|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/29/2008 6:30:58 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(theo) You have missed the point entirely. It is totally true "the results are not dependent upon the testimony." BUT, (and this is the significant thing you have continued to miss) The SHARING of what the evidence MEANS is totally dependent upon the testimony.
(method) Then your point is a very unimportant one, especially in the realm of science.
In science it is a matter of who discovers something first. If one were to completely erase everyone's minds and destroy all scientific material one could still rediscover everything in science. There is a real, objective world out there that requires explanation, and those explanations need to be based on the reality. That is how we determine if a testimony is reliable, by comparing that testimony to the real world. When that testimony does not match the evidence we throw out the testimony.
But when it does match the evidence you RELY on the testimony to explain the evidence.
quote:
So what do we have with Genesis 1 (as a literal account)? A testimony that does not match the evidence. Therefore, we throw out the testimony just as we do in a court of law when the testimony does not match the evidence.
"Testimony that does not match WHAT evidence?" THAT is the very thing under discussion. It the thing yet to be proved. Anytime you match the testimony of the creator against the theory of science, science will lose every time. It is that simple.
You can't get around the fact that a literal/historical interpretation of Genesis is in fact, not God's testimony, it is yours. It's testimony that you cannot justify one bit, except with some slippery slope fallacy. Even more problematic for your testimony, is the fact that nothing in nature actually corroborates it... at all. So we can confidently say with as much certainty as is scientifically possible, your testimony of six day creation and noah's arc (and the whole shebang) is totally wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/29/2008 6:57:14 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(drj11) You can't get around the fact that a literal/historical interpretation of Genesis is in fact, not God's testimony, it is yours.
(theo) I have a newsbreak for you. I did not write the bible. It is God's literal testimony. I have not changed it one bit. NO PART of it is mine.
Consider the effect of "hearsay" evidence offered in testimony. It is not allowed. Yet the bible is quoted all the time as "the word of God." It has never yet been disallowed on the grounds of "hearsay evidence."
quote:
(drj11) It's testimony that you cannot justify one bit, except with some slippery slope fallacy.
(theo) God needs no justification. YOU might someday in his presence.
quote:
(drj11) Even more problematic for your testimony, is the fact that nothing in nature actually corroborates it... at all.
(theo) Sure it does. Look outside tomorrow and see if there is a sun. God made it, YOU can corroborate it for yourself. It is THERE.
Remember the rain. Even science admits there was a time when it did not rain, then rain began. Step outside on the next rainy day, and corroborate it for yourslef. It is THERE.
And it is not MY testimony, it is YOURS and GOD's.
quote:
(drj11) So we can confidently say with as much certainty as is scientifically possible, your testimony of six day creation and noah's arc (and the whole shebang) is totally wrong.
(theo) Kinda' reminds me of when my wife asks me "are you sure?" I respond with ,"Oh I'm sure. I might not be right, but that has nothing to do with being sure."
Being confident and certain has no bearing whatsoever on what is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/29/2008 7:34:41 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
It has never yet been disallowed on the grounds of "hearsay evidence."
Sure it has. Every time someone decides it's not worth their time the evidence has effectively been "disallowed". Every time someone believes in a different god and follows a different religion, it is effectively disallowed. If it doesn't result in devout Christianity in a person, then it is effectively, "disallowed". Considering the absolute observable fact that it does not result in Christianity in the majority of the population, you can reasonably conclude that it is very unconvincing for most.
quote:
(theo) Sure it does. Look outside tomorrow and see if there is a sun. God made it, YOU can corroborate it for yourself. It is THERE.
Remember the rain. Even science admits there was a time when it did not rain, then rain began. Step outside on the next rainy day, and corroborate it for yourslef. It is THERE.
And it is not MY testimony, it is YOURS and GOD's.
We have perfectly good natural explanations for the formation of the sun and the chemical changes on earth that brought on weather patterns and an atmosphere. Proposing that our current natural explanations are incorrect and that there is actually a supernatural explanation is your right, but remember that you then bear the burden of proof for your extraordinary claim. Also remember that you cannot expect to be taken seriously by the academic world. If that is unimportant to you by comparison to how you are taken by God then I understand your decision. But don't forget that it's a polarizing decision that will leave you on the fringes of intellectual society as an outcast. With a concept of heaven awaiting you, I'm sure this seems trivial, but it is not in your place to assert that what other's find important is trivial by comparison to what you find important. To some, intellectual honesty and academic reputation are vitally important. No need to threaten them by suggesting they'll "wish they thought like you do when they meet God".
quote:
Being confident and certain has no bearing whatsoever on what is correct.
The irony of this statement is rich. No, theo, being certain doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on being correct. Ideas also do not gain truth as they gain believers. And you can't reason a man out of a position he wasn't reasoned into. What matters is how we behave once we arrive at certainties in life, if we're inclined to arrive at them at all, and believers have this nasty habit of preaching hellfire and brimstone to the unsaved once they're sure of it.
I'm starting to like you after much of our interaction on this site, Theo. Please don't continue down this path. When you invoke the image of your debate partner standing before God you are on very sketchy territory. If I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to scare people into agreeing with you. I'd expect that from some here but not you. That approach is telling but not effective. What it's telling of is the fact that the person doing it is very afraid of hell and of dieing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/29/2008 8:11:37 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
But when it does match the evidence you RELY on the testimony to explain the evidence.
How does one determine if the evidence does match the testimony? That is the whole point. According to you, evidence is rejected or accepted depending on how it matches up with the testimony. This doesn't seem like a very good way of doing things.
quote:
"Testimony that does not match WHAT evidence?" THAT is the very thing under discussion. It the thing yet to be proved.
Light has been proven, the the extent that we can prove anything, to move a constant speed. The same level of proof shows that there are galaxies far enough away that the light we see from them took billions of years to reach us. That is such solid proof of an old universe that I can't understand how people can deny it.
quote:
Anytime you match the testimony of the creator against the theory of science, science will lose every time. It is that simple.
So you are saying that if someone testifies that the evidence does not exist then the evidence does not exist, right? We should just throw out the evidence when it becomes inconvenient.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/29/2008 8:20:14 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
It has never yet been disallowed on the grounds of "hearsay evidence."
(wayward1) Sure it has. Every time someone decides it's not worth their time the evidence has effectively been "disallowed". Every time someone believes in a different god and follows a different religion, it is effectively disallowed. If it doesn't result in devout Christianity in a person, then it is effectively, "disallowed". Considering the absolute observable fact that it does not result in Christianity in the majority of the population, you can reasonably conclude that it is very unconvincing for most.
(theo) The only thing missing from your testimony is "disallowed ON THE GROUNDS OF (forgot that part didn't you?) HEARSAY EVIDENCE." I have heard plenty of people who disregard the scriptures as the word of God, but NEVER for being (or, on the grounds of) Hearsay evidence..
quote:
(theo) Sure it does. Look outside tomorrow and see if there is a sun. God made it, YOU can corroborate it for yourself. It is THERE.
Remember the rain. Even science admits there was a time when it did not rain, then rain began. Step outside on the next rainy day, and corroborate it for yourslef. It is THERE.
And it is not MY testimony, it is YOURS and GOD's.
(wayward1) We have perfectly good natural explanations for the formation of the sun and the chemical changes on earth that brought on weather patterns and an atmosphere. Proposing that our current natural explanations are incorrect and that there is actually a supernatural explanation is your right, but remember that you then bear the burden of proof for your extraordinary claim.
(theo) THAT is a fallacy. The "burden of proof" is born by God. It is HIS claim, not mine. And it is HIS testimony, not mine. And when God offers testimony to facts not in evidence for over two hundred years, at which time they come into evidence, that's pretty good testimony. The "burden of proof" satisfied Cyrus, king of Persia, to the extent he paid all the expenses for Israel to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the city walls, and the temple. And it was all in accord with God's testimony, in the form of prophecy. Pretty good "burden of proof" if you ask me.
quote:
(wayward1) Also remember that you cannot expect to be taken seriously by the academic world. If that is unimportant to you by comparison to how you are taken by God then I understand your decision. But don't forget that it's a polarizing decision that will leave you on the fringes of intellectual society as an outcast. With a concept of heaven awaiting you, I'm sure this seems trivial, but it is not in your place to assert that what other's find important is trivial by comparison to what you find important. To some, intellectual honesty and academic reputation are vitally important. No need to threaten them by suggesting they'll "wish they thought like you do when they meet God"
Is that what I did? I don't remember threatening by suggesting. Where did I do that? No, my friend, if everyone thought like I do, it would scare me. I would much rather someone question everything I have to say, and be convinced only by their OWN study. All I try to do is share what makes ME conclude certain things. I do not even claim it is the only possible conclusion from scripture. I do claim, however, that my understanding leaves me with no unanswered questions and no contradictions with other scriptures. THAT is worth a lot to me, but I do not think less of others for not seeing it that way.
quote:
(theo) Being confident and certain has no bearing whatsoever on what is correct.
(wayward1) The irony of this statement is rich. No, theo, being certain doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on being correct. Ideas also do not gain truth as they gain believers. And you can't reason a man out of a position he wasn't reasoned into. What matters is how we behave once we arrive at certainties in life, if we're inclined to arrive at them at all, and believers have this nasty habit of preaching hellfire and brimstone to the unsaved once they're sure of it.
(theo) I am as sure and certain about God and God things, as I am that I continue to take my next breath, and I have NEVER preached fire and brimstone for one disagreeing with my offerings. THAT is not what the gospel is about. It is about "invitation" not "intimidation." And while I may invite you to study with me, I do not get all bent our of shape over rejection. And do you know WHY? Because God put his message in "EARTHEN VESSELS." I am a broken jug, mended by God to carry water of life. If others look at this broken and mended vessel and decide to wait for a newer design, I will move on to the next opportunity.
As for your mention of "intellectual society" and "academic reputation," those are only as good as societies recognition of squaring the circle, doubling the volume of the cube, and trisecting the angle. And any "academic reputation" coming my way for those little accomplishments, is slight at the most.
quote:
(wayward1) I'm starting to like you after much of our interaction on this site, Theo. Please don't continue down this path. When you invoke the image of your debate partner standing before God you are on very sketchy territory. If I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to scare people into agreeing with you. I'd expect that from some here but not you. That approach is telling but not effective. What it's telling of is the fact that the person doing it is very afraid of hell and of dieing.
(theo) I appreciate your concern, but it is not necessary. I think everyone needs to stand back and take a deep breath and laugh at each other most serious concerns, and feel free to talk about them.
Why would I NOT address the possibility if I seriously think it is going to happen? How would you feel if we meet at the judgment without my having mentioned it to you, and you suddenly find out for yourself?
If the very mention of "hell" makes you feel intimidated, and you honestly do not believe in Hell, what then is the problem? Is my rhetoric THAT good? It can;t be my voice, for you can't hear me. Not my appearance, for you can't see me. Must be the concept.
Anyway, I need to go trisect an angle so I can stay in practice in case someone actually wants me to share with them someday.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/29/2008 9:03:35 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) The only thing missing from your testimony is "disallowed ON THE GROUNDS OF (forgot that part didn't you?) HEARSAY EVIDENCE." I have heard plenty of people who disregard the scriptures as the word of God, but NEVER for being (or, on the grounds of) Hearsay evidence..
I can say sincerely to you right now that I have always taken much of the Bible's information to be very much based on hearsay evidence. Did you read my post about the resurrection of Jesus in the this thread. It's post 147 in and it didn't get much attention.
quote:
(theo) THAT is a fallacy.
Which part? That we have perfectly good natural explanations for why it rains and how the sun was formed, or that you bear the burden of proof if you're going to assert that those explanations are false and your supernatural explanations should be favored instead?
quote:
The "burden of proof" is born by God. It is HIS claim, not mine. And it is HIS testimony, not mine. And when God offers testimony to facts not in evidence for over two hundred years, at which time they come into evidence, that's pretty good testimony. The "burden of proof" satisfied Cyrus, king of Persia, to the extent he paid all the expenses for Israel to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the city walls, and the temple. And it was all in accord with God's testimony, in the form of prophecy. Pretty good "burden of proof" if you ask me.
He's not making the claim right now though. You are. Even if it is "His" claim, you bear the burden of proof for being taken seriously if you intend to believe it. It's fine if you don't want to be taken seriously. I sincerely do understand the appeal that would make you not very concerned at all about it.
quote:
Is that what I did? I don't remember threatening by suggesting. Where did I do that?
I see no other way to take this line " (theo) God needs no justification. YOU might someday in his presence."
YOU in all caps is generally a bit of a raised voice intended and the rest of the sentence serves as a reminder that you believe the person you're talking to will have to face God for his choices. I could say the same thing to you about Allah and be on every bit as solid footing but I wouldn't stoop like that. I didn't like it when I saw you do it.
quote:
No, my friend, if everyone thought like I do, it would scare me. I would much rather someone question everything I have to say, and be convinced only by their OWN study. All I try to do is share what makes ME conclude certain things. I do not even claim it is the only possible conclusion from scripture. I do claim, however, that my understanding leaves me with no unanswered questions and no contradictions with other scriptures. THAT is worth a lot to me, but I do not think less of others for not seeing it that way.
I'm convinced that the people who participate in this debate, from both sides, are the best kind of people. The people kind of bother me who aren't interested enough or don't want to think about it. Whatever your stance the act of agreeing to engage people with the opposite or opposing stance is an act of caring, whether we want to think it is or not. Because the moment your or I lose our willingness to debate with one another will be the moment we completely stop caring about each other.
quote:
(theo) I am as sure and certain about God and God things, as I am that I continue to take my next breath, and I have NEVER preached fire and brimstone for one disagreeing with my offerings.
Haven't you? What does this line mean again? "(theo) God needs no justification. YOU might someday in his presence."
See the faithful have gotten accustomed to a certain level of respect for their position that makes them comfortable saying things the rest of us can't say. For instance I would never feel comfortable asserting to you that there is no God and when you die nothing is going to happen. It's not that I fear you would believe me and suddenly lose your faith. We both know that wouldn't be the case. It's that it is ingrained in me that I should respect the religious views of others. Our society did that. What that has resulted in in you is this failure to even recognize when you threaten other people with hell for failing to take your stance on the matter. That simple little YOU might someday in his presence comment felt like it was your right to say and in no danger of encroaching on the other person's right to be respected for how he sees the world. Now, granted, you didn't say "you will burn in hell if you don't agree with me" but that's not entirely uncommon from some believers. That was why I offered the gentle warning.
quote:
And any "academic reputation" coming my way for those little accomplishments, is slight at the most.
Then that is unfortunate and probably unfair. I'm terrible at math. I majored in English in college and english lit at that.
quote:
How would you feel if we meet at the judgment without my having mentioned it to you, and you suddenly find out for yourself?
You've hit on one of my biggest sticking points. Thanks for your concern about me, but what of the billions who have gone before me without hearing word one of the word you hold so dear? And more importantly, what of those who heard of it the same way you undoubtedly first heard of Islam, as this unworthy other faith they believe in a far away place who's "bible" is basically a part and parcel plagiarism of your bible. What chance do they have at judgment? What lot has the world handed them? The people here know what's at stake. When you mention it it is not out of concern for my afterlife wellbeing. It is used as a reminder of the higher ground you believe you stand on.
quote:
If the very mention of "hell" makes you feel intimidated, and you honestly do not believe in Hell, what then is the problem? Is my rhetoric THAT good? It can;t be my voice, for you can't hear me. Not my appearance, for you can't see me. Must be the concept.
I think I've explained what it is. It's the presumption.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/29/2008 9:09:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 3:03:30 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 354
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(BVZ) I agree that languange and testimony is needed to make evidence useful. So what?
It doesn't matter what you say, testimony and scientific evidence are not worth the same.
(theo) I have never so stated. I said evidence cannot be shared without testimony. You cannot just develope evidence and let it sit there. You have to give testimony (as in "testify") as to its significance, or it simply remains your personal evidence.
Nothing has been said by me about testimony and scientific evidence "being worth the same." "Worth" has never entered the conversation until your previous post.
Yes you did. Your argument went something like this:
P1: You assume that my description of what is natural is true. (If there is evidence for it, it must be natural.)
P2: There exists testimony of the existance of God. (In the bible.)
P3: Testimony = evidence. (Because sometimes testimony is used in law as evidence.)
Conclusion:
From P1 and P3 you conclude that the bible is evidence of God.
You combine this with P2, and come to the conclusion that God must be natural. (If my defintion of natural is assumed to be correct.)
Notice P3? You claim that testimony = evidence.
Hence, you are wrong when you say that you never said that testimony is on the same credebility level as scientific evidence.
quote:
(theo) You have missed the point entirely. It is totally true "the results are not dependent upon the testimony." BUT, (and this is the significant thing you have continued to miss) The SHARING of what the evidence MEANS is totally dependent upon the testimony. Evidence is just a pile of "stuff" unless and until someone speaks up and explains the significance that is to be attatched to it. It has no MEANING to anyone without testimony as to what that meaning is.
(BVZ) Sure. But if you have testimony without evidence, don't expect people to take you seriously.
(theo) Who said anything anywhere about "testimony without evidence?" You are building a "strawman argument" with that one. I never said "Testimony" by itself is the best evidence. In fact, my point is and always was, testimony ABOUT evidence is the best evidence.
I said something about 'testimony without evidence'. Am I not allowed to introduce things into the discussion?
Anyway, that is what you have in the bible. Testimony without evidence. Which is why you need faith. Faith is when you believe something without evidence to support that thing. But remember, when doing science, the faith of the scientist should not affect his results. This is why there are scientists belonging to pretty much every religion.
All I am saying is that you cannot reach the conclusion 'God is natural' from my defnition of what is natural, since my defnition requires evidence supporting the existance of God before you can reach that conclusion.
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) Your argument seems to be that testimony (the bible) is evidence for God, so God is natural (according to how I define natural anyway).
It doesn't matter what you say, testimony without evidence is not scientific evidence. Do you understand now?
(theo) What I understand is that you are not reading what I am writing. I did not say "testimony without evidence" I said "TESTIMONY ABOUT EVIDENCE." Though they are phonetically close, they are not the same.
Do you understand now?
I would apreciate it if you would stop changing the topic. I have already agreed with you that testimony/language is very useful when you want to explain evidence to people. Since I have already agreed with you on this point, why do you keep repeating it?
So are you NOT claiming that the testimony in the bible should be considered as scientific evidence?
quote:
quote:
(method)
In science it is not called testimony. It is called communication. You communicate your results. Testimonial evidence is not considered scientific evidence.
(theo) THAT is a subjective evaluation at best. It makes no difference what scientists CALL it, the fact remains it IS testimony if it is verbally offered in communication, by virtue of the very definition of "testimony."
(BVZ) Is it really that difficult for you to understand this simple concept? If simple things like this prove to be a stumbling block for you, how on earth do you want us to explain complicated things to you? I am not surprised that so many people still don't understand the theory of evolution. If it is this hard to explain the difference between testimony and scientific evidence to someone, I am not surprised that explaining complex things like why ERV's are evidence to UCD!
(theo) You want us to believe your testimony about scientific "theories" so bad they are now labelled "scientific facts" in much of the testimony related to the debate. While the evidence remains as theory, the testimony becomes "fact." Do YOU now understand why it is so difficult for non-scientists to take the scientist seriously? WE know the difference between "Fact" and "Theory." And it takes more than testimony to make them the same.
First of all, I am not a scientists, and I am taking science seriously, so there goes your argument out the window.
But I will ignore that error for now.
Actually, yes. I DO understand why it is difficult for the non-scientist to take scientists seriously.
The reason is that many non-scientists INSIST on having an opinion about something they clearly know nothing about. You don't even know what a theory is. I can demonstrate this by quoting your own words: While the evidence remains as theory, the testimony becomes "fact."
What on earth does that mean? How can "evidence remain as theory"? It does not even make sense. A theory is a man made model of relity. Evidence can never 'become' a model of reality, it can only support, or falsify a model.
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) You still seem to think that the moment you use language to communicate your findings, you are equating testimony with evidence. That is simply not the case. Testimony is used to present the conclusions derived from the evidence. If there is no evidence to present, the testimony is useless. It is not scientific. Do you understand now?
(theo) NOW you are presenting MY argument. " TESTIMONY IS USED TO PRESENT the conclusions derived from the evidence. If there is no evidence to present, the testimony is useless." But you fail to understand the antithesis is also true; If there is no testimony, the evidence is useless.
How can you say that I fail to understand, when I agree with what you are saying? I have agreen many times in previous posts in fact. I am unsure why you keep making this point, when it is a point we both agree on?
I AGREE THAT TESTIMONY IS USEFUL WHEN EXPLAINING EVIDENCE. In fact, scientific papers can be seen as testimony of how the scientist reached his conclusions from the raw data/evidence.
This is my position: I agree that testimony is useful, and almost always neccesary to explain evidence. But I don't see how this has any bearing on the fact that all natural things are supported by scientific evidence.
Let A = "Testimony is neccesary for evidence to have meaning."
Now, assume A is true. With this assumption in place, things can only be natural if they are supported by scientific evidence.
Now, assume B is false. This this assumption in place, things can only be natural if they are supported by scientific evidence.
Can you see that it doesn't matter if you are correct or not, things can only be natural if they are supported by scientific evidence?
Your point becomes moot, and mine still stands.
quote:
When we present evidence, through our testimony, about the existence of God, and you say "what evidence," we know you do not accept the same standard for evidence as we do. You do not consider fulfilled prophecy as evidence. We do. You do not consider prophecy and its fulfillment as similar to "cause and effect," we do.
Of course you do. The reason you do is because of faith. Faith allows a person to elevate testimony to the same level scientists hold scientific evidence. You simply believe that the testimony found in the bible is true, and voila, you have something that looks like scientific evidence to you.
quote:
When we give examples of prophecy that tells of events several hundred years prior to the event, you (not "you" specifically, "you" generically) scoff and say "o, no, the prophecy was written after the event and only CLAIMED to be prophesy.
Yes they do. But what did you expect?
Let me ask you this: Why do you find the fulfilled prophecies found in the Koran unconvincing?
quote:
There is no reality outside of "scientific this's" and "scientific that's" with some of you. And THAT is why the breakdown of communication between the scientist and the real world.
Thank you for raising this point. I agree with you 100%. There are many people that think that if it cannot be examined by science, it does not exist. I am not one of those people. But then there are many people who are scientists that DON'T do this.
Allow me to explain using something other than science:
I am not sure how familiar you are with accounting. (I am not that familiar, I only had it in first year.) But in accounting there is a principle (I cannot recall it's name) which states that you should always book the worst case. If you want to put a car into the books as an asset, and you get quotes to determine the value of the car, you should put it in as the lowest quote value. Very pessimistic if you ask me!
Now, while a person is doing Accointing, he is implementing this principle. Does this mean that this person is a pessimistic person? No. It simply means that this person is an accountant.
Now, lets take another profession: science. In science there is a principle that states that only evidence derived from natura can be used. When a scientist does science, he/she applies that principle. This does not mean that the person believes the natural is all there is! The scientist is simply doing his job.
Like you said, there are people who take this job, and use it as thier life philosophy. And why not? Science happens to work extremely well. Science has produced things that the people living when the bible was written would undoubtably have included in the bible as miracles, if they had seen them. How many people belonging to the populations being ravaged by the black plague prayed for a way to spare thier loved ones? Is science not a potential asnwer to thier prayers?
In conclusion, many people think that nature is all there is (and they have good reason to believe this), and others think that nature is NOT all there is. The collection of people labelled scientists contain people from both these groups.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 8:08:06 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(drj11) You can't get around the fact that a literal/historical interpretation of Genesis is in fact, not God's testimony, it is yours.
(theo) I have a newsbreak for you. I did not write the bible. It is God's literal testimony. I have not changed it one bit. NO PART of it is mine.
Neither you nor God wrote the bible. Inspiration is not authorship. And even if God had, it s still your claim, not God's, that it is literal testimony.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 10:55:36 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
I was not going to respond because of the length of my response, but your challenge in post #156 changed my mind. Here it is for your consideration.
quote:
(wayward1)(post #147) It is also understood, among the thinking world, that what can be claimed without evidence can also be countered without counter evidence and the "nay sayer" will have the intellectual high ground. This was the error I spoke of. No one had any obligation to respond at all to your challenge to provide evidence to counter a supernatural claim. The burden of proof FOR the supernatural event lies entirely upon your shoulders.
(theo) I do hope you do not believe the Roman government was involved in some "hoax cover-up." After all, Roman soldiers were witnesses to the empty tomb, with no explanation, because they were asleep. So while it is true, they were not witness to the resurrection itself, they were still witness to a claimed event; And did not refute the testimony of those who WERE "eye witnesses."
There are actually two kinds of witness to the events of the New testament. There are eye witness accounts that were not refuted at the time they happened. In fact, "doubt" was not recorded until many centuries later.
Then there is the witness given by God to the world; the destruction of the temple, and the city of Jerusalem. This single event had been prophesied both in the old testament (Daniel)
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."[Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11]
...and in the new by Jesus himself [Mat 24][lUKE 21]
Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED.
Luke spoke of the prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction and the scattering of the Jews. 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.32 Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS TILL ALL BE FULFILLED."[Luke 21:20-32]
Where is the temple of Jerusalem TO THIS DAY? Where is the animal sacrifice that was a REQUIREMENT of the Mosaic law and covenant with Abraham? The Jews think that living again in the promised land makes everything o.k., but it is a self deception. Their covenant was with the blood of bulls and goate,a nd it is gone forever. A Muslim mosque stands upon the site of the temple, and will continue to do so. Even the Jews will not try to change THAT in our lifetime.
ALL that is evidence, from prophecy to fulfillment, that DEMANDS explanation if it is refused as evidence. Explain a natural phenominon that would fulfill it all with such detail.
quote:
(wayward1) But now I'm going to participate in this error to my chagrin.
1) The earliest creedal accounts contained claims of a burial, resurrection, and appearances with multiple witnesses. No actual eye witness accounts of these events actually survives.
(theo) And what is Thomas? "My Lord and My God."
The purpose of John's gospel was to testify with testimony as to what took place; from eye-witness accounts. John was an eye witness. What do you require? Special revelation from God himself to you exclusively?
Or are you saying an eye witness of an event two thousand years ago has to "survive" so we can question him for ourselves, and say to him "Prove it?" John's account IS an eye witness account.
quote:
(wayward1) 2) I concede that there was not enough time for legend to creep in (3 years), but "legend" is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there was time for false beliefs to take root in a small community of emotionally distraught "true believers." I refer you to recent history of cults ranging from the Branch Davidians to Aum Shinrikyo.
(theo) You want to compare a religious movement that shut down the Jewish system, and spread well into the hundred of thousands within the first forty years, with a CULT?
quote:
(wayward1) 3) The resurrection was not a created belief added later as Crossan and the Jesus Seminar would say, but instead an early, widely held belief in that branch of the "Christian church" that would, centuries later achieve the status of "orthodoxy."
Actually it was another of the many prophecies concerning Messiah who should come.
THE PROPHECY
Deu 18:15 15 The LORD thy God will "raise" [*SEE NOTE 1] up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
[*NOTE 1] [Raise = anasteesei verb;indicative;future;active--3rd person;singular = anisteemi
Deut 18:18 "I will "raise" [*SEE NOTE 2] them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
[*NOTE 2][Raise - anasteesw = verb;indicative;future;active;--1st person;singular = anisteemi
THE FULFILLMENT
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath "raised up" [*SEE NOT 3], having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.[Acts 2:22-24]
[*NOTE 3][Raised = anesteesen = verb;indicative;aorist;active;--3rd pers.singular anisteemi
RECAP: The SAME term changes from FUTURE ACTIVE TO AORIST ACTIVE in fulfilling the Messianic prophecy. Otherwise, it is the same term.
[*NOTE 1] [Raise = anasteesei verb;indicative;future;active--3rd person;singular = anisteemi
[*NOTE 2][Raise - anasteesw = verb;indicative;future;active;--1st person;singular = anisteemi
[*NOTE 3][Raised = anesteesen = verb;indicative;aorist;active;--3rd pers.singular anisteemi
quote:
(wayward1) 4) I'll also concede that eyewitnesses would still have been alive to support or refute the data. But in the first place, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. In the second place, small communities of "true believers" notoriously do not particularly care about "data."
(theo) These "eye witnesses" are not looking over a cup of coffee, through a window, at a traffic accident, they are watching the resurrected son of God walk and talk in their midst. I think they surpass the normal "traffic accident eye witness." Their lives were radically changed by what they saw and gave testimony to with those lives.
quote:
(wayward1) 5) Paul received information from the leaders of the Jerusalem church, but as the principle theologian of "orthodox" Christianity and with no small amount of conflict between him and the leaders of that Jerusalem church, he dramatically changed the character of Christianity from a Jewish faith to a Hellenistic/Gentile faith.
(theo)Christianity was never a "Jewish faith" any more than it was a Gentile Faith. It had Jewish converts FROM Judaisim TO the Christian faith. Just as it had Gentile converts FROM paganism to the Christian faith. In fact Paul testified it was, to the Jews, "heresy."
"Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. 12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: 13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after THE WAY WHICH THEY CALL HERESY, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."[Acts 24:11-15]
And Paul did not "receive information from the leaders of the Jerusalem church;
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I CONFERRED NOT with flesh and blood:17 NEITHER WENT I UP TO JERUSALEM to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Gal 1:15-19]
quote:
(wayward1) 6) There was a central belief in Jesus being "raised" that was one key to the growth of the Christian church. Another, perhaps more crucial was a central belief in Apostolic succession.
(theo) The only apostle ever succeeded by anyone, was recorded in Acts 1.
"And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
The qualifications for one to succeed an apostle could ONLY be met by one who was an eyewitness, beginning from the baptism of Jesus by John, all the way up to and including his ascension;
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
This fulfilled the "twelve apostles" mission. After the gospel went out into all the earth, the apostles were never "succeeded." Their mission was over, completed, and done.
quote:
(wayward1) 7) I don't think anyone could offer reasonable proof that the disciples did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected. The issue is whether or not there is good reason for that belief. The truth is that there simply is not.
(theo) They were eye witnesses and participants. They did not need further proof. They sat with him, listened as he taught them, ate with him. Why would they NEED further "good reason" for their belief? When you participate in something you do not have to have testimony two thousand years after the fact to approve your decision to believe what you have seen with your eyes, heard with your ears, and handled with your hands. It is an empty argument.
quote:
(wayward1) 8) Lastly, it is simply understood, by Christians and non-christians, that there is insufficient evidence. For if the evidence were sufficient, then no "faith" would be required. We could all "know" about the resurrection of Christ and would mostly likely all be Christians.
(theo) That statement simply shows that you do not know the purpose of faith. The resurrection is not validated by faith; it has already BEEN validated by eye witnesses to the event. What faith involves, is the fact that BECAUSE of the validation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by eye witnesses, we can BY FAITH believe we will share in the resurrection at some future time. OUR RESURRECTION is promised by God, validated by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,and now belongs to us by faith.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/30/2008 2:23:09 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 1:12:46 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(drj11) You can't get around the fact that a literal/historical interpretation of Genesis is in fact, not God's testimony, it is yours.
(theo) I have a newsbreak for you. I did not write the bible. It is God's literal testimony. I have not changed it one bit. NO PART of it is mine.
Neither you nor God wrote the bible. Inspiration is not authorship. And even if God had, it s still your claim, not God's, that it is literal testimony.
Exodus 25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
16 And thou shalt put into the ark the TESTIMONY WHICH I SHALL GIVE THEE.
22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the TESTIMONY, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of TESTIMONY, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Psalm 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. 12 If thy children will keep my covenant and MY TESTIMONY that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/30/2008 1:18:52 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 2:10:06 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
157
quote:
(BVZ) I agree that languange and testimony is needed to make evidence useful. So what?
It doesn't matter what you say, testimony and scientific evidence are not worth the same.
(theo) I have never so stated. I said evidence cannot be shared without testimony. You cannot just develope evidence and let it sit there. You have to give testimony (as in "testify") as to its significance, or it simply remains your personal evidence.
Nothing has been said by me about testimony and scientific evidence "being worth the same." "Worth" has never entered the conversation until your previous post.
quote:
(BVZ) Yes you did. Your argument went something like this:
P1: You assume that my description of what is natural is true. (If there is evidence for it, it must be natural.)
(theo)That was a "quote" from YOUR post #53.
quote:
(BVZ) "Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural."
(theo) It was not my assumption.
quote:
(BVZ) P2: There exists testimony of the existance of God. (In the bible.)
(theo) Exodus 25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 16 And thou shalt put into the ark the TESTIMONY WHICH I SHALL GIVE THEE.
22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the TESTIMONY, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of TESTIMONY, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Psalm 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. 12 If thy children will keep my covenant and MY TESTIMONY that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
Yeah! I would say there is "testimony" for the existence of God in scripture.
quote:
(BVZ) P3: Testimony = evidence. (Because sometimes testimony is used in law as evidence.)
Conclusion: From P1 and P3 you conclude that the bible is evidence of God.
You combine this with P2, and come to the conclusion that God must be natural. (If my defintion of natural is assumed to be correct.)
Testimony is ABOUT evidence. And if it is used AS evidence it is because it is necessary to have the testimony in order to understand the evidence. Then the testimony is spoken of as though it IS the evidence. That does not make it so.
quote:
(BVZ) Notice P3? You claim that testimony = evidence.
Hence, you are wrong when you say that you never said that testimony is on the same credebility level as scientific evidence.
(theo) I never said anything about "credibility level" anywhere. It is not my language. If it is your conclusion that YOU reach from my post, address it as such.
I said and continue to say evidence cannot express itself apart from testimony.
quote:
(theo) You have missed the point entirely. It is totally true "the results are not dependent upon the testimony." BUT, (and this is the significant thing you have continued to miss) The SHARING of what the evidence MEANS is totally dependent upon the testimony. Evidence is just a pile of "stuff" unless and until someone speaks up and explains the significance that is to be attatched to it. It has no MEANING to anyone without testimony as to what that meaning is.
(BVZ) Sure. But if you have testimony without evidence, don't expect people to take you seriously.
(theo) Who said anything anywhere about "testimony without evidence?" You are building a "strawman argument" with that one. I never said "Testimony" by itself is the best evidence. In fact, my point is and always was, testimony ABOUT evidence is the best evidence.
I said something about 'testimony without evidence'. Am I not allowed to introduce things into the discussion?
(theo) I thought your use of "you" twice in the presentation sentence meant me. "(BVZ) Sure. But if "you" have testimony without evidence, don't expect people to take "you" seriously." See what I mean?
quote:
(BVZ) Anyway, that is what you have in the bible. Testimony without evidence. Which is why you need faith. Faith is when you believe something without evidence to support that thing. But remember, when doing science, the faith of the scientist should not affect his results. This is why there are scientists belonging to pretty much every religion.
I don't know where this fallacy got started, but the facts reported in scripture constitute evidence. They are not matters of faith. They are eye-witness reports.
The matters of "faith" to Christians, has nothing to do with whether the facts of scripture happened. The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ are the basis for a Christian's faith that we will also be resurrected, based upon God's promise, "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." [Rom 8:11]
THAT is the FAITH once for all delivered to the saints. NOT the facts witnessed and established through centuries of eye witness testimony.
[quote(BVZ) So are you NOT claiming that the testimony in the bible should be considered as scientific evidence?
(theo) Why is it that every time I say "evidence" you are quick to point out it is not "scientific" evidence.
I don't care if it is "scientific" evidence or not. It is still factual, verified, and credible.
And if you think sticking a label on evidence to call it "scientific" makes it more correct, you still have a bit to learn. "Scientific evidence" simply points out that it is evidence about some abstract theory or other, and "everybody knows" scientific theories get changed more often than they get proved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 2:37:20 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(drj11) You can't get around the fact that a literal/historical interpretation of Genesis is in fact, not God's testimony, it is yours.
(theo) I have a newsbreak for you. I did not write the bible. It is God's literal testimony. I have not changed it one bit. NO PART of it is mine.
Neither you nor God wrote the bible. Inspiration is not authorship. And even if God had, it s still your claim, not God's, that it is literal testimony.
Exodus 25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
16 And thou shalt put into the ark the TESTIMONY WHICH I SHALL GIVE THEE.
22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the TESTIMONY, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of TESTIMONY, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Psalm 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. 12 If thy children will keep my covenant and MY TESTIMONY that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
The testimony which Moses put in the ark of the covenant was not the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 4:58:01 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(drj11) You can't get around the fact that a literal/historical interpretation of Genesis is in fact, not God's testimony, it is yours.
(theo) I have a newsbreak for you. I did not write the bible. It is God's literal testimony. I have not changed it one bit. NO PART of it is mine.
Neither you nor God wrote the bible. Inspiration is not authorship. And even if God had, it s still your claim, not God's, that it is literal testimony.
Exodus 25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
16 And thou shalt put into the ark the TESTIMONY WHICH I SHALL GIVE THEE.
22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the TESTIMONY, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of TESTIMONY, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Psalm 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. 12 If thy children will keep my covenant and MY TESTIMONY that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
The testimony which Moses put in the ark of the covenant was not the bible.
Depends upon whether you mean the origins of scripture were not bound in a biblos (book)(bible), or whether you mean the origins of scripture were not included in what was put in the ark of covenant.
I admit it was not in book form, but it certainly is the material that became the bible after Israel settled in the land of promise.
_____________________________
The most profound thing I learned in scripture is -
That God, who knows me best -
Loves me anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 7:59:10 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Depends upon whether you mean the origins of scripture were not bound in a biblos (book)(bible), or whether you mean the origins of scripture were not included in what was put in the ark of covenant.
I admit it was not in book form, but it certainly is the material that became the bible after Israel settled in the land of promise.
No, it wasn't. It was at best some part of the Torah and possibly not more than the Ten Commandments. It was not the bible. It was at best a few fragments of the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/30/2008 8:49:07 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Depends upon whether you mean the origins of scripture were not bound in a biblos (book)(bible), or whether you mean the origins of scripture were not included in what was put in the ark of covenant.
I admit it was not in book form, but it certainly is the material that became the bible after Israel settled in the land of promise.
No, it wasn't. It was at best some part of the Torah and possibly not more than the Ten Commandments. It was not the bible. It was at best a few fragments of the bible.
And you know this how?
Exo 25: 16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.
21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. 22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Exo 34: 11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. 17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt. 19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. 20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty. 21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. 22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. 23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year. 25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning. 26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. 27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. 28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. 29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. 30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. 31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. 32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them IN COMMANDMENT ALL THAT THE LORD HAD SPOKEN with him in mount Sinai.
Psa 78: 5 For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointe | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
