All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Which still leaves the question. What is the intent behind the original? It's much worse than translating modern Hebrew into modern English. This is ancient Hebrew -- and the cultural gap is staggering. To me, it looks like Astrology. For one thing, it presumes sentience on the part of the Sun and Moon. This is consistent, with the Biblical calling the stars, the Host of Heaven. In other words, God's army or angels.
  3. Oh I see what you are saying, yeah it does. The Hebrew uses something like "authority" for "rule," as does the LXX.
  4. Yesterday
  5. I suspect you've misunderstood part of what he said. It's a subject he covers a lost, and a specific link would be appreciated. AFAIK (and I do follow the topic) there is no essential difference between intergalactic space and the space between my ears. Both are expanding in the same way. It's like the water in a flowing river - moored boats do not float downstream. The river supports the boats (galaxies), the mooring (gravity) maintains their positions. The river, however is still flowing. "More" space is appearing everywhere evenly. Electromagnetic forces maintain the sizes of material objects, gravity maintains the relationship between disconnected objects, but the underlying space is still expanding.
  6. I have been watching the You Tube videos on physics and cosmology. In particular, Neil DeGrase Tyson -- of the Hayden Planetarium. It is only the space between galaxies that is expanding. The gravitational forces within the galaxies are strong enough to counter this force -- generally called, dark energy. If this were not the case, galaxies would lose cohesion and the stars would fly off. If all space were expanding in our solar system -- the orbits of all the planets would be expanding. We would be getting more and more distance between ourselves and the Sun and we would all be dead from the cold. If all space everywhere were expanding -- molecules would fly apart. There would be no matter -- anywhere.
  7. That's the problem, isn't it? Nobody knows. Buddha was never anything more than a man. An important man, because he had good spiritual insights -- but only a man. It is small wonder, that his words were damaged, in the transmission. It seems unlikely, that Buddha intended to create a new religion. Certainly, not a new class of professional monk. I think that he was trying to reform the Hinduism of his time. The words of Jesus, supposedly, had God's backing. His message met the same distorted fate as Buddha's. Maybe worse. I can say that with confidence, because there are about 40,000 different flavors of Christianity. The New Testament itself, records some of the disagreements about circumcision and dietary observance. Without Paul's intervention, there would have been no mission to the gentiles. The Jesus movement would have remained a Jewish movement -- and it would have been absorbed back into Judaism -- much as Buddha has been claimed by Hinduism -- as an avatar of Vishnu, the Preserver. In the end, it comes down to faith. Some have it. Some don't. I need evidence.
  8. In all honesty, if He had commanded the Apostles to take His message to all nations, then indeed He wanted to be inclusive of the gentiles. But through Judaism or simply belief of His message, I don't know.
  9. Could I trouble you for a source on that one, please? As I understood it, all space is expanding.
  10. My sense of things, is that if there was a historic Jesus -- behind all the stories and mythology -- he was a reformer. By that I mean that he was interested in reforming the Judaism of his day. In particular, there is the story of a gentile woman, who wanted a healing from Jesus. He called her a dog, because she wasn't Jewish. Also, it was Paul, who took the Jesus movement to the gentiles. There is nothing in the Gospels to suggest that Jesus wanted a gentile following. The legendary conflict between Peter and Paul suggests that Peter wanted no part of a gentile mission. There is the Great Commission, where the risen Christ commands his followers, to spread the Good News. I think this puts us back into mythology and pious fraud. What we now think of as Christianity, was birthed, not by Jesus, but by Paul. A man who first met Jesus, on the road to Damascus. To my understanding, more mythology and pious fraud. The story becomes more ludicrous, when Paul lectures the Jews on the real Jesus. The man he never met. Back to your point. Would Jesus recognize anything, about Christianity, in any of it's forms? I truly doubt that.
  11. Okay so we're going to stop this here. I've gotten a few reports on this topic, and others, and I'm usually a bit reluctant to step in and be a baby sitter. Sometimes, though, it's necessary. I have seen a lot of baiting, and a lot of attacking of other people, in these posts. Really, from what I'm looking at, it's petty bickering over really minor stuff. So we're going to stop this topic here, and send everyone to their corners to think about what they've done. I hope that in continued posts, everyone can be more civil to each other, and if one MUST attack, attack the message and not the messenger. This goes for all sides, not just one particular member. Following warnings will be issued with suspension or just flat out removal. We're grown ups here. Let's act like it. Topic is closed.
  12. No need. Look at the monk's in Burma, inciting violence, in direct contradiction to Dharma. The world is a strange place and getting weirder.
  13. Are you kidding? I posted the link to the paper which printed the interview, with photo's and all........ Now you want me to get into Einsteins head and prove what he did and didn't know? Otherwise I'm a liar? Your right, its not a matter of faith, its right there in black & white.. Your the ones who claimed it was a lie and Einstein never said that, so I posted a photo copy of the article as proof, and now your saying that evidence is required? Unbelievable! Like I said, Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, but since "God" was used in the Address, you both no doubt would never admit or accept that Lincoln said any of it. Your true colors are showing, your absolute hatred of anything Christian has you in complete denial of anything & anyone who references God. You always say that you don't need to prove something (bible) isn't true, and that its up to me to prove that it is true. But here, Einstein did an interview with George Viereck in 1929, you have a copy of it, and yet your in complete denial that Einstein knew anything about what he was quoted as saying. Bottom line, the burden of proof now falls into your laps, you need to prove that Einstein was the clueless moron that your portraying him to be. And after you do that, find some evidence to prove Lincoln and Christ were misquoted too. Me thinks tour typical Liberals, who automatically deny that anything you don't agree with has got to be false. I'm beginning to think that if someone slapped either of you upside the head, you'd want pictures to prove that it actually happened, and even then you would undoubtedly insist that the pictures were photo shopped.. Wow, just Wow http:// http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf
  14. The King James Version speaks of ruling the day and ruling the night. That sounds like Astrology -- to me. The greater light is the Sun. The lesser light is the Moon. That makes the Sun and Moon -- rulers. Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
  15. Hey brother, So, "yom." This is a good example of how studying the original languages was of no help at all. Sometimes the original is very helpful and quite a blessing, sometimes it doesn't help, and sometimes it causes more questions than it does answers. In this case I think the context is more helpful than the word study. "Morning and evening was the -----day." From the context it looks to me like it means day as in morning an evening, like a regular 24 hour day. Regarding other places in Genesis it looks to me like they have a similar range of meaning for "yom" that we do for day.
  16. It looks to me like 14 could; of course depending on what we meant by astrology. NIV is pretty close to the Tanakh and the LXX: "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." It looks to me like the lights or "sources of light" were put there with purpose, specifically marking seasons and times. To me this then begs the question of authorship and original audience and what that would have meant to them.
  17. Last week
  18. There are Buddhists who will tell us, that Buddhism is a practice -- suitable for followers of all religions. In Indonesia, which has religious freedom -- -- there is a government list of legal religions. Buddhism is one of the options. Do you want consistency?
  19. I seriously doubt that this is what Buddha intended. I also doubt that Buddha intended a professional monk class. Well, once you have professional clergy -- and seminaries -- the rest follows. What are they teaching the lay people? The best karma of all, flows from feeding the monks and supporting the temples.
  20. We could make similar observations about the Gospels -- which translate as Good News. The propaganda of it's time. The Good News must be true. See? Someone reported these stories as true. Even though much of the content, is about the people who insisted it was a lie. Even though parts of it are ludicrous.
  21. Generally accepted as much by the modern populace without direct knowledge on the subject.
  22. Not upset, either. Curious, though, how does your statement prove Einstein was aware of the article if he had lived long enough. Are you saying the article didn't exist, after all? If that were the case, then that would make you the liar you proclaimed you weren't. Could you prove he was aware, if the article exists? Evidence for your argument is required in this instance because it isn't a question of faith per this tandem you had presented. See the point, yet?
  1. Load more activity