Tribulation physics

[Jamin4422]

Who are these eyewitnesses?

Wow! What an easy question. The people who wrote the Bible. People like Luke who was a doctor and who interviewed Jesus mother and other people that were close to Him. His disciples that were an eyewitness to the events. People like Mark that was the son of Mary. She owned the upper room, the home where they would stay when they were in Jerusalem. I do not mind the sunday school question, that is fine. But I wonder how you can be so against something that you know so little about and have so little knowledge of.

 

[Tiberius]

Wow! What an easy question. The people who wrote the Bible.

And how do we know who wrote the Bible?

People like Luke who was a doctor and who interviewed Jesus mother and other people that were close to Him.

How do we know that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke? And Luke 1:1-4 indicates that the writer was just an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness.

His disciples that were an eyewitness to the events. People like Mark that was the son of Mary. She owned the upper room, the home where they would stay when they were in Jerusalem.

And how do we know that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark?

And according to Bishop Shelby Spong, The book of John contains "a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)."

I do not mind the sunday school question, that is fine. But I wonder how you can be so against something that you know so little about and have so little knowledge of.

It's not that I have very little knowledge. It's because I've done some research and found things like THIS which make a rather convincing case that contradicts yours.

And surely you don't think that just because person X writes down an alleged eyewitness account that it must really be an eyewitness account. Do you think that the Quran is an accurate account for this reason?

 

[The Engineer]

The shroud offers some evidence.

The shroud is not completely solid evidence.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

But most of what we have is eyewitness testimony. That is why people try to discredit the eyewitnesses to say their testimony is not reliable.

Sorry, but the claim that someone has risen from the dead needs a lot more evidence than some people claim they have seen it, 2000 years ago.

In other words you reject the evidence and wish to limit what evidence is acceptable to ridiculous after the fact vague standards that could never begin to apply. Just be honest you reject the evidence.

I reject the evidence, but I do so for good reasons.

Don't worry about name calling for folks that have what science admits being unable to have..knowledge. Do you claim to know what time is? Gravity? The laws in the past? etc etc..or do you claim like so many others that science isn't about knowing?

I don't believe in absolute knowledge, but I believe one can always get closer to it. Question answered?

That was my science not yours. Real science.

You said it was dust on a scale. So your real science is just dust on a scale?

The so called sciennce we are discussing here is the two bit fraudulent stuff that makes claims about the far past and future.

You make claims about the past and future, too. Just because their past and future are longer than yours doesn't make their claims less justified, if the evidence supports them.

The future is well laid out in the bible. 'heaven and earth shall pass away..' 'new heavens and new earth' etc. This state and world and nature we know is temporal.

I'm not satisfied with this. The bible states what will happen in the future, not when the future will begin.

When we apply 'present' to the nature we live in, that involves more than a few moments. It has been around a long time. What we are discussing is how long present nature and laws are known to have existed and to continue existing.

The present is the now, whether we define it as the present century or the present hour. What can be called the present in some contexts may be the future in others. If you make claims about the present, you make claims about the future as well. Why are you allowed to do this?

I ask you to show knowledge beyond that time for our nature. Got any?

No, just like you.

Nope.

Lets see.

So it is a slam dunk. Not an issue at all. I only dealt with it at all because someone hit and ran with the idiot claim of a late date. I merely inform you that if anyone wants to embrace another date than the actual time Daniel lived in Babylon, that I think I can defeat it on sheer logic alone. But since no one has dared, I guess get back on topic. Daniel stands as proof of God's word.

The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies

It's not that easy.

Childish nonsense. They were not invented because of any pre flood same state. (or pre split) Really.

Still, they were invented by scientists. The same scientists who believe in the pre flood same state.

 

[Jamin4422]

And how do we know who wrote the Bible?

Those are things you go to Bible school to learn. Have you even been to sunday school?

 

[Jamin4422]

The shroud is not completely solid evidence.
Shroud of Turin - RationalWiki

Of course there is controversy. There is very little on Wiki about the Shroud and it looks like it was written by a skeptic. I have read all I can find about the subject and it's all very interesting to me.

Sorry, but the claim that someone has risen from the dead needs a lot more evidence than some people claim they have seen it, 2000 years ago.

We should allow them to answer for themselves:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.

It looks like Paul is saying that if there is no resurrection. If there is no eternal life, then nothing matters. If there is no resurrection then all is useless. Life is useless if in the end we die and all our work is blown away in the wind.

To some degree this is one area I do not agree with Paul. I see plenty of benefit to living the Christian life even if this is all there is. For Paul it was all a waste of time if this life is all there is and if there was no eternal life.

The resurrection power of God is at work in Christians getting them ready for the resurrection. It would appear that the resurrection power of God is not at work in you. Also I am sure your testimony is when you die that is the end and you do not believe in any sort of eternal life. So there is no reason for you to prepare for what you do not believe in.
[/FONT]

 

[mzungu]

Those are things you go to Bible school to learn. Have you even been to sunday school?

So do Muslims go to darasa to learn the Quran!

I once saw with my own eyes and as did thousands of people and there is video evidence, David Copperfield making a Lear Jet disappear right in front of our eyes! A miracle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwOV8zVRczM

 

[Jamin4422]

So do Muslims go to darasa to learn the Quran!

I do not know where Muslims learn the Quran. Why don't you ask them.

A miracle

Magic and miracles are not the same thing. You know that so why are you wasting time on nonsense?

 

[mzungu]

I do not know where Muslims learn the Quran. Why don't you ask them.

Magic and miracles are not the same thing. You know that so why are you wasting time on nonsense?

It is not magic it is a miracle; I saw it with mine eyes! So there

 

[TLK Valentine]

Those are things you go to Bible school to learn. Have you even been to sunday school?

I prefer real schools.

 

[Split Rock]

Tribulation has real meaning. Lots of stuff will go on. Some listed in the OP. Stuff that requires more than the present state laws. Intelligent people would look at these things, and the things that went on in the past, and see striking similarities. They may notice you are incapable of waving it all away.

Much like you wave away all the physical evidence that conflicts with your bizzare interpretation of scripture?

 

[dad]

Sorry, but the claim that someone has risen from the dead needs a lot more evidence than some people claim they have seen it, 2000 years ago.

You could say that about Nero breathing.

I reject the evidence, but I do so for good reasons.

Vague.

I don't believe in absolute knowledge, but I believe one can always get closer to it. Question answered?

No. You see science is about ever learning, never being able to come to a knowledge of the truth. You get no closer.

You said it was dust on a scale. So your real science is just dust on a scale?

Yes. Small potatoes. Foolishness compared to real science and knowledge of God.

You make claims about the past and future, too. Just because their past and future are longer than yours doesn't make their claims less justified, if the evidence supports them.

I read what God and history say about the time long before science was a gleam in the devil's eye, yes.

I'm not satisfied with this. The bible states what will happen in the future, not when the future will begin.

False. It has already begun. In fact MOST prophesies are already fulfilled. The future you allude to is after this nature we know is changed. That begins in the final days of man, apparently, and certainly right after.

The present is the now, whether we define it as the present century or the present hour. What can be called the present in some contexts may be the future in others. If you make claims about the present, you make claims about the future as well. Why are you allowed to do this?

Depends of what we are talking about. How the words are used. The future where every mountain will be leveled and the stars go dark is not today. That future is on a ladder of events in a succession that is well known.

No, just like you.

Lets see.

The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies

It's not that easy.

Yes. It is in the bag actually and impossible to refute. Try and comprehend this.



You have a real problem. You still have the exact day Jesus was to come as Messiah. There was a decree that Daniel spoke of that marked the start of the one hundred and seventy‑three thousand, eight hundred and eighty days till Messiah the Prince. He then tells us He would be cut off. (A term usually used for a criminal death)

There were 4 decrees, but just one that could be the one that marked the start of the days till Christ. (cause it concerned the city and the sanctuary)

From that decree till Jesus marched into Jerusalem on a donkey (also prophesied by another prophet) was exactly, precisely one hundred and seventy‑three thousand, eight hundred and eighty days!!!!!!!!!

So even if it was written a mere 200 YEARS before the fact or whatever, it would still be impossible to predict. God HAD to be be behind it with any date you could ever possibly use!!!!!

Still, they were invented by scientists. The same scientists who believe in the pre flood same state.

If they believed in Santa, it doesn't matter and has no more to do with the inventions themselves.

 

[The Engineer]

You could say that about Nero breathing.

Except we have a lot of sources that prove his existence.

Vague.

I already told you the reasons. That's why I cut this one short.

No. You see science is about ever learning, never being able to come to a knowledge of the truth. You get no closer.

You always get closer. No one ever knows the full truth. No one.

Yes. Small potatoes. Foolishness compared to real science and knowledge of God.

So you say the smallpox vaccinations weren't invented by real scientists?

I read what God and history say about the time long before science was a gleam in the devil's eye, yes.

This doesn't prove your hypothesis that predictions about the future are only okay if you make them.

False. It has already begun. In fact MOST prophesies are already fulfilled. The future you allude to is after this nature we know is changed. That begins in the final days of man, apparently, and certainly right after.

This has little to do with my comment. This is not about when the prophecies will come true; this is about when the future will begin.

Depends of what we are talking about. How the words are used.

Come on, there aren't that many definitions of the words present and future!

The future where every mountain will be leveled and the stars go dark is not today. That future is on a ladder of events in a succession that is well known.

And when is that future, if I may ask?

I think we're progressing. First you told me that one cannot make assumptions about the future because we can't know that the future will stay the same.

Now you tell me we can be sure the near-future won't change, but you say predictions about the far future are impossible because they will be during a time when the rules of nature no longer apply.

It probably hasn't dawned you, but you completely changed your opinion. First the future is unpredictable; now, the future is very much predictable until the day God changes all the rules of nature.

The problem isn't about what scientists do. They make assumption about the future, just like you, because they assume the future will stay the same, just as you. You think this predictable future will end, however, whereas scientists don't think so because they don't take the bible as serious as you do or at least don't let it interfere with their work.

Yes. It is in the bag actually and impossible to refute. Try and comprehend this.

Okay.

You have a real problem. You still have the exact day Jesus was to come as Messiah. There was a decree that Daniel spoke of that marked the start of the one hundred and seventy‑three thousand, eight hundred and eighty days till Messiah the Prince. He then tells us He would be cut off. (A term usually used for a criminal death)

What exactly did he say? Verse?

There were 4 decrees, but just one that could be the one that marked the start of the days till Christ. (cause it concerned the city and the sanctuary)

Again, verse.

From that decree till Jesus marched into Jerusalem on a donkey (also prophesied by another prophet) was exactly, precisely one hundred and seventy‑three thousand, eight hundred and eighty days!!!!!!!!!

You sure this wasn't added into the new testament because the authors knew about the Book of Daniel?

So even if it was written a mere 200 YEARS before the fact or whatever, it would still be impossible to predict. God HAD to be be behind it with any date you could ever possibly use!!!!!

Or it was just written with the Book of Daniel in mind.

If they believed in Santa, it doesn't matter and has no more to do with the inventions themselves.

Whether or not they believed in Santa has nothing to do with the topic. What's important is that scientists can make inventions, at all, because they assume a same-state-past-and-future (hate those words). Your analogy doesn't work.

 

[dad]

Except we have a lot of sources that prove his existence.

Right. Like Paul and Peter and Luke and etc etc etc. The trick is, name a source that is reliable that spoke about his breathing patterns?

I already told you the reasons. That's why I cut this one short.

Then I'll cut this one short I guess too. Even Steven.

You always get closer. No one ever knows the full truth. No one.

No. Science gets further. Claiming some hit and run cosmic freak collision made dust and debris that 'coalesced' into the moon! Claiming all life on earth started from some little bacteria like freak show in a dream state past! Stuffing the sun and earth and stars into a little hot soup speck smaller than the eye could see no less! Etc etc...fables.

So you say the smallpox vaccinations weren't invented by real scientists?

No. I am saying that they never used the imaginary same state past to get the vaccine.

This doesn't prove your hypothesis that predictions about the future are only okay if you make them.

Gibberish. Get a grip. The future that is spoken about in a universe state change is not last week or next.

This has little to do with my comment. This is not about when the prophecies will come true; this is about when the future will begin.

For fulfilled prophesy they are in the past. You need to qualify your definitions.

Come on, there aren't that many definitions of the words present and future!

In the context of this discussion there obviously are. Where the present state represents a temporary nature with a start and end, of course there must be a clarity.

And when is that future, if I may ask?

In what context?You mean the future state that will be different from the present state?

I think we're progressing. First you told me that one cannot make assumptions about the future because we can't know that the future will stay the same.

True. We can't, for the far future or even more than several years.

Now you tell me we can be sure the near-future won't change, but you say predictions about the far future are impossible because they will be during a time when the rules of nature no longer apply.

According to God and His word to man, the changes cited will be in a sequence. Not over a cup of coffee.

It probably hasn't dawned you, but you completely changed your opinion. First the future is unpredictable; now, the future is very much predictable until the day God changes all the rules of nature.

No. Once we see the sacrifice taken away and abomination of desolation sit in the holy place in Israel, and the final world leader, etc etc ...we will start to see the sequence of events that include a different nature within a short time.

When a thread is called Tribulation...physics....it would be best to have some grasp of what time period that is.

The problem isn't about what scientists do. They make assumption about the future, just like you, because they assume the future will stay the same, just as you.

False. I assume that this state will cease to exist and did not always exist. They do not. They have no clue.

You think this predictable future will end, however, whereas scientists don't think so because they don't take the bible as serious as you do or at least don't let it interfere with their work.

They have no way of knowing...right. Exactly. They blather on as if it will always be the same with no knowledge.

What exactly did he say? Verse?

Israel's Future, Part 2

You sure this wasn't added into the new testament because the authors knew about the Book of Daniel?

No more than Jesus was.

Or it was just written with the Book of Daniel in mind.

Once you read and understand Daniel, it is pretty sure it won't be far from your mind. But so will many things. Either God inspired the bible or not.

Whether or not they believed in Santa has nothing to do with the topic. What's important is that scientists can make inventions, at all, because they assume a same-state-past-and-future (hate those words). Your analogy doesn't work.

Doesn't matter if they assume a tooth fairy too. Neither Santa nor a tooth fairy, nor a same state past is used in real world inventions.

 

[The Engineer]

Right. Like Paul and Peter and Luke and etc etc etc. The trick is, name a source that is reliable that spoke about his breathing patterns?

We don't have to. The fact that a human needs to breath is nothing remarkable; we would need evidence if he didn't breath, because that would be an exception.

Deviations from the norm need evidence. If there is no evidence for deviations from the norm, the norm is to be assumed.

Then I'll cut this one short I guess too. Even Steven.

Okay.

No. Science gets further. Claiming some hit and run cosmic freak collision made dust and debris that 'coalesced' into the moon! Claiming all life on earth started from some little bacteria like freak show in a dream state past! Stuffing the sun and earth and stars into a little hot soup speck smaller than the eye could see no less! Etc etc...fables.

You said you don't agree with those things. You didn't refute them.

No. I am saying that they never used the imaginary same state past to get the vaccine.

I just looked at the whole vaccination-debate and saw the errors that both of us made. You‘re saying that smallpox-vaccinations aren‘t dust on a scale because they were invented by real scientists, right? And they were real scientists because they didn‘t assume an imaginary same state past?


So this whole thing boils down to you not understanding science and trying to split it into real science and science-I-don‘t-like. This dichotomy is wrong and completely arbitrary, and I already told you why we must assume same-state-time.

Gibberish. Get a grip. The future that is spoken about in a universe state change is not last week or next.

According to scientists, it will never happen. For them, predictions about the future are reasonable. For you not. This one boils down to you givi

For fulfilled prophesy they are in the past. You need to qualify your definitions.

They are in the past? What is in the past? The future? Why do you have multiple futures?

In the context of this discussion there obviously are. Where the present state represents a temporary nature with a start and end, of course there must be a clarity.

There aren't many definitions of future and present. Just the ones in the dictionary, and the ones you made up.


Obviously, I do not accept the ones you made up.

In what context?You mean the future state that will be different from the present state?

I'm talking about the future state that makes all scientific predictions impossible.

True. We can't, for the far future or even more than several years.

Several years, or until that point in time when God abolishes the rules of nature? That's a very important difference.

According to God and His word to man, the changes cited will be in a sequence. Not over a cup of coffee.

Whether they are in a sequence, or just happen all at once, doesn't change the fact that, at some point, predictions about the future will be impossible, as you claim.

No.

Yes! You completely changed your opinions! First, predictions about the future were impossible as a general rule; now, they are just impossible because you're sure the rules of nature will change at some point in the future! This are two entirely different opinions!

Once we see the sacrifice taken away and abomination of desolation sit in the holy place in Israel, and the final world leader, etc etc ...we will start to see the sequence of events that include a different nature within a short time.

How was that relevant to my comment? I tell you how: It isn't. That's completely unrelated to anything I just said.

When a thread is called Tribulation...physics....it would be best to have some grasp of what time period that is.

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

False. I assume that this state will cease to exist and did not always exist. They do not. They have no clue.

I never said anything else!


I told you that you, and scientists, both say that we can assume a same-state-future unless something happens. Scientists don't believe something will happen; you do. That's the only difference.

They have no way of knowing...right. Exactly. They blather on as if it will always be the same with no knowledge.

They simply don't take the bible as serious as you do. For good reason, as it is still only a book.

Israel's Future, Part 2

Not what I asked for, but okay.

No more than Jesus was.

Why?

Once you read and understand Daniel, it is pretty sure it won't be far from your mind. But so will many things.

How does that answer my question?

Either God inspired the bible or not.

He didn't.

Doesn't matter if they assume a tooth fairy too. Neither Santa nor a tooth fairy, nor a same state past is used in real world inventions.

Consistent rules of nature are assumed by all scientists, for every invention. Your argument is invalid.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Give it up, Engineer -- you're trying to talk sense to someone for whom "sense" has no benefit.

People like dad are best left in their own universes where they are masters of their domain -- so long as he doesn't make any effort in intrude on reality, they're amusing, but ultimately harmless.

 

[Tiberius]

Those are things you go to Bible school to learn. Have you even been to sunday school?

Someone says it in Sunday school, therefore it is right?

BTW, I can't help but notice that you completely ignored the rest of my questions...

 

[dad]

We don't have to. The fact that a human needs to breath is nothing remarkable; we would need evidence if he didn't breath, because that would be an exception.

Exactly..not all things are supportable in the way some would want.

Deviations from the norm need evidence.

Says who? Whenever the spiritual is applied to the norm, we get more than normal. No evidence other than maybe some observers would exist. But, by the same token, you have no evidence they are wrong or that your norm was not messed with.

If there is no evidence for deviations from the norm, the norm is to be assumed.

Not when the norm for eternity is not our present state norm. In that case, whenever you try to apply the 'norm' of your temporary state to the real norm beyond that, your norm doesn't apply.

You said you don't agree with those things. You didn't refute them.

First they need to be elevated above fables for anyone to have a need to refute them.

I just looked at the whole vaccination-debate and saw the errors that both of us made. You‘re saying that smallpox-vaccinations aren‘t dust on a scale because they were invented by real scientists, right? And they were real scientists because they didn‘t assume an imaginary same state past?

No. True that things like medical advances on earth and other inventions involve real science. False that any present state in the past was used in the advances or breakthroughs regardless of what anyone believes or assumes.

So this whole thing boils down to you not understanding science and trying to split it into real science and science-I-don‘t-like. This dichotomy is wrong and completely arbitrary, and I already told you why we must assume same-state-time.

No. Man only knows so much. The issue here is how long do you KNOW that our state has existed, and exactly how?

According to scientists, it will never happen. For them, predictions about the future are reasonable. For you not.

It is anything but reasonable to base a whole lot of what you do not know, like the laws of the far future. The predictions are totally dependent on this state existing.

They are in the past? What is in the past? The future? Why do you have multiple futures?

Let's be clear. If we are talking about our present state as the present, then how long it will last into the future is the question. The answer is that you do not know. Not rocket science that.

I'm talking about the future state that makes all scientific predictions impossible.

States? Now we are to expect the eternal state to change?? Why? Evidence?

Several years, or until that point in time when God abolishes the rules of nature? That's a very important difference.

True and unknown at this point in time. However the sequence once started like a fuse to a timebomb, will take a known amount of time to burn.

Whether they are in a sequence, or just happen all at once, doesn't change the fact that, at some point, predictions about the future will be impossible, as you claim.

I guess if you mean predictions of science, yes, they cannot apply to the far future.

Yes! You completely changed your opinions! First, predictions about the future were impossible as a general rule; now, they are just impossible because you're sure the rules of nature will change at some point in the future! This are two entirely different opinions!

No change on my part. You just got more info about my position. Predictions are all well and good as long as our state exists.




How was that relevant to my comment? I tell you how: It isn't. That's completely unrelated to anything I just said.

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

I named a few things in the sequence of events we talked about that leads to the nature change. Quite relevant.

I never said anything else!

So you admit not having a clue. OK. That's a good start.

I told you that you, and scientists, both say that we can assume a same-state-future unless something happens. Scientists don't believe something will happen; you do. That's the only difference.

Not a bad little capsule view of the situation. In essence then it means no prediction of science regarding the future is of any value whatsoever by anyone's view, unless their belief system is true! Thanks for that.

Some of us have our own belief systems though, thanks.

They simply don't take the bible as serious as you do. For good reason, as it is still only a book.

Fine, but that still leaves them with no way of knowing, and therefore not to be taken seriously themselves.

How does that answer my question?

Having other parts of God's word in mind when speaking God's word is not a bad thing. It is clear that there are many many many references to former prophets all the way through the bible. The cohesiveness and agreement are a trademark of His word.

He didn't.

How would you know? Can you test spirits and inspiration?

Consistent rules of nature are assumed by all scientists, for every invention. Your argument is invalid.

False. The consistency that is involved is not all that is assumed. The actual laws and forces and rules that make anything work have to do with the present state, regardless of what anyone thinks or feels or believes.

 

[Jamin4422]

Someone says it in Sunday school, therefore it is right?

What I am saying is your asking me grade school questions. It is right because the Bible says it. Do you want to get into a discussion of the Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon? How they determined what Books are in the Bible and what books are not qualified to be in the Bible. Take Solomon for example. He wrote 1000 books. But only three of those books were considered for the Bible Cannon. Song of songs we are told was the most controversial.

Also if you want to reject the Bible Cannon, then use Science to verify the Bible. Even if you want to reject what Science can not verify, there is lots and lots that Science can verify. So you are rejecting science and the testimony Science gives you about how accurate and true the Bible is.

 

[Jamin4422]

It is not magic it is a miracle; I saw it with mine eyes! So there

We can not have a conversation if you want to throw away the dictionary. Even you reject the dictionary written by man. How much more do you reject the dictionary written by God? During the 1000 year reign of Christ we will use God's dictionary, not man's dictionary. We will have the Mind of Christ and we will think the Divine thoughts of God. So if you want to present the case that we can not depend on human logic and reason, then that would eliminate Darwin's logic and reason also.
You do a pretty effective job of presenting a testimony against yourself. If anyone wants to present the case that we can not depend on man's logic and reason and man's ability to draw conclusions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We can not have a conversation if you want to throw away the dictionary. Even you reject the dictionary written by man. How much more do you reject the dictionary written by God? During the 1000 year reign of Christ we will use God's dictionary, not man's dictionary.

You seem to be using your own dictionary right now -- not Man's, and certainly not God's.