Albuquerque Trinity Southwest University claimed civilization in the Dead Sea region was destroyed 3,7000 years ago following a meteor explosion in the atmosphere. Settlements in the Middle Ghor region were obliterated with powerful wave of heat, wind and tiny particles.
Mud brick structures suddenly disappeared but the stone foundations were left. A clay floor was melted into glass and waves pushed salty water from the Dead Sea onto the soil. The blast wiped out 100% of the Middle Bronze age cities and towns and stripped agricultural soil from once-fertile fields.
More details at Sputnik News.
Comments over there cracked me up.
The site uses the Facebook plugin so right there the quality is affected. They're duking it out. The material oriented are flat not having science support biblical text and the religionists are flat not having their sacred texts ever in question.
It's funny being so absolute so abruptly. But then it quickly gets wearisome.
My younger brother allows himself to be influenced by public speakers. He internalizes their messages readily then brings them to me for test flight.
One day I was driving and he was passenger. He had just listened to a religionist at his church disputing evolution and big-bang theory. He ran through all the points. Science this but Christianity that, Science that but Christianity this. Back and forth through several points of the man's dispute. He wanted me to argue to see how that would be done. What did I think of all these things the Christian said to dispute what we learn in school about origins?
I told him, look, the genuine scientist and the genuine religionist have no real dispute because the things that they're talking about are in different areas of human existence. There are Christian scientists and there are scientific Christians because those two separate things have enough space in our minds. The areas do not conflict. Science is man's attempt to understand the material world and our place in it. Religion is all about spiritual values, it teaches us what to do with all that. There is no real conflict.
The only time you ever hear about conflict is when either Christians presume to extend spiritual knowledge onto the material world or when Scientists presume to offer proof against spiritual comprehension. Those are false conflicts, you needn't concern yourself with them.
Stay in your lane. ( I heard that in a video about Russian monuments being painted.)
I love it. You have confirmation that you have some kind of impact when you hear your own phrasing restated. Since then I've heard James say at least five times, "There is no conflict between science and religion" as something he thought up himself. And I suppose he did. As he listened.
5 comments:
That'll teach em.
I told him, look, the genuine scientist and the genuine religionist have no real dispute because the things that they're talking about are in different areas of human existence. There are Christian scientists and there are scientific Christians because those two separate things have enough space in our minds. The areas do not conflict. Science is man's attempt to understand the material world and our place in it. Religion is all about spiritual values, it teaches us what to do with all that. There is no real conflict.
Excellent breakdown. It's fascinating how science can vindicate the Bible.
Genesis puts the Garden of Eden at the confluence of the Tigris, Euphrates, Gihon, and Pison rivers, but, in modern times, no Gihon and Pison rivers.
Until satellite imagery shows the beds of the Gihon and Pison rivers, dried up but there, right where they're supposed to be.
Did you know astronomers were able to find independent confirmation of Sodom and Gomorrah from Persian astronomers? And they were also able to determine the true date of Christmas?
4/17/4 BC. How you like dem apples?
No matter how it was done, the Sodomites got it in the end.
Re: Chip'soriginal post. The material world and the spiritual world are all one world. If there is a God, he created it all, and it all operates according to a cohesive set of laws. This is a Christian, medieval way of thinking. I believe it.
Re: Edutcher's point about the Garden of Eden. Although I am obviously not *the* authority on this or anything like that, I would argue that Genesis does not present the Garden as just another place in our world, which we might theoretically find. The whole point of the Garden, and the fall, is that the Garden is definitively *not* this world. Adam and Eve eat from the tree of good and bad, after God has warned them it will make them susceptible to dying. Once they eat of it, they become conscious of sex and attraction, hence the desire for modesty. And God reveals to them they will experience hardship and joys with work, relationships and children.
In other words, the world of TIME. That isn't the world they live in, i.e., the garden, but it is where they go upon leaving the paradise. The garden iscwhere the other tree (which everyone forgets about) is: the tree of life, which, when they eat of it, they will live forever. They aren't ready, so into the world of time they go.
The world of time is THIS world.
This isn't just Genesis. The tent of meeting, created by Moses on instruction from God on Mt. Sinai -- and, later, the temple -- was decorated with designs of trees, animals and angels. The temple represented a kind of paradise, where humanity was reunited with God again. So, again, this only makes sense if the garden is not some locale on earth, ergo, they cant go there, so thats why they need the temple.
Then in Revelation, where do we end up? In the heavenly Jerusalem, which has not temple, but does have the Tree of Life!
Theres more, but this will do. The Garden isn't part of this world. Or perhaps it works better to say, that the world we live in is not the world of the Garden. That is the entire point: sin separated us from Paradise, and we need God to bring us back there. So we cant just find it with the right technology.
By the way, I am not saying the Bible shouldn't be examined from a scientific point of view.. There are many times the Bible makes definite claims of fact, and those are subject to verification. But that doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is meant to be read as recounting history. A lot of it is poetry, and a lot of it is hard to classify: apocalytic writings, for example.
What gets lots of people in trouble is they forget, or don't know, that there is plenty of other literature associated with the writings in the Bible that helps discern their particular genre and how to sort them out. We have the writings of rabbis and interpretive paraphrases called "targums" for the Old Testament, and we have the writings of early Christians, and the traditions of both Jews and Christians, to help us. But along came Martin Luther, and his "sola scriptura" nonsense, and now, 500 years later, people read the Bible at such a tremendous disadvantage.
Post a Comment