Friend wrote:to devil666-strange that you say there is a real devil! The biggest bill of goods sold to supposedly intelligent people is that there is no God and that present life originated from one simple cell and evolved through a process of natural selection to its present form. I submit that this hypothesis is not only unfounded, unscientific, and untenable, but that it is also, based on all known and established laws, impossible! Moreover,I suggest that when man denies God, man becomes a fool. Romans 1:21-22 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. Where are these Grave Errors you speak of? I would like to take a look at them.

Might I ask what these established laws are?

Friend wrote:The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere. Ecclesiastes 1:6.

Sorry, I quoted from Job 28:25 in my previous response and totally glossed over your reference to Ecclesiastes 1:6. And while this does appear to describe the circulation of the atmosphere, there is nothing scientific in it. They were describing what they thought was the circulation of the atmosphere based on their experience. However, any meterologist will tell you this explanation is inaccurate. The atmosphere is much more complex than what is described in Ecclesiastes 1:6 and is actually governed by chaos theory. For a better understanding and a brief overview of chaos theory, follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

Friend wrote:fuzoid: go ahead, knock your self out ! I need to see a real intelligent explanation of ........? The Bible?

Okay, but remember, you asked. I'm only going to provide one for now to allow you time to digest and research it on your own.

Shortly after the birth of Jesus, the book of Matthew describes an angel appearing to Joseph urging him to flee to Egypt because Herod was out to kill Jesus. However, in the book of Luke, it describes Joseph and Mary, in accordance with the Law of Moses, taking Jesus to Jerusalem for purification. Afterwards Luke describes them as departing Jerusalem for Nazareth. No mention of the magi or fleeing to Egypt.

To add further weight to this, there is absolutely no historical reference to what is commonly referred to as the slaughter of the innocents. In other words, Herod never sent his soldiers out to kill all babies 2 years or younger. Such an event would have surely been recorded at the time it occurred. Not some 40 to 50 years later. Nor can you find reference to it in any of Josephus' historical writings.

Another issue is Luke's reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria. Quirinius was not appointed as governor of Syria until 6 CE. However Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria during the first census, which is allegedly the reason why Joseph had to go to Bethlehem, prior to the birth of Jesus. And Jesus was born around 6 to 4 BCE. Especially considering Herod the Great died in 4 BCE!

Let me know your thoughts after you had an opportunity to research this.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

The bible is scientifically accurate?

It certainly offers an opposing view of genetics and evolution ...

37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. -Gen 30:37-39

And all this time our teachers and scientists have been telling us something ENTIRELY different...the cattle industry(and I would imagine all other industry dealing with animals) will forever be changed once they employ that tidbit of biblical "science"...maybe it's just for cattle?.goats?..have them stare at streaked and spotted rods and the offspring will be streaked, splotched, and spotted.*(Mendel would be ashamed ...)

And then of course you've got this little tidbit...

Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. -Isaiah 38:8

Remember?.., back in those days "the god" let everyone think that the sun revolved around the earth. Maybe it still does?....What do you think?

Want some honey?

Judges 14:8-9, "When he returned later to take her, he turned aside to look at the carcass of the lion; and behold, a swarm of bees and honey were in the body of the lion. So he scraped the honey into his hands and went on, eating as he went. When he came to his father and mother, he gave {some} to them and they ate {it;} but he did not tell them that he had scraped the honey out of the body of the lion."

**whispers** Honey bees avoid carrion, as it would contaminate the hives honey supply and kill the future bees.... in a Homer Simpson voice

I'm not even gonna bring up a "cockatrice"..oh yeah!..."satyrs" either....there's even a cure for Leprosy .....

There are so many scientific blunders contained in the bible, you can hardly make the claim it coincides with science, or is based in any sort of reality.

to: Fuziod- It was not shortly after the birth of Jesus, that an angel appeared, at least the bible does not say that! It says Matthew 2:13 Flight to Egypt, verse 13, Now when they had gone,(Magi) behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said," Get up! Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until i tell you; Herod and Jerusalem were not disturbed when about a year and half earlier when the shepherd announced that they had seen angels and that the messiah had been born, only when the Magi had came, and they were troubled (matthew 2:3) The Magi did not start their trip until after the birth of Jesus, and it was a long trip from Babylon to Judea, it took quite a while, and there were more than 3 of them. How old was Jesus at the time of their visit, he was about 1.5 years old! Matthew 2:11, After coming to the house they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they fell down to the ground and worshiped him. At that time they had already taken residence in a home! Herod, called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.(We learn later that Herod wanted this information in order to determine how old the child would be! That is why he had all children 2 years and younger killed) Luke: Mary had not given birth to Jesus at the time of the census, the Magi had not shown up yet, and Quirinius was governor two different times of Syria, 7 BC and 6AD more info at http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/Jesus_birthdate.htm

Friend wrote:to: Fuziod- It was not shortly after the birth of Jesus, that an angel appeared, at least the bible does not say that! It says Matthew 2:13 Flight to Egypt, verse 13, Now when they had gone,(Magi) behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said," Get up! Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until i tell you; Herod and Jerusalem were not disturbed when about a year and half earlier when the shepherd announced that they had seen angels and that the messiah had been born, only when the Magi had came, and they were troubled (matthew 2:3) The Magi did not start their trip until after the birth of Jesus, and it was a long trip from Babylon to Judea, it took quite a while, and there were more than 3 of them. How old was Jesus at the time of their visit, he was about 1.5 years old! Matthew 2:11, After coming to the house they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they fell down to the ground and worshiped him. At that time they had already taken residence in a home! Herod, called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.(We learn later that Herod wanted this information in order to determine how old the child would be! That is why he had all children 2 years and younger killed) Luke: Mary had not given birth to Jesus at the time of the census, the Magi had not shown up yet, and Quirinius was governor two different times of Syria, 7 BC and 6AD more info at http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/Jesus_birthdate.htm

With all due respect, you honestly believe Joseph and Mary stayed in Bethlehem for 1.5 to 2 years? According to the bible, the reason Joseph had to go to Bethlehem was for a tax census, which did not occur until the year 6 CE (AD). So there was no reason for Joseph to travel to Bethlehem prior to 6 CE. Anyway, I digress. You are correct, the bible does not state shortly after the birth of Jesus. This was an assumption on my part due to Luke. Remember, Luke claims Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem for the purification rite, in accordance with the Law of Moses, and then departed for Jerusalem. And the purification rite is performed on newborns (within 30 days of birth, I believe). So, using Luke's timeline, I made an assumption about Matthew. And if you have any hope of reconciling the two gospels, my assumption would have to be correct! But yet we still have the problem of Luke and Matthew contradiciting each other. Now, ask yourself, why would Joseph and Mary stay in Bethlehem for 1.5 to 2 years? Especially when it does not agree with Luke! It makes no sense and no amount of rationalizing will change this.

Of the two gospels, Luke is more believable. Therefore, since Luke makes no mention of fleeing to Egypt, it only makes sense that Matthew's account was fictionalized so the author (not Matthew, BTW) could claim Jesus fulfilled prophecy about the messiah coming out of Egypt.

Regarding Quirinius, ironically I can't locate a single reference to Quirinius being appointed governor of Syria twice other than Christian apologist sites. This comes as no big surprise since your faith relies on this erroneous revision to history to support Luke. I note that the apologist site you provided has two different histories for Quirinius. One states:

"When it came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter. It has also been proposed that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later beginning about A.D. 6."

And the other history states:

"His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinus. Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinus was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of Syria, he is called the governor, which he was de jure, of Syria. Some ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second time."

These two accounts do not agree with each other. A more accurate history for Quirnius can be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

"According to the Roman historian Florus, Quirinius defeated the Marmaridae, a tribe of desert raiders from Cyrenaica, possibly while governor of Crete and Cyrene around 14 BC, declining however the honorific name Marmaricus.[1] In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus. Some years later, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 - 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. He won by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders.[2] For this victory, he was awarded a triumph.[3]

"By AD 1, Quirinius was appointed rector to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign.[4] When Augustus' support shifted to his stepson Tiberius, Quirinius entered the latter's camp of followers. Having been married to Claudia Appia, about whom little is known, he divorced her and around AD 3 married Aemilia Lepida, daughter of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and sister of Manius Aemilius Lepidus, who had originally been betrothed to Lucius Caesar.[5] Within a few years they were divorced; in AD 20 he accused her of claiming that he was her son's father, and later of trying to poison him during their marriage; Tacitus claims that she was popular with the public, who regarded Quirinius as carrying on a prosecution out of spite.[6]

"After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6, Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius as prefect; at the same time Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes.[7] One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this.[8]"

The difference between my source and yours is, mine has plenty of references that can be verified, yours does not. BTW, why did you completely ignore the contradictions between Matthew and Luke? It is these contradictions that were my main argument. My reference to Quirnius was more of an afterthought.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

fuzoid: i just though the web site i referred to covered everything you ask of real good! I am not a good typer and i didn't want to spend a lot of time on it when i could use it as a reference. Do Matthew and Luke really contradict each other, I thought the site i referred to explained Matthew and Luke real good, I did not ignore it, I gave it my best shot, i think in Luke, the reason it did not mention Magi or the killing, was that Mary was still with a child at the time they went to register, way to early for the Magi in Luke chapter 2. And Jerusalem , Bethlehem, and Nazareth are close enough to travel back and forth for Jewish holidays. The killing of the innocents was not mentioned in Luke because it was pretty common place for Herod to kill kill kill, I know that this kind of slaughter should have been mentioned in Luke or by Joseph or it was maybe kinda common place for Herod, he even killed his own son and wives when they got in the way and Luke does not mention that either. Herod was a mad man. Hosea 11:1 agrees with Mathew 2:15 I do not know why Luke does not mention it! Maybe it was out of context for the author.  You did say that there was another site other than a christian point of view on the topic of Quirinius, so the christian point of view can't be that far off the mark. When people can't figure out something we tend to say that it's not true, or it doesn't fit, i believe that there is the right answer for everything. We just have to find it!

If we start from the Adamic Age (point of reference) found in the Bible, and we add up all the generations, we will come up with around 5770 or so years of genealogy (the census records) and thus found here will be your supposed 6000 years, as most of the religious opinions perceive as the depiction.

In 1959 leading scientist were asked their opinion on how old the universe was, and the consensus of the brightest minds of that time replied that it was eternal, as in, NO beginning!!! Let’s stop here for a moment and ponder, you see, if you at that time had a belief in the biblical account, that there was a beginning, be it on blind faith alone, you’d have gotten some sort of retort as in "there was no beginning and thus no God you are just a superstitious uneducated fool and as such we do not have time for you". Oh the drama!!! In 1965, the echo of the big bang was found (by accident), and the world scientific paradigm shifted to a universe that now had its beginnings. I stop to wonder if any of the scientists of the time even acknowledge their previous state of worldly disenchantment or any of the harsh condemnations they’d freely given to the ever so common folk of the day because NOW as it stands the first three words WE all can agree on some 5725 years later... IN THE BEGINNING!!

ddd wrote:Might I ask what these established laws are?

Umm...please?

@ET
Actually, there wasn't a consensus at that time. The scientific community was divided between the big bang theory and steady state theory. When the leftover radiation from the big bang was measured, it confirmed the big bang theory. However, the steady state theory was never confirmed. Notice how even though many scientists believed in the steady state theory, they changed their minds when new evidence came to light. That's the beauty of science - it can change to fit reality, not the other way round.
Regardless, if you had a belief in the biblical account, you would probably also believe that the earth was about 6000 years old. As such, you would be wrong anyway.