate any one standing in their way, without any mercy, as God reportedly told Moses. That's like our concept of Manifest Destiny, by which we sought to take all the Indian lands and exterminate the Indians. I and many others cannot help but get the feeling that we are only scratching the surface on David, that we are dealing with a kind of puff piece, that David was really far, far more ruthless than what is written down. 2 Sam. 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath. I don't think that is a scribal error. I think it a residual of an earlier history in which Elhanan was much more involved in the killing of Goliath than the later David cult wanted to admit. I and many think that much is being projected back onto Moses in oerder to legitimate Take all those OT laws. What Moses had was a very loose association of tribes. Tribal societies don't need written law codes, everything is done by tradition. The laws reflect a much later, urban culture. Take the golden calf. That is really touching on the way some Jews were led astray during the exile, by the attractiveness of the pagan idols and fertility gods. There is no evidence of any gold anywhere in the Sinai Desert. And if the ancient Hebrews were but slaves trained only to do menial work in Egypt, none would have had the skills to make a calf.

 

[Colter]

Hi colter,

And you base that on what evidence?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

For one, the books are cited but don't exist anymore. Two, the observations of scholars on the Hebrew texts, and three, the Urantia revelation has the history of the Hebrews.

 

[miamited]

Hi hoghead, colter,

Well, as I have often said, we all believe what we have convinced ourselves is the truth. For me, it's the Scriptures.

God bless you both,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Colter]

Hi hoghead, colter,

Well, as I have often said, we all believe what we have convinced ourselves is the truth. For me, it's the Scriptures.

God bless you both,
In Christ, Ted

If we learned anything from the experience of the prophets and the Son of God it's to keep an open mind.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe their is One God, unified in divinity with his divine subordinates such as our creator Son. Muhammed may have been sincere but technically wrong on facts. Buddhism is largely a religion without a God at all.

But what you have proven is an inability to think for yourself, this was the terrible bondage that the Jews found themselves in when rejecting Jesus just because he was different than their scripture based expectations. Fear based religious indoctrination has done that to you.

Having rejected the Bible account of that history - how do you have any clue as to what the Jews did or did not do with Christ or what his teachings even were??