Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/14/2022 at 6:44 PM, Woof999 said:

I didn't realise we were playing a game. There are many questions to which we / I / science does not have the answers and freely admit to that fact. I find that far more admirable than any claim of a god of the gaps. "You can't explain that so it must be god" didn't cut it for me after about the age of 10.

If science can't explain it, should we not at the least admit that God could exist. It's not very scientific to deny something when no proof exists to "prove" that something does not exist.

 

On 9/14/2022 at 6:44 PM, Woof999 said:

That's the beauty of real knowledge. As you acquire more and learn new things you can realise, and admit, where you might have been wrong in the past. It's all part of learning and I have zero problem with it.

Are you claiming that it's possible for any human to know everything? I hope not. Ergo, if we don't not know everything, then anything is possible that we do not know of, including God.

To just deny the existence of God, IMO implies an agenda at work.

 

While the Christian religion may not be to everyone's satisfaction, Just as democracy is not a very good political system but it's better than the alternatives, Christianity as is practiced now ( not as during the inquisition ), is IMO better than the alternatives ( eg honour killings or stoning women to death for adultery etc ).

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/14/2022 at 12:23 PM, Sparktrader said:

I love to kiss a woman. Intercourse is overrated though.

You can't have been doing it right then.

When I finally found a woman that did it right it was absolutely, fantastically wonderful. I admit that such women are probably as rare as hen's teeth though.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/14/2022 at 6:29 PM, Woof999 said:

Quite the opposite. Force nothing down their throats. It's interesting that I'm suggesting that unprovable beliefs should not be taught as fact and you're spinning that as me forcing my beliefs on others. Do you work in marketing?

I disagree. Sadly, if everyone could do whatever they like, there would be anarchy. Sadly, society has to be forced to behave, as there are too many bad people out there.

In the olden days religion was the force that controlled society, and now it's politics.

Perhaps when AI gets good enough, the computer will control us- it's not as though we don't already worship the computer, given society's submission to the machine ( and it's not even intelligent yet ).

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/14/2022 at 6:47 PM, Woof999 said:

The weight of the evidence to support the theory of evolution is rather staggering. Interesting that you use the term "unprovable". Perhaps to try and put it on the same level as the belief in a god?

Regardless if evolution is proven or not proven, this thread is about God, and some of us believe that however the universe works it was created by a force that can be described as "God".

To even deny the possibility of God is to claim that one actually "knows" everything, which is impossible.

If we can not prove that something is impossible, it must be possible, ergo to say that God does not exist must be an opinion, and not a fact.

Edited September 16, 2022 by thaibeachlovers

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I could talk about women and their ability to warp men's minds all day, but this isn't the thread to do it on, other than to say ( if I were to ascribe human failings to God, which I don't ) was God playing  a bad joke on men when he gave us sexual desire ALL the time? Most male animals ( other than human animals ) only get aroused when the female is "on heat", but we get turned on just by the sight of a pretty female.

I see it as a wonderful trick of the nature. 

If not for sexual desire we would have gone extinct looong time ago.

Of course, most women know very well the kind of power they have on men, and they take advantage of it.

Thanks God, at my old age, I'm not really interested anymore, and it's funny to think about all the silly things I've done for women until not too long ago.

[mauGR1]

8 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Does God exist?  The very question itself was first framed by God's enemy who wishes to suggest to our minds that God may not exist.  And with a majority of people, his lies have achieved their intended effect; many have rejected God, even coming to the point of believing He does not exist.  But, however sincerely a lie may be believed, it is powerless to alter the truth.

Good post, it takes into consideration the point of view of those who don't believe. 

Quite often i ask myself the same questions, and i wonder about the many ways we have to deceive ourself. 

 

If one tries to use logic though, i find that "Pascal's wager" is correct. 

In short, we cannot prove that God exists, but it's convenient to accept it does. 

That said, I've seen self-proclaimed agnostics behaving like good devotees, and I've seen self-proclaimed christians behaving like criminals, and i can understand why many are so confused. 

 

 

[ivor bigun]

I cant PROVE there is no God ,but on the other hand after being brought up a Christian, and thinking how wonderful it must be for your family and friends waiting for you when you arrive at the pearly gates ,i just believe religion is a way of the few controling the many . when you die you become dust .

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Good post, it takes into consideration the point of view of those who don't believe. 

Quite often i ask myself the same questions, and i wonder about the many ways we have to deceive ourself. 

 

If one tries to use logic though, i find that "Pascal's wager" is correct. 

In short, we cannot prove that God exists, but it's convenient to accept it does. 

That said, I've seen self-proclaimed agnostics behaving like good devotees, and I've seen self-proclaimed christians behaving like criminals, and i can understand why many are so confused. 

 

 

I learned at a very early age that "Christians" do not always act in a Christian manner.

 

I went to a Christian boarding school, and was quite religious, to the point I became a sacristan in my first year, but had to stop when "somebody" complained that I was too young.

Obviously they never read the bit in the Bible about "let the little children come to me"!

That was the beginning of the end of my religious life, and I never tried to become a sacristan when older. I gave up going to church after I left school ( it was compulsory at school ).

[Kwaibill]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:09 PM, 55Jay said:

No.  In its extremes, a controlling, financially motivated cult.

 

Very odd that just this moment, finished watching a 6-part series on Netflix called Wild Wild Country, following the rise and fall of Bhagwan Rajneesh and his followers, who literally took over a remote town in central Oregon, USA.   Interesting, well made docu, demonstrating how an otherwise benign "good" idea can go off the rails.

 

 

It was decided not to prosecute this "guru".

They decided to let Bhagwans be Bhagwans.  ????

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I learned at a very early age that "Christians" do not always act in a Christian manner.

 

I went to a Christian boarding school, and was quite religious, to the point I became a sacristan in my first year, but had to stop when "somebody" complained that I was too young.

Obviously they never read the bit in the Bible about "let the little children come to me"!

That was the beginning of the end of my religious life, and I never tried to become a sacristan when older. I gave up going to church after I left school ( it was compulsory at school ).

There's a difference between a " christian " who goes to church on sunday to conform to social rules, and a 

"Christian " who believes in the spiritual wealth of the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

But i guess you know that.

[Woof999]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you can't see it, then that's down to you.

That's not how evidence works.

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I could try and explain, but it would take too much time and I think it would fall on deaf ears anyway.

You can do better than that.

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To see the evidence of God all around us, one has to be open minded to the possibility that there is more to life the universe and everything than can be explained by our primitive science.

A child is open minded. As a child, I believed in God (moreso that belief was forced into me at organisations such as sunday school).

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If science can't explain it, should we not at the least admit that God could exist. It's not very scientific to deny something when no proof exists to "prove" that something does not exist.

Yes, god (depending on your definition) could exist. However, the vast majority of empirical evidence to date suggests otherwise and that trend in knowledge has always been against the existence of god.

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you claiming that it's possible for any human to know everything? I hope not.

Where did I say that? Your whole point here is that you cannot deny god without knowing everything, which is impossible. Again, there is a trend towards the finality of knowing though and that trend is not on your god's side.

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ergo, if we don't not know everything, then anything is possible that we do not know of, including God.

I think that's the difference. 0.00000000000001% probability still makes something possible. What percentage probability would you give that your god does exist?

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To just deny the existence of God, IMO implies an agenda at work.

That really is a spin. Look at all the religions that have existed up until this day. Compare the people in power at the top of those religions against anyone you've ever been aware of than is not religious. Where is the agenda?

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While the Christian religion may not be to everyone's satisfaction, Just as democracy is not a very good political system but it's better than the alternatives, Christianity as is practiced now ( not as during the inquisition ), is IMO better than the alternatives ( eg honour killings or stoning women to death for adultery etc ).

Those honour killings and stonings (which still happen today) are the direct result of someone's belief in a god. Are you suggesting that only those that believe in your god are correct. Everyone else (and all those that worshiped many thousands of different gods in the past) are wrong? Why is someone's religion mostly (by a huge margin) defined by their place of birth and the beliefs of their parents rather than them opening their eyes and seeing the evidence for themselves?

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sadly, if everyone could do whatever they like, there would be anarchy.

Where did I suggest otherwise?

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In the olden days religion was the force that controlled society, and now it's politics.

In the olden days, according to the book that is the very basis of most westerner's religion, your god and his son showed themselves in burning bushes, parting huge seas, turning water into wine and a breadstick into a feast for thousands. He commanded Noah to build an ark while he murdered the majority of those he created.

 

Nowadays he often seems to embody himself as an old man in a frock abusing young boys behind an altar. I'm not sure I would ever want to believe in an all powerful entity that overseas such.

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps when AI gets good enough, the computer will control us- it's not as though we don't already worship the computer, given society's submission to the machine ( and it's not even intelligent yet ).

So is god just a convenient fashion until something better comes along?

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Regardless if evolution is proven or not proven, this thread is about God, and some of us believe that however the universe works it was created by a force that can be described as "God".

Evolution is pretty central to it. Many take their belief from the bible. Some go even as far to believe it is 100% factual (which is hard to fathom). Evolution goes against god creating man in his image. It goes against young earth theory. In fact it makes impossible a sizeable amount of the old testament.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I went to a Christian boarding school

That perhaps explains many of your beliefs.

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To even deny the possibility of God is to claim that one actually "knows" everything, which is impossible.

I would agree, which is why I would say the possibility of your god existing is practically zero rather than totally zero.

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If we can not prove that something is impossible, it must be possible, ergo to say that God does not exist must be an opinion, and not a fact.

Edited 8 hours ago by thaibeachlovers

Right this moment I cannot prove that there are not 3 pigs in an oxygen bubble on the far side of the moon dancing to the Macarena. I can say that it's so improbably to be practically impossible though. However I would agree that it must be an opinion and not a fact, the same as a belief in any god.

[xylophone]

52 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

That's not how evidence works.

 

You can do better than that.

 

A child is open minded. As a child, I believed in God (moreso that belief was forced into me at organisations such as sunday school).

 

Yes, god (depending on your definition) could exist. However, the vast majority of empirical evidence to date suggests otherwise and that trend in knowledge has always been against the existence of god.

 

Where did I say that? Your whole point here is that you cannot deny god without knowing everything, which is impossible. Again, there is a trend towards the finality of knowing though and that trend is not on your god's side.

 

I think that's the difference. 0.00000000000001% probability still makes something possible. What percentage probability would you give that your god does exist?

 

That really is a spin. Look at all the religions that have existed up until this day. Compare the people in power at the top of those religions against anyone you've ever been aware of than is not religious. Where is the agenda?

 

Those honour killings and stonings (which still happen today) are the direct result of someone's belief in a god. Are you suggesting that only those that believe in your god are correct. Everyone else (and all those that worshiped many thousands of different gods in the past) are wrong? Why is someone's religion mostly (by a huge margin) defined by their place of birth and the beliefs of their parents rather than them opening their eyes and seeing the evidence for themselves?

 

Where did I suggest otherwise?

 

In the olden days, according to the book that is the very basis of most westerner's religion, your god and his son showed themselves in burning bushes, parting huge seas, turning water into wine and a breadstick into a feast for thousands. He commanded Noah to build an ark while he murdered the majority of those he created.

 

Nowadays he often seems to embody himself as an old man in a frock abusing young boys behind an altar. I'm not sure I would ever want to believe in an all powerful entity that overseas such.

 

So is god just a convenient fashion until something better comes along?

 

Evolution is pretty central to it. Many take their belief from the bible. Some go even as far to believe it is 100% factual (which is hard to fathom). Evolution goes against god creating man in his image. It goes against young earth theory. In fact it makes impossible a sizeable amount of the old testament.

 

That perhaps explains many of your beliefs.

 

I would agree, which is why I would say the possibility of your god existing is practically zero rather than totally zero.

 

Right this moment I cannot prove that there are not 3 pigs in an oxygen bubble on the far side of the moon dancing to the Macarena. I can say that it's so improbably to be practically impossible though. However I would agree that it must be an opinion and not a fact, the same as a belief in any god.

Wow, I just love your responses to this poster, and something which Christopher Hitchens said, always rings in my mind, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof".
 

And the following takes a look at religious stupidity, and the "believers" can't see the joke is on them!!

Religion has actually convinced people that there.docx

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Wow, I just love your responses to this poster, and something which Christopher Hitchens said, always rings in my mind, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof".
 

And the following takes a look at religious stupidity, and the "believers" can't see the joke is on them!!

Religion has actually convinced people that there.docx 554.93 kB · 0 downloads

Nobody has ever supported the pope and organized religion on this thread , so you're wasting your ammo. 

I wonder if you really don't understand this, or you just like playing the clown ????

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Wow, I just love your responses to this poster, and something which Christopher Hitchens said, always rings in my mind, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof".
 

And the following takes a look at religious stupidity, and the "believers" can't see the joke is on them!!

Religion has actually convinced people that there.docx 554.93 kB · 0 downloads

The fact that you take this silly meme to prove your point, says more about you than anything else. LoL

Edited September 17, 2022 by Sunmaster

[xylophone]

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

[mauGR1]

54 minutes ago, xylophone said:

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

Not sure " pure nonsense " does exist, but this seems pretty close ????

[AsianAtHeart]

2 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Again, there is a trend towards the finality of knowing though and that trend is not on your god's side.

If you're addressing the trend in belief, you are 100% correct.  But if you address the trend in evidence, you must be unaware of some of the best that has come to light in recent years.

 

Regardless of the evidences one might find in the realms of physics, biology, geology, chemistry, and so on, it is highly improbable for these to persuade anyone.  The biggest proof of God's existence is to witness His love in action in the lives of His true followers.  The biggest problem this presents is that there are so very, very few true followers of God in our world these days.  Many there be who say they are God's children but who have taken His name in vain.  Those who are privileged to know someone close to them who demonstrates God's genuine love are fortunate.

[AsianAtHeart]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

xylophone, I'm not sure when you joined this discussion, but two weeks ago I addressed the "eternal hell" myth in the post quoted below which I assume you have not read.  I believe it will interest you.

 

On 9/3/2022 at 8:05 PM, AsianAtHeart said:

If we consider some of the reasons that people do NOT believe in God, we find that they are based on inaccuracies and myths that have been propagated by society.  Perhaps it is a bit like "fake news."  Many of those who believe in God have, unwittingly, become the source of these myths, by not taking time to study the Bible carefully and to see what it really says.  They have jumped to conclusions.  Some, perhaps, have thought that by exaggerating the facts, people would be more driven to seek God.

 

But error is never harmless.  Any inaccuracy in teaching or understanding the truth can have devastating consequences.

 

In this post, I will tackle just ONE of the many myths that have caused people to give up their belief in God: eternal hell.

 

Most Christians today have the wrong idea on this subject.  I've seen some of its effects on display in posts made in this thread.  So let's look at what the Bible actually teaches.

 

Q: Is hell fire forever?

 

A: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

 

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41)

 

Yes.  The fire is called "everlasting" and "eternal" in the Bible.

 

Q: Will sinners burn forever?

 

A:  "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

 

Unforgiven sinners must die, not live forever in flames.  The forgiven receive eternal life as a gift.

 

Q: What about this text: "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:11)?

 

A: The word "smoke" is important here.  Smoke only comes from something that has already burned and is now gone.  When nothing remains but smoke, there are no flames--and, indeed, this text does not mention flames.  That the smoke ascends "for ever and ever" indicates that the punishment will never be reversed: it is final.  There is more to this text, but it goes beyond the scope of this post.

 

Q: If sinners do not burn forever, why is the fire eternal?

 

A: The fire is God.  See these texts below.

 

"For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God." (Deuteronomy 4:24)

 

"For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:29)

 

Those familiar with the Bible will know that God has appeared as a fire in multiple accounts.  We think of the burning bush which Moses saw in the wilderness, the pillar of fire by night by which God led His people through the wilderness, the flames that descended over the apostles' heads at Pentecost, and more.  And, because God is a fire, and God is eternal, the fire of God's presence is also eternal.

 

Q: If God is a fire, will not the righteous be living in fire in heaven?

 

A:  Yes!  Consider these texts.

 

"The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?  He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;" (Isaiah 33:14-15; cf. Psalm 15)

 

"When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." (Isaiah 43:2)

 

The righteous will be able to live in the fire without harm.  A Biblical parallel is seen in the story of Daniel's three friends who were thrown into the fiery furnace, and were seen walking with a fourth person whom the king likened to the Son of God.  Only the ropes that had bound them burned, and their clothing, when they finally came out, did not even have the smell of smoke, nor was their hair at all singed.

 

* * * * * * * * *

Conclusion

 

Hellfire lasts forever.  Its punishment is irreversible.  But no sinner will be tormented forever.  The conclusion that many atheists make, based upon the false teaching of eternal hell, that there cannot be a loving God because no God would do such a thing is based on a true conclusion--for it is absolutely certain that a God of love would not delight in the torture of the lost for eternity.  However, it is not God who deserves to be rejected in this case, but rather the false teaching.  It is a teaching that has harmed millions, and still it is taught by many today.

For a little background to all posting in this thread, I am a scholar of the Bible--though not a clergyman.  I have studied the Bible extensively, including in its original Hebrew and Greek languages.  This does not mean I know all of the Bible, for one can never stop learning and there is always more to learn; but I would be happy to answer any Bible questions you may have, and if I don't know the answer, I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance, either. 

 

May God guide.

 

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

xylophone, I'm not sure when you joined this discussion, but two weeks ago I addressed the "eternal hell" myth in the post quoted below which I assume you have not read.  I believe it will interest you.

 

For a little background to all posting in this thread, I am a scholar of the Bible--though not a clergyman.  I have studied the Bible extensively, including in its original Hebrew and Greek languages.  This does not mean I know all of the Bible, for one can never stop learning and there is always more to learn; but I would be happy to answer any Bible questions you may have, and if I don't know the answer, I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance, either. 

 

May God guide.

 

 

What do you think about the giants who are mentioned not just in the bible, but in many traditions around the world ?

Don't you think that some of the megalithic structures found around the world could have been built by those giants, and using some unknown and lost technology ?

[xylophone]

33 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

xylophone, I'm not sure when you joined this discussion, but two weeks ago I addressed the "eternal hell" myth in the post quoted below which I assume you have not read.  I believe it will interest you.

 

For a little background to all posting in this thread, I am a scholar of the Bible--though not a clergyman.  I have studied the Bible extensively, including in its original Hebrew and Greek languages.  This does not mean I know all of the Bible, for one can never stop learning and there is always more to learn; but I would be happy to answer any Bible questions you may have, and if I don't know the answer, I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance, either. 

 

May God guide.

 

 

Sorry AAH, but I am an atheist and just love what Christopher Hitchens says about Christianity/god, and of course all of the other quotes and chuckles made at the expense of what a friend of mine used to call, "god botherers" and Christianity in general.

 

I don't believe in Father Christmas, Batman or Spider-Man, so there's absolutely no chance I would believe in this eternal entity. Nice try though!

[AsianAtHeart]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

What do you think about the giants who are mentioned not just in the bible, but in many traditions around the world ?

Don't you think that some of the megalithic structures found around the world could have been built by those giants, and using some unknown and lost technology ?

First, there were certainly what we would call "giants."  However, it is my understanding that Adam and Eve, the first two humans, were giants.  I believe Adam was perhaps 14 feet tall, strong and well-proportioned, and that Eve was a little shorter, perhaps around 12 feet tall.  The Bible gives us some evidence toward this conclusion, but leaves the rest to inductive imagination.  In other words, I believe all humans have descended from giants, and have, over time, grown smaller as our health and nutrition has progressively declined and the world we live in has become less hospitable.

 

That said, it makes sense that some giants, as families, persisted longer than others.  Among these, the Bible speaks of the "Anakim."  It was this tribe of giants that the Israelites saw in Canaan, discouraging them during their journey from Egypt.  This is also the tribe from which Goliath, whom David killed, had descended.

 

Regarding the construction of large structures, e.g. the pyramids, there are many theories.  We do not know exactly how they were made.  Could the stones have been rolled up long sand-bridge ramps that were later removed?  Could they have been floated in in some manner?  We do not know.  One possibility in my mind, one which is not considered by most, is that they had vastly superior hardwoods to work with in their day.  Those trees are all gone now.  With a very strong hardwood beam, one could construct a form of a crane called a derrick.  It is actually much more capable than one might think, provided that the mast and boom are sufficiently strong.

 

For example: http://nauticalclass.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IMG_3532-1-969x1024.jpg

 

The main thing is that, along with stature and strength, man's intelligence and memory have also declined, and we no longer have the capabilities that our ancestors had.  We have developed computers and collective knowledge as a partial cure for our disastrous losses in intelligence, but if one looks back on the accomplishments of our predecessors who had no computers to assist them, one can stand amazed.  Consider people like Leonardo da Vinci, Archimedes, and so on...which are rather recent examples, actually.  We just don't have the records going all the way back to know about their genius.  Assuming they were much more intelligent than men living today, they may have known of methods that we have not even considered.

 

The word "nephilim" in Hebrew, which is translated as "giants" in the KJV Bible, has a meaning that goes beyond stature--though it is later connected with the Anakim.  It might actually be translated as something like "titans" or "renowned" or "elites" or "nobility".  These may well have been "giants" of intellect, not stature merely.  And intellect can often accomplish more than physical strength.

 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

First, there were certainly what we would call "giants."  However, it is my understanding that Adam and Eve, the first two humans, were giants.  I believe Adam was perhaps 14 feet tall, strong and well-proportioned, and that Eve was a little shorter, perhaps around 12 feet tall.  The Bible gives us some evidence toward this conclusion, but leaves the rest to inductive imagination.  In other words, I believe all humans have descended from giants, and have, over time, grown smaller as our health and nutrition has progressively declined and the world we live in has become less hospitable.

 

That said, it makes sense that some giants, as families, persisted longer than others.  Among these, the Bible speaks of the "Anakim."  It was this tribe of giants that the Israelites saw in Canaan, discouraging them during their journey from Egypt.  This is also the tribe from which Goliath, whom David killed, had descended.

 

Regarding the construction of large structures, e.g. the pyramids, there are many theories.  We do not know exactly how they were made.  Could the stones have been rolled up long sand-bridge ramps that were later removed?  Could they have been floated in in some manner?  We do not know.  One possibility in my mind, one which is not considered by most, is that they had vastly superior hardwoods to work with in their day.  Those trees are all gone now.  With a very strong hardwood beam, one could construct a form of a crane called a derrick.  It is actually much more capable than one might think, provided that the mast and boom are sufficiently strong.

 

For example: http://nauticalclass.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IMG_3532-1-969x1024.jpg

 

The main thing is that, along with stature and strength, man's intelligence and memory have also declined, and we no longer have the capabilities that our ancestors had.  We have developed computers and collective knowledge as a partial cure for our disastrous losses in intelligence, but if one looks back on the accomplishments of our predecessors who had no computers to assist them, one can stand amazed.  Consider people like Leonardo da Vinci, Archimedes, and so on...which are rather recent examples, actually.  We just don't have the records going all the way back to know about their genius.  Assuming they were much more intelligent than men living today, they may have known of methods that we have not even considered.

 

The word "nephilim" in Hebrew, which is translated as "giants" in the KJV Bible, has a meaning that goes beyond stature--though it is later connected with the Anakim.  It might actually be translated as something like "titans" or "renowned" or "elites" or "nobility".  These may well have been "giants" of intellect, not stature merely.  And intellect can often accomplish more than physical strength.

 

Thanks for taking the time.

Recently I've been reading about the hypothesis of ancient people using sound to "levitate" the huge blocks of stones, and it reminded me of the biblical story of Jericho, whose walls were destroyed by the sound of trumpets.

Hard to believe for most people, i know. 

I fully agree with you saying that the ancient were very intelligent, while modern scientism would like us to believe that they were mostly brute savages.

[AsianAtHeart]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks for taking the time.

Recently I've been reading about the hypothesis of ancient people using sound to "levitate" the huge blocks of stones, and it reminded me of the biblical story of Jericho, whose walls were destroyed by the sound of trumpets.

Hard to believe for most people, i know. 

I fully agree with you saying that the ancient were very intelligent, while modern scientism would like us to believe that they were mostly brute savages.

I don't believe the trumpets had much to do, physically, with the toppling of the walls.  They played a big part, however, in showing the faith of the children of Israel--faith which God afterward rewarded.  God acted in their behalf, in answer to their faith.

 

I like this account of the story:

 

Quote

The Hebrew host marched in perfect order. First went a select body of armed men, clad in their warlike dress, but not now to exercise their skill in arms, but only to believe, and obey the directions given them. Next followed seven priests with trumpets. Then came the ark of God, glittering with gold, a halo of glory hovering over it, borne by priests in their rich and peculiar dress, denoting their sacred office. The vast army of Israel followed in perfect order, each tribe under its respective standard. Thus they compassed the city with the ark of God. No sound was heard but the tread of that mighty host, and the solemn voice of the trumpets, echoed by the hills, and resounding through the city of Jericho. With wonder and alarm the watchmen of that doomed city marked every move, and reported to those in authority. They cannot tell what all this display means. Some ridiculed the idea of that city being taken in this manner, while others are awed as they behold the splendor of the ark, and the solemn and dignified appearance of the priests, and the host of Israel following, with Joshua at their head. They remember that the Red Sea, forty years before, parted before them, and that a passage had just been prepared for them through the river Jordan. They are too much terrified to sport. They are strict to keep the gates of the city closely shut, and mighty warriors to guard each gate. For six days the armies of Israel perform their circuit around the city. On the seventh day they compassed Jericho seven times. The people were commanded, as usual, to be silent. The trumpets' voice alone was to be heard. The people were to observe, and when the trumpeters should make a longer blast than usual, then all were to shout with a loud voice, for God had given them the city. "And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early, about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times; only on that day they compassed the city seven times. And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the Lord hath given you the city. So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets. And it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city." 
     God intended to show the Israelites that the conquest of Canaan was not to be ascribed to them. The Captain of the Lord's host overcame Jericho. He and his angels were engaged in the conquest. Christ commanded the armies of Heaven to throw down the walls of Jericho, and prepare an entrance for Joshua and the armies of Israel. God, in this wonderful miracle, not only strengthened the faith of his people in his power to subdue their enemies, but rebuked their former unbelief. 
     Jericho had defied the armies of Israel, and the God of Heaven. And as they beheld the host of Israel marching around their city once each day, they were alarmed; but they looked at their strong defenses, their firm and high walls, and felt sure that they could resist any attack. But when of a sudden their firm walls tottered and fell, with a stunning crash, like peals of loudest thunder, they were paralyzed with terror, and could offer no resistance. 

 

[Woof999]

8 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

If you're addressing the trend in belief, you are 100% correct.  But if you address the trend in evidence, you must be unaware of some of the best that has come to light in recent years.

I was addressing the latter. I'd genuinely be interested to learn more about this more convincing evidence that has come to light in recent years.

 

8 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Regardless of the evidences one might find in the realms of physics, biology, geology, chemistry, and so on, it is highly improbable for these to persuade anyone.

Which would suggest that this "anyone" does not have an open mind, something which another poster accused the non-believers of up thread. Science is not trying to disprove either the existence of or the possibility of there being a god. That's not how science works.

 

8 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

The biggest proof of God's existence is to witness His love in action in the lives of His true followers.  The biggest problem this presents is that there are so very, very few true followers of God in our world these days.  Many there be who say they are God's children but who have taken His name in vain.  Those who are privileged to know someone close to them who demonstrates God's genuine love are fortunate.

I see some true beauty in the love that is shown by many people. Both those with faith and those without. However I also see the true evil in others, again both those with faith and those without. I'm often told that the best evidence of god's existence (the god of the bible) is in the good and the great of humanity while those same scholars dismiss all evil as just a way of god testing us. Well we've been failing that test for thousands of years, so it's time for god to get with the program, update his tests or maybe throw in a new miracle or two that might make us all believers. Heck, repeat some of the miracle greatest hits. Part the Red Sea again, cure some more lepers with nothing more than the touch of a hand. Anything substantive would do.

[Woof999]

6 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

First, there were certainly what we would call "giants."  However, it is my understanding that Adam and Eve, the first two humans, were giants.  I believe Adam was perhaps 14 feet tall, strong and well-proportioned, and that Eve was a little shorter, perhaps around 12 feet tall.  The Bible gives us some evidence toward this conclusion, but leaves the rest to inductive imagination.  In other words, I believe all humans have descended from giants, and have, over time, grown smaller as our health and nutrition has progressively declined and the world we live in has become less hospitable.

 

That said, it makes sense that some giants, as families, persisted longer than others.  Among these, the Bible speaks of the "Anakim."  It was this tribe of giants that the Israelites saw in Canaan, discouraging them during their journey from Egypt.  This is also the tribe from which Goliath, whom David killed, had descended.

 

Regarding the construction of large structures, e.g. the pyramids, there are many theories.  We do not know exactly how they were made.  Could the stones have been rolled up long sand-bridge ramps that were later removed?  Could they have been floated in in some manner?  We do not know.  One possibility in my mind, one which is not considered by most, is that they had vastly superior hardwoods to work with in their day.  Those trees are all gone now.  With a very strong hardwood beam, one could construct a form of a crane called a derrick.  It is actually much more capable than one might think, provided that the mast and boom are sufficiently strong.

 

For example: http://nauticalclass.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IMG_3532-1-969x1024.jpg

 

The main thing is that, along with stature and strength, man's intelligence and memory have also declined, and we no longer have the capabilities that our ancestors had.  We have developed computers and collective knowledge as a partial cure for our disastrous losses in intelligence, but if one looks back on the accomplishments of our predecessors who had no computers to assist them, one can stand amazed.  Consider people like Leonardo da Vinci, Archimedes, and so on...which are rather recent examples, actually.  We just don't have the records going all the way back to know about their genius.  Assuming they were much more intelligent than men living today, they may have known of methods that we have not even considered.

 

The word "nephilim" in Hebrew, which is translated as "giants" in the KJV Bible, has a meaning that goes beyond stature--though it is later connected with the Anakim.  It might actually be translated as something like "titans" or "renowned" or "elites" or "nobility".  These may well have been "giants" of intellect, not stature merely.  And intellect can often accomplish more than physical strength.

 

Out of interest, how long ago do you believe Adam and Eve existed? Roughly at what age did they die?

 

If there were giants, why is there zero fossil (or any other direct) evidence to support them ever existing?

 

How literal do you take the writings in the bible? If not 100%, please give some examples of what you think is literal and what may perhaps be embellishment? If that is the case, why would the authors / assemblers of the bible include both fiction and non-fiction in the same works without making it clear which was which?

 

There is also little to no evidence to suggest that we (humans) were ever able to cure disease / infection to the level we can today. There is much evidence to suggest that we used to live shorter lives and were smaller and shorter in stature. As both medicine and the understanding of nutrition has improved, life expectancy has increased and physical sizes have trended upwards.

[AsianAtHeart]

Woof, there's so many points you've made and asked about, I may not get to them all here in one post, but I'll catch some of them.

 

39 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Which would suggest that this "anyone" does not have an open mind, something which another poster accused the non-believers of up thread.

I don't think it has so much to do with openness of mind as it has to do with humanness of nature.  It is my impression that even of those with an open mind it might still be said that "a man convinced against his will, will be of the same opinion still."  Perhaps this trait should be characterized as closed-mindedness, but I don't see it, whatever you wish to call it, as anything unusual.  All of us are guilty of resisting change, including new ideas that don't seem to fit what we have always understood and believed.  For me, for example, I have refused to use smartphones.  I am intelligent enough to learn them, but just don't wish to take the time for it--not enough interest, and I'm happy with the laptop.  Am I closed-minded?  Perhaps.

 

44 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Science is not trying to disprove either the existence of or the possibility of there being a god. That's not how science works.

You are technically correct, because science can neither prove the non-existence of something, nor can the existence of God be empirically tested and proven within a laboratory.  The existence of God is not something subject to operational science. 

 

But to make the statement as general as you have is to fail to account for what "science" has been expressly doing for over a century now.  Remember the Scopes "monkey" trial?  That was the point in time where Creation "theory" was displaced by the theory of "naturalistic evolution" in the educational system.  The problem with this is simple: If they are both considered "theories," why should one trump the other?  Why should public schools teach only evolution, and not be allowed to mention Creation?

 

If you say it is because teaching creation entails teaching religion, then I say that "science" has become a religion of its own, and its faith is based on naturalistic evolution--which is an atheistic theory, as I'm sure you would admit.  No atheist believes in God's Creation; but virtually all atheists accept evolution as "fact."

 

Neither "theory" is something that can be "proven" by science.  Whichever theory of origins one chooses to believe, it is a faith choice.  And "faith" is the epitome of religion.  Therefore, "science," as many see it today, has become religious, and yet gets partial treatment--an unfair advantage over competing theories.

 

55 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

I'm often told that the best evidence of god's existence (the god of the bible) is in the good and the great of humanity while those same scholars dismiss all evil as just a way of god testing us. Well we've been failing that test for thousands of years, so it's time for god to get with the program, update his tests or maybe throw in a new miracle or two that might make us all believers. Heck, repeat some of the miracle greatest hits. Part the Red Sea again, cure some more lepers with nothing more than the touch of a hand. Anything substantive would do.

I know you claim to be an atheist, but I will tell you something.  Only God knows the future--yet through His prophets He reveals the future to us.  And here is what is coming:  God can do miracles, and often does; but only when it serves His purpose, and never simply on demand.  People asking for proof of God's existence are unlikely to see a miracle in response, particularly if their attitude is defiant, and they are not truly seeking to know God.

 

Since most people recognize that God can do miracles, God's enemy, Satan, who was once a holy angel in heaven before he sinned, will work miracles to counterfeit God's Spirit.  Satan is going to try to deceive the whole world, and those who do not already know God well will fall prey to the deception.  My great-grandmother was a spiritualist / witch.  She worked miracles to heal people.  But you know what?  Erelong they would be sick again and come back for another "treatment"--and, of course, my grandmother earned money for it.  During her time as a witch, her husband would be sometimes in the house alone and would hear tramping up and down the stairway.  Sometimes the tables would float around the room in the air.  These were not miracles of God--they were satanic manifestations.  Satan has the power to make someone sick, then take away the sickness that he gave them--including making lame people walk, etc. 

 

While I was in Laos just a few years ago, I personally witnessed a lame person brought into a gathering of people, and a loud and boisterous prayer made on her behalf.  After the prayer, she got up and walked, and rejoiced, thinking that God had healed her.  Three days later, she was dead.  I'm being totally serious.  Do I think it was God who was in charge with her healing?  No.  God does not work in that manner, in that spirit.  But as we near the end of this world, the end of the sin experiment, miracles will become more common--on BOTH sides.  God will work miracles through His people; and Satan will do likewise.  Everyone will see this soon enough, as I believe we are nearing that time now. 

 

One thing that is coming is that Satan will try to force people to be religious.  God has given us all freedom of choice.  If you want to be an atheist, God respects your choice, and will allow you to have your way, even though He is infinitely hurt by it.  God loves us each very much.  His only thought is for our happiness, and He gives us each the freedom to seek that happiness for ourselves.  But Satan will soon influence the governments of this world to usurp moral authority over the citizenry and try to force people to be religious--which is not God's way.  Among other things, America will lead the way, perhaps under the direct influence of the Pope, in establishing a law mandating Sunday worship.  Other countries will then follow America's lead.  This is coming.  When it comes, please remember that I have told you beforehand.  I am not a prophet--this knowledge has come from God, not me.  So when it happens, please count this as direct evidence of God's existence.

 

49 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Out of interest, how long ago do you believe Adam and Eve existed? Roughly at what age did they die?

 

If there were giants, why is there zero fossil (or any other direct) evidence to support them ever existing?

 

How literal do you take the writings in the bible? If not 100%, please give some examples of what you think is literal and what may perhaps be embellishment? If that is the case, why would the authors / assemblers of the bible include both fiction and non-fiction in the same works without making it clear which was which?

 

There is also little to no evidence to suggest that we (humans) were ever able to cure disease / infection to the level we can today. There is much evidence to suggest that we used to live shorter lives and were smaller and shorter in stature. As both medicine and the understanding of nutrition has improved, life expectancy has increased and physical sizes have trended upwards.

I have studied very carefully the chronology of our ancestors as recorded in the Bible.  Due to rounding of years and some imprecision in the records, the exact year is not ascertainable.  However, I believe I can come to within about 40-50 years of accuracy.  According to my calculations, Adam was created about 5,975 years ago...again, plus or minus a few years (mostly minus).  The Bible says he lived to be 930 years old.  Adam had eaten from the Tree of Life which God had placed in the Garden of Eden to perpetuate human life.  Those who continue to eat from that tree will have eternal life.  But when Adam and Eve were sent away from the garden, they faced an eventual death, being deprived of that Tree.

 

The Bible does not say why or how the Tree of Life perpetuates our lives, but, as a biologist, I believe it may have a compound, a protein or enzyme of some sort, which is able to extend the telomeres of our chromosomes.  When the DNA strands are copied, the full strand cannot be copied and yet keep the chromosome correctly aligned and linked together without leaving a short part at the end of the chromosome zipped.  The zipped part is not copied, only the portion that was unzipped can be copied.  This means each mitotic cycle shortens the telomeres by one link in the chain.  After many cell divisions (mitoses), the telomeres run out, and loss of genetic information begins.  This soon causes apoptosis (cell death), because every gene is important and the cell cannot survive long with a damaged genetic code.  When enough of your cells die, you also die.  It is my belief, therefore, that the fruit of the Tree of Life prevents cellular death by extending the telomeres.

 

Regarding the apparent lack of giants in the fossil record, I believe that scientists have deliberately concealed the facts on this because these anomalies run counter to their theory of origins which they are trying to cause everyone to believe.  If scientists have been saying that humans have evolved into larger more developed forms, it would be quite embarrassing to scientists collectively to have giant skeletons on display.  I have heard a rumor, for which I have no actual evidence, that there are skeletons of giants in the basement of the Smithsonian Institute.

 

But most of the giants would have been destroyed, as they existed before the Flood.  The Flood buried so much organic matter, including people, animals, trees, and plants, that we will not soon run out of fossil fuels.  No skeletons could be found in the crude oil reserves, so the only chance to find one would be in the petrified rock strata or in the coal beds.

 

The Bible is all given by inspiration of God, and there is nothing in the Bible that is untrue, but there are parts of it that are symbolic or prophetic, and not literal.  That said, there are some considerable difficulties with translation from the original languages as well, which may obscure the original meaning.  For example, if I say to you "Duck!" (having no other context), you might be hard-pressed to determine if I were referencing a waterfowl or commanding you to lower your head.  The word can have more than one meaning.  The same is true of Hebrew and Greek.  One interesting example of this is found in Psalm 34.  There is a verse that says even the young lions can come to want, and suffer hunger.  But the Hebrew word for "lions" could also mean "rich men."  Now, were lions a symbol of the wealthy?  Perhaps.  Should we take it literally?  And if so, which one, lions or millionaires, should be the intended "literal" meaning? 

 

In some places, the metaphor or symbolism should be blatantly obvious, such as when the "trees" are said to "clap their hands," or when animals spoken of in the prophecies are said to speak.

 

We have to be careful about being too dogmatic.  The best policy is to allow the Bible to explain itself, by comparing other passages on the same topic with the verse in question.  As the Bible explains, the prophecies are not subject to private interpretation.  We must allow God to help us understand the Bible in its true context, and some common sense is necessary.

 

I don't believe any of the Bible is "fiction," although I would call parts of it "prophetic symbolism" or "allegory" or "parable."  The word "fiction" implies something that is not true, but an allegory or parable can be quite true, even though its symbols are only for illustration.

 

Regarding physical sizes, my ancestors were bodyguards to the king of Armenia because they were over seven feet tall.  I'm not that tall, nor has anyone for the past several generations in my family ever been that tall.  This was several hundred years ago, predating the modern medical advances to which you seem to be alluding.

 

Wow...this truly became an epistle--sorry.  I hope it was interesting enough that you did more than merely skim it.   ????

[mauGR1]

4 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

According to my calculations, Adam was created about 5,975 years ago...again, plus or minus a few years (mostly minus).  The Bible says he lived to be 930 years old

I very much doubt that; unless the archeologists are complete liars, 5000 years ago there were already organized societies and central governments and ships sailing around the world.

The transition from hunter gatherers societies to agricultural societies and central governments alone might have taken 10s of thousands of years. 

According to most scholars of pre-script ancient history, the last flood happened about 12.000 years ago.

Apparently carbon dating is not reliable as most people think, so of course there's lot of speculation about ancient times.

[AsianAtHeart]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

According to most scholars of pre-script ancient history, the last flood happened about 12.000 years ago.

Apparently carbon dating is not reliable as most people think, so of course there's lot of speculation about ancient times.

The "scholars" have gotten this wrong.  This is to be expected when they are skeptics and have a clear COI in making their assessment.

 

A few pertinent facts that will help us arrive at more concrete truth.

 

1. Carbon-14 levels, a certain quantity of which serves as the basis for all carbon dating, have actually been recorded to have changed, such as in 1945 with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  While scientists assume the level to be "constant" for purposes of their dating, it is known that the level is not actually a constant.  The problem is, there is no known way of determining how much or how consistently the levels might have changed in the past.  The carbon-14 levels in preserved fossils might help us know something of their age if the C-14 levels had remained constant, but how would one know when those levels are not constant?  The best we can do is follow tree rings, and, again, make assumptions as to their seasonal growth.  Here, again, there are doubts, because in years with an extra period of rain (e.g. a La Niña year like this year), trees can put on more than one ring a year.  So there is nothing solid upon which to base a time-measurement standard.  Nothing.

 

2. Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere in the presence of solar/cosmic radiation.  As that radiation is somewhat constant, scientists have proposed a base level for C-14 to be used in the dating system.  However, there are periods of increased solar activity--solar storms, etc., in which these levels might have varied considerably.

 

3. The LOWER the C-14 levels actually were in the past, the OLDER the fossils will appear by our modern C-14 dating system.  That is a matter of simple math, as the dating is based on the rate of decay of C-14 (to nitrogen).

 

Now, consider the massive impact of the Flood on our atmosphere and on the creation and/or penetration of C-14. 

 

The Hebrew word for "atmosphere" ("heaven") indicates something solid, or firm--hence the KJV translation as "firmament."  There is clearly a separation made of waters both above and below this "firmament" on day 2 of creation week, and the waters above are held there by the firmament.  However, no rain is known until the time of the Flood.  (The earth was watered by an intricate system of underground aquifers, a natural underground sprinkler system, which watered the earth at night.  A tiny glimpse of how this might have worked can be grasped by observing the geysers at Yellowstone National Park.  But the Flood destroyed most of this.)

 

At the time of the Flood, the Bible indicates that waters came both from below the earth's crust and from above the firmament (called "heaven").

 

Quote

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7:11)

Water that descended to the earth from above the firmament is what so greatly enlarged our oceans--and it never returned to its former layer above the "firmament."  Scientists have been able to sample the air bubbles caught in preserved pitch, and it is known that the oxygen levels were nearer to 36% of the air, as opposed to 21% that we see nowadays (going from memory, so plus or minus a twinkle).  So we know there have been some radical changes in the proportioning of the gases in our atmosphere over time.  This is one of the key reasons why mankind was so quickly reduced in stature and longevity following the Flood.

 

Accounting for the protective layer of water in our atmosphere prior to the Flood, it is easy to see that C-14 levels would have been much lower.  This is why things appear so much older now, based on our modern C-14 dating, than they could possibly have been according to the Biblical record.  It is not the Bible which errs, but the assumption of base C-14 levels which is off and which skews the results.

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

The "scholars" have gotten this wrong.  This is to be expected when they are skeptics and have a clear COI in making their assessment.

 

A few pertinent facts that will help us arrive at more concrete truth.

 

1. Carbon-14 levels, a certain quantity of which serves as the basis for all carbon dating, have actually been recorded to have changed, such as in 1945 with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  While scientists assume the level to be "constant" for purposes of their dating, it is known that the level is not actually a constant.  The problem is, there is no known way of determining how much or how consistently the levels might have changed in the past.  The carbon-14 levels in preserved fossils might help us know something of their age if the C-14 levels had remained constant, but how would one know when those levels are not constant?  The best we can do is follow tree rings, and, again, make assumptions as to their seasonal growth.  Here, again, there are doubts, because in years with an extra period of rain (e.g. a La Niña year like this year), trees can put on more than one ring a year.  So there is nothing solid upon which to base a time-measurement standard.  Nothing.

 

2. Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere in the presence of solar/cosmic radiation.  As that radiation is somewhat constant, scientists have proposed a base level for C-14 to be used in the dating system.  However, there are periods of increased solar activity--solar storms, etc., in which these levels might have varied considerably.

 

3. The LOWER the C-14 levels actually were in the past, the OLDER the fossils will appear by our modern C-14 dating system.  That is a matter of simple math, as the dating is based on the rate of decay of C-14 (to nitrogen).

 

Now, consider the massive impact of the Flood on our atmosphere and on the creation and/or penetration of C-14. 

 

The Hebrew word for "atmosphere" ("heaven") indicates something solid, or firm--hence the KJV translation as "firmament."  There is clearly a separation made of waters both above and below this "firmament" on day 2 of creation week, and the waters above are held there by the firmament.  However, no rain is known until the time of the Flood.  (The earth was watered by an intricate system of underground aquifers, a natural underground sprinkler system, which watered the earth at night.  A tiny glimpse of how this might have worked can be grasped by observing the geysers at Yellowstone National Park.  But the Flood destroyed most of this.)

 

At the time of the Flood, the Bible indicates that waters came both from below the earth's crust and from above the firmament (called "heaven").

 

Water that descended to the earth from above the firmament is what so greatly enlarged our oceans--and it never returned to its former layer above the "firmament."  Scientists have been able to sample the air bubbles caught in preserved pitch, and it is known that the oxygen levels were nearer to 36% of the air, as opposed to 21% that we see nowadays (going from memory, so plus or minus a twinkle).  So we know there have been some radical changes in the proportioning of the gases in our atmosphere over time.  This is one of the key reasons why mankind was so quickly reduced in stature and longevity following the Flood.

 

Accounting for the protective layer of water in our atmosphere prior to the Flood, it is easy to see that C-14 levels would have been much lower.  This is why things appear so much older now, based on our modern C-14 dating, than they could possibly have been according to the Biblical record.  It is not the Bible which errs, but the assumption of base C-14 levels which is off and which skews the results.

I appreciate your technical knowledge and your interpretation of the bible, but your theories are still based on assumptions. 

Well, at least we can agree that carbon dating is not settled science as so many seem to believe. 

[AsianAtHeart]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

your theories are still based on assumptions.

That's why we call them "theories" instead of "facts."  No human living now on earth was there back in those ancient times to be able to recount the details for us.  The best we have are assumptions.  You are free, of course, to determine which set of assumptions seems most logical to you.  I have based my assumptions on the best ancient records we have--the Bible--and have, insofar as possible, matched its details up with the evidences we see today.