A bit of scripture for the weekend

[Darth Rotor]

A small excerpt from the Bookie of Revelation, Chapter 3 (NIV) (NIV - Nevada Informational Version)

7 To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of McNabb. What he throws no one can catch, and what he calls no one can run.

11 I am coming soon, on a corner blitz. Hold on to what you have, and hold also that defensive end, Jason Taylor, or you get no cheese steak sandwich after the game, for I shall write my new Name, Travis Daniels, into the sack stats, for my contract negotiation at season's end. Taylor can wait."

Is this a prophecy? Will Jason Taylor get no sacks on McNabb this weekend? Will Daniels get two? Three? Find out in Philly, 1:00 PM, Eastern Time, the time of the Apocalyptic matchup between the fishes and the loaves (of bread for Philly Cheese Steak.)

Eagles by 5. You heard it here first.

DR

[lysdexia]

Originally Posted by m_huber

Nonetheless, it still is a call to kill. "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us -- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

It's a call for revenge, which isn't quite as bad as a random call to kill children, but it is still far from humane. I don't think anybody really wants to toss babies off of a mosque because of suicide bombers.

I don't know what you mean about the translation error...
From searchgodsword.org:

Maybe if those babies were to be reared as suicide bombers, then it isn't as bad either.

Blessing is a gift from God, duh. Happiness is on our part.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by lysdexia

Maybe if those babies were to be reared as suicide bombers, then it isn't as bad either.

Blessing is a gift from God, duh. Happiness is on our part.

Well I'm convinced.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lysdexia

Maybe if those babies were to be reared as suicide bombers, then it isn't as bad either.

Oh yeah. Kill all the children who might grow up to do something bad.

That makes sense.

[drzeus99]

MORE SCRIPTURE

From the Book of Irs:

Brankruptus Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Verse 7 - 13


O Waddaa Goo Siam (repeat 5 times quickly)


Cheers,
DrZ

[drzeus99]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

With respect to "staff into snake", I read somewhere, sometime (TM) that snakes go rigid if they are held vertically. After all, it certainly is not a usual position for a snake. Thus this just a trick that can be explained naturally.

Then why in hell is the bible so misleading. If this is supposed to be god's word (or inspired by god) than he's a sneaky sombitch !!

Why not just say that the snakes all got hard (ons) in their hands.
Why the deception? That's either outright lying or sneaky deception, IMHO.

But...it's all a bunch on ancient made up mumbo jumbo anyway


Cheers,
DrZ

[m_huber]

Another one that always got to me as a Christian:

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- not by works, so that no one can boast"

James 2:17 "Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

So I have to have faith without works to be saved, but if I don't have works, then I don't have faith. That's reasonable.

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by lysdexia

Maybe if those babies were to be reared as suicide bombers, then it isn't as bad either.

HMMMMM, Interesting, so WHY doesn't this arguement work for abortion rights today??????

I mean what if that baby was going to be Ted Bundy etc? Or does butchering innocent children only work in ancient history?

[lysdexia]

Originally Posted by m_huber

Another one that always got to me as a Christian:

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- not by works, so that no one can boast"

James 2:17 "Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

So I have to have faith without works to be saved, but if I don't have works, then I don't have faith. That's reasonable.

Huh? Your corollary is wrong; it's merely dead faith.

[lysdexia]

Originally Posted by Magyar

HMMMMM, Interesting, so WHY doesn't this arguement work for abortion rights today??????

I mean what if that baby was going to be Ted Bundy etc? Or does butchering innocent children only work in ancient history?

Yes, we would look at the parents and deem them unsafe and insane.

[Hardenbergh]

Originally Posted by drzeus99

Then why in hell is the bible so misleading. If this is supposed to be god's word (or inspired by god) than he's a sneaky sombitch !!

Why not just say that the snakes all got hard (ons) in their hands.
Why the deception? That's either outright lying or sneaky deception, IMHO.

But...it's all a bunch on ancient made up mumbo jumbo anyway


Cheers,
DrZ

I found an article written by a former atheist who once believed that the Bible was a bunch of mumo jumbo, mostly because this is what he heard from his own parents and their associates.

Quote:

Evolution and Faith

The following is reprinted from Evolution and Faith, ACU Press, Abilene, TX, 1988. This book contained chapters on views about evolution written by 11 members of the ACU faculty at that time. I was allowed to have an article about how the study of evolution had a role in my conversion to Christianity printed as an appendix in the book. The book is now out of print, but we felt that some of our readers might be interested in reading the article.

A little boy was asked by a minister why he believed in God. He replied, "I guess it's been in our family for a long time." Unfortunately, that answer is the reason many of us hold to the religious convictions that we have. We really do not know why we believe what we believe; we have simply accepted the traditions of our childhood and are following that acceptance through life. I, too, accepted the traditions of my childhood; but, unlike many people, my belief system was one of atheism. My memory of religious statements by my parents and many of their associates involve things like:

"Do you really believe there's an 'Old Man' up in the sky zapping things into existence here upon the earth?"

"Do you really believe that the church makes any difference in what people do?"

"How can anyone believe all that 'mumbo jumbo' that preachers preach?"

By the time I was 8 years old, I had accepted the notion that only foolish, ignorant, uneducated people believe in God. As I moved into adolescence, I became increasingly active in atheism. As my science education accelerated, I became more and more committed to the idea that science and technology held the keys to solving man's problems. By the time I was 16 years old, I was a hard-core, aggressive atheist, attacking anything that smacked of religion in any way.

Late in my high school career, I had the fortune to take a physics class under a teacher named Mr. Gross, whom I had grown to respect from my contact with him in the 8th grade. Unlike the 8th grade class, however, the physics class had laboratory periods when a student could talk to the teacher and get to know him. My caustic remarks about God and the Bible were always met with a warm smile by Mr. Gross, but never a response. One day after an especially biting remark from me about "the stupidity of religion and the Bible," he asked me if I had ever studied the scientific accuracy of the Bible. I had never even read the Bible, much less studied it, so I had to answer negatively. He said, "You know, John, I had a terrible time trying to decide whether to become a teacher or a preacher. I finally decided that God speaks as well in His creation as He does in the Bible and the two agree exactly. I suggest that you study both. Start with Genesis...."

I was shocked to learn that this man whom I respected as a scientist would be a believer in God, much less that he had considered becoming a minister. I was even more appalled that he would suggest that Genesis 1 and science would agree. All my life, I had heard that the biblical account was a lot of foolishness and myth that no logical person could accept. If Genesis were myth, it could not be scientifically accurate. In addition to this stimulus from Mr. Gross, I had a young lady friend who was encouraging me to read the Bible. She was a Christian who attended the services of the church regularly. We had been dating two years or so, and I suspected that I was in love with her. She was a moral giant, uncompromising in her beliefs, and confident about her faith. When arguments came up, she always reverted to the Bible as the basis of her decisions. I decided that, if I could prove the Bible wrong, I could win a lot of arguments with her as well as prove to myself that Mr. Gross was wrong. So, I decided to study the first chapter of Genesis in detail. I was sure that with the knowledge of geology and evolution that I had gained by that time, I could easily destroy any credibility the Bible might have. My parents had told me that the Genesis record gave many teachings which modern science had proven to be false. I was so sure about the ease with which I could destroy anyone's belief in the integrity of the Genesis record that I decided to take exhaustive notes and write a book which I could title All the Stupidity of the Bible. Now I could add the making of money to the motivations I had to prove the Bible wrong.

Armed with this truck load of prejudice, dictionaries, and a dozen or so books on geology and evolution, I began my personal annihilation of the Genesis account of creation. Having never attended a Bible class and not having heard a sermon would turn out to be an advantage for me, for I had no preconceived ideas about what the Genesis record taught.

My first surprise came in the very first verse of Genesis. When I read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," I realized that this first verse dealt with a subject to which evolution could not address itself--creation. As an atheist, it had never occurred to me that evolution assumed everything. Genesis 1:1 states that matter exists and it exists in a way that could produce and sustain life. Evolution does not deal with creation. It only deals with how things may have changed once they were already created.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JulAug98...nAndFaith.html

[lysdexia]

His first mistake is thas atheism is not a belief system. His next is not askan his parents for those scientific findings which prove Genesis wrong. His third is his belief evolution assums "everything" or has to do with not-live creation of everything. His fourth is he overlookd the verses where Earth's creation was datede, in days, and then in years from Adam's genealògy. His fifth is he couldn't/didn't look at already-published rebuttals of Genesis's account but went on his own at his age, without the time to con (study), read, and think about those relevant scienses which share creation's claims. His sixth is his "learning" thas the first living thing on earth was a plant—as in plant kingdom—when it was a bunch of germs, which the Tanac and Vivli are wholy ignorant of. (Plants, by the way, are rooted; they cannot drift as plankton can.) His seventh is his mistake for a protoavis as a bird's ancestor, which by definition a protoavis is the first bird and not its ancestor, and so would be capabil of fliht. His eighth was his oversiht of animals after man (after year -50,000 or -30,000), many of which overran the towns and fields and were a pest in biblical times. Don't forget all the new strains of germs and their outbreaks (plagues). Many of these are new species proper, which by definition cannot breed with another species and make fertil offspring (usually). So those new breeds are new kinds which Genesis was wrong about. His ninth is thas evolution is dependent on Earth's consistent functioning; only evolution's relative dating and classing are. I don't know what he's on about; catastròfès are still natural selection. His tenth is his blatant forget of the—what? 10? 15?—transitional primate species between and beside (as Neanderthal) man and earape in the last 5 million years, those which could feel, think, want, and lige as we could—especially within 400,000 years. This site was around when his essay was published: History of Human Technology: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/chron.htm. (Hmm, where's the list for nonhuman technology?)

Thus establishes [again] the fakethful-two billion are mentally incompetent, whatever their beliefs are. O look, the author is from Indiana and his name starts with J: http://google.com/groups?q=folks-whose-name-begins. There are specific analuses of the Tanac's dating in my usenet posts, and links to abiògenetic "First Life" on HolySmoke.org on Topix, and all-out proofs against God and faith from my threads at http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food. I'll also email John this thread, and the other thread "Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?" also with creational quotes from Genesis at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97347.

[arthwollipot]

Wow. There's so many straw men there I don't know where to start.

[PBTree]

Enough there to build a good sized straw house and very suspicious. realamerican was dyslexic??

Is this the second coming?

[drzeus99]

Originally Posted by Hardenbergh

I found an article written by a former atheist who once believed that the Bible was a bunch of mumo jumbo, mostly because this is what he heard from his own parents and their associates.



http://www.doesgodexist.org/JulAug98...nAndFaith.html

Umm, and your point is ?

There's non critical thinkers in EVERY field. There are also very gullible
and naive people in every field, and that includes science (and science teachers). Because this science teacher decided to throw away his
critical thinking skills and basing evidence on testable and repeatable
hypotheses to become (what seems to me anyways), some born again religious, god fearing nut job, it;s supposed to mean exactly what?

I'm not trying to be jackass, I just don't get your point.



Cheers,
DrZ

[lysdexia]

Originally Posted by lysdexia

It's not a translation at all; it's wrong: Blessed is boreqáh. Blissed is -oshráh.

I should take the gender off. And damn, the conjugation was present tense with a past ending—maybe one can treat them as causative case rather than perfective, but some use this form in names.


blessd = baraq
blissd = -asear/-ashar

blessn = boraq
blissn = -osear/-oshar

yblessd = braq
yblissd = -sear/-shar

[is /was /y]blessed = nibraq
[is /was /y]blissed = ni-sear/ni-shar

blessed = baroq
blissed = -aseor/-ashor
blest = baruq
blist = -aseur/-ashur

[Stitch]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

With respect to "staff into snake", I read somewhere, sometime (TM) that snakes go rigid if they are held vertically. After all, it certainly is not a usual position for a snake. Thus this just a trick that can be explained naturally.

Having seen snakes whip back up at Steve Urwin when he was holding them up by their tail, I'd hazard a guess that's an urban legend, one that may have claimed the odd life or two!

[Agular]

Originally Posted by articulett

I want minions. How do you get them?

I'm looking for a career change. Where do I apply and what are the requirements/skill sets needed?

[biomorph]

Originally Posted by articulett

I want minions. How do you get them?

Try ebay, there isn't much they don't sell.

If you do get some, send them around to mine when you're done............I could do with a little help balancing the dog after I've spanked my inner child.,,,,

[DARK LORD XENU]

Thought you people may be interested in looking at these links.

http://www.theexodusdecoded.net/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodus.html

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/...orer_adam.html

If you don't want to read ot fair enough the subject is very interesting

[m_huber]

I'm not sure what your last link has to do with the other three. Overall, though, I'm not sure how much I can go with the others. I didn't have a needed plugin for the first video, though.

From your Wiki article:

Quote:

The Hyksos Expulsion, contemporaneous Egyptian records of the departure of the mysterious Semitic Hyksos people. Jacobovici suggests that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were one and the same, a thesis he supports with Egyptian-style signet rings uncovered in the Hyksos capital of Avaris (30°47'14.71"N, 31°49'16.92"E) that read "Yakov/Yakub" (from Yaqub-her), similar to the Hebrew name of the Biblical patriarch Jacob (Ya'aqov).

Possible evidence. Of itself, however, not compelling.

Quote:

The Ahmose stele, pieces of this stone tablet were unearthed in Karnak by Henri Chevalier in 1947.[1] In it, an unknown god, incurs one of the same plagues described in the Biblical account (darkness, also described as "a great storm"). The Exodus Decoded official website quotes the stele, "How much greater is this the impressive manifestation of the great God, than the plans of the gods!"

"Darkness" and "A great storm" are not one and the same. Moreover, the biblical account gives ten plagues, and the plague of darkness is not really the high point in the narrative.

Quote:

Serabit el-Khadim turquoise mine, a labour camp in the Sinai with a Semitic alphabetic inscription that reads "O El, save me from these mines." The use of "El" suggests that it was written before the revelation at Sinai, supporting the thesis that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, although this inscription was undated

An undated inscription using the most common name of god in the middle east is not impressive evidence.

All of this information comes from the same film, which is made by someone with an interest in proving his point. I don't see why I should consider this a better source than, say, Fahrenheit 911. Dramatic re-readings of ancient inscriptions and drawings mixed with conjecture about the possibility of various ancient groups possibly being the same strikes me as poor scholarship.