@PR13STG0RD0 Mithra was "born" by emerging from a rock with a dagger in one hand, a torch in the other hand, Phrygian cap on his head. NO mention is made of a "virgin." There is ur first 1 moron! i would have given u more but since u posted that i have come to conclude that ur an idiot, who cant tell fact from fiction. sicko!
For all my dear sceptic friends out there, Jesus is real and he is the True Lord of this world and beyond.Yes i know a lot of people want dont want to accept his existence,and I'm not going to tell you what to believe in-Just this that when ever you are in trouble - like real trouble,when you dont know where to turn, call him and trust in him.Give him a shot, and i promise you HE will deliver you.. I dont even know you guys and i probably will never meet you ever. But i wish you well. Peace :)
To answer the end of the video, yes but that is only assumptions on speculation that "this has to be because of A based upon simple logical conclusions" however, such historical figures that impacted that society be it kings or powerful men etc who did things for people to see can't be ignored you'd think a powerful religious figure's documentation would be safely guarded by ancient devouts and be among valuable historical record but no, not even muhammad, just scripture of religion survive
The virgin birth is a metaphor as is most of the new testament. the average bible beating american yokel doesn't have the depth of intellect to translate allegory and symbolism. It's unfortunate our educational system doesn't teach people how to think critically
I also had a ferretin level of over 20,000 and a blood sat. of 98%. The UVA hospital in Charlottesville VA said they had never seen a ferretin level that high and the person live. Well I'm here and that was in 1992 I was diagnosed with Hemochromotosis. Yes miracles happen divinely and with Doctors help. God bless you and I pray you get a miracle in your life.
Not much evidence to back it up but my feelings tell me it could be fabricated based on the radical claims there is no other book in history that we know of that has caused so much confusion and chaos in peoples thinking is this really what a god wants? if the bible is gods word he sure didn't do a very good job of proven himself even after two thousand years Christians haven't convinced everyone yet!
Athiests must stand up to all this nonesense. All religion is evil and the there is no room in the 21st century for these non-thinking fairy tales. Science is the only true path to understanding who we are and where we are going.
You are all idiots..... I cannot stand the fact this religious myth still persists. It all has very little to do with the truth...Humans are out of control in large numbers, but they can be controlled like sheep if we appeal to their sense of mysticism and spirituallity. Add in some likely opposition to maintain a sense of self and unity.... there you go...got the lot!!!! They did this 10's of 1000's of years ago..sort of worked then, but it is really working now!
That Jesus was born of a virgin was "confirmed" by the gospels Mathew and Luke. Just because it is written that he was born of a virgin does not mean it actually happened. I don't think they should say confirmed. There isn't even any record of Jesus even existing besides the Bible so he may have never even existed. If he did exist he was probably an annoying street preacher, the kind you avoid today. He never performed miracles.
The information on the census of Quirinius is badly mangled, and the evidence actually doesn't suggest what this video suggests.
I praise the video for translating apographe as register, which is the better translation. There is also a larger problem with the word οἰκουμένη that the video does not address, which I feel is more problematic.
The census is actually dated to 6/7 CE (not 4 bce as the video suggests), which then brings into issue the discrepancy between Luke and Matt.
If anyone would like to watch my series called The Truth about the Trinity, please check them out. There are tons of scriptures on how we should believe. Thank you. :)
H#6005 `Immanuw'el im-maw-noo-ale' from H#5973 and 410 with a pronominal suffix inserted; with us (is) God; Immanuel, a type name of Isaiah's son:--Immanuel.
@ororc i agree, the virgin birth can not be proven. i bet no one believed mary and joseph (joseph didnt even believe mary until an angel appeared to him) and they probably didnt even tell anyone, except for a couple of close relatives, that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. The only way a non Christian would believe this is if you get the to Believe that Jesus is indeed the Christ. I dont see the point of defending this at all.
The only evidence they offered for a Virgin birth in "the age of science" is that there is none, i.e. it is just to be believed because it cannot be proven. It is the claimant's (the supporters of the Bible) responsibility to prove the claim correct. It cannot be proven correct by reason. Unless, of course, you count the only Virgin birth that has been proven to be possible by science: cloning (which has not ever been performed on humans). And Jesus is probably not a clone.
@jcr4runner no apostle wrote any of the gospels proven fact they are all attributed to the apostle read the fine print gospel acc.to mark means mark diddnt write it it was handed down if jesus was 33 his lifespan at the time he wouldnt live past 50 that is how long the lifespan was at the time also all the apostles were martyed within a few years
@ororc - Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin. Why? Because the curse of man via the transgression of Adam is passed down through the seed of man. Jesus is King via the line of David (Joseph), but avoided the halting of the Davidic line of kingship thru Nathan (Mary's lineage)
Jesus NEVER established a formal religious institution (ie: the RCC) - He was the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Jewish Torah, and Tanakh. And never sought His church to be a political influence in the world. The original Christians were Jews, not Italians (Romans)
@jcr4runner I agree that if the Bible references a census which can be independently verified, than the author likely knew about the census, which pushes the date at which the the passages could have been written closer to the time of that census. It does not, however, lend credibility to the virgin birth claim.
Support of one claim in the Bible does not make every claim reliable. Remembering a census doesn't imply witnessing a birth. He may have chosen that event -because- it was memorable.
various branches of semitic languages, are a pain in the rear for non-natives to learn.
example; the Arabic word for "fire," I think has 7 different definitions.
there are numerous other multiple definition words, across all semitic languages. The Isaiah prophecy is taken WAY out of context here. Hebrew, Arabic, and yes Aramaic, all semitic languages, several of the words often have multiple definitions.
None, however recommended is e-sword with strong s dict., and the HOT and HOT+ add-ins The Scriptures1998 less the NT. Here the "Messiah" promotes Murder. Luk 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not wish me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me. H4899 משׁיח mâshîyach maw-shee'-akh From H4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint): H4886 משׁח mâshach maw-shakh' A primitive root; to rub with oil, to anoint; consecrate
None, they are all a misconception of reality disguised as truth Here the "Messiah" promotes Murder. Luk 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not wish me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me. H4899 משׁיח mâshîyach maw-shee'-akh From H4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); H4886 משׁח mâshach maw-shakh' A primitive root; to rub with oil, that is, to anoint; by implication to consecrate; also to paint: - anoint, paint.
First, the civil ruler has the power of the sword (i.e., capital punishment; see Romans 13)
Second, this is a parable! It's a fictional story told by Jesus to prove a point. The point has nothing to do with capital punishment or murder. The parable has to do with being good stewards over what God has given us -- otherwise we will be judged in eternity for being poor stewards.
Christmas is a Scam to fool people into spending money they don't have. There is no evidence that Christ was born on Christmas day, Merchant Bankers & Merchants us this as a time of year to boost profits. People rack up huge debts, and this is a cruel hoax on the poor.
Christmas was celebrated on dec. 25 because the pagan holiday of the year,(a huge feast, like the Vietnamese holiday "tet") was on dec 25. So the early christian people put Christs birthdays celebration right on top of the pagan holiday, to try to instill to the people the real reason for the feast. the TRUTH shall set you free.
Jesus' birth was 15 months after the conception of John the Baptist. According to the Gospel of Luke, John was likely conceived after one of the High Feast Days -- probably the Day of Atonement, which was on Sept 22 in 6 BC.
TIMELINE
9/22/6BC (John's conception)
6/24/5 (John's birth)
12/25/5 (Jesus' birth)
The church fathers noticed this in the 2nd century AD (some also picked Jan 2nd or 6th) far too early for the pagan copycat theory to be true.
'pagans' existed long before the 2nd century. Your dating of the move of jesus' birthday to this day does nothing to challenge the fact that this was chosen for political not historical or religious reasons. Also for that to work you have to a) ignore the conflicting birth account of jesus and b) start with the assumption that the gospels have a historical validity, which it does not. I'd say nice try but this wasn't, at all.
@humanistheart How would you prove that the account of John's conception and birth -- which is a highly detailed timeline, has no historical validity?
How would you prove that there is even ONE timeline conflict between the two Nativity accounts?
@humanistheart Actually there are several references and inscriptions about a world wide census taking place between 5 and 3 BC at the exact time when Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem. Josephus even has an extended account of a group of Jews who ran afoul of Herod because they refused to register.
First of all, there was no 'worldwide' cencus. The roman empire didn't control asia, or india, or the american contenants now did they? Second of all, if you truly believe this, by all means list some sources. Go ahead, dispite the fact that no historian has ever confirmed what your suggesting, you think you have proof, so please, provide this proof.
@humanistheart "Worldwide" in that day meant Roman Empire. If you are going to hold it to your understanding of the word, then I have no argument for you.
@humanistheart The problem is that the Dec 25th date was proposed in the second century. That is far to early for the pagan copycat theory to be true.
@humanistheart How ironic you should say my logic is flawed. You are ubable to see your flaw. Prior to becoming a dominant religion in competition with paganism, Christians proposed Dec. 25th as one possible date for the Nativity in the second century along with Jan 2 and 6th -- based on the timing of John's conception (Yom Kippur). If Dec 25th was chosen in the fourth century, you would have a case, but in fact it was 200 years earlier than that. That's far too early for a copy-cat motivation.
the problem were facing today, the people who advertise for zues opps i mean jesus knows the lie, but don't know the truth. train the child up they should go and they will naver depart. so it's more tradition then truth.
God gave us free will, god gave us soul, but god did not give us parents, thus making god a choice of its self. To teach anything one must have virtue in the topic, and the student must have faith in what one teaches to be good and improve morale.
On the contrary, there is no mention of Jesus being born of a virgin during the early apostolic period...The virgin birth was very carefully woven into church tradition, amounst other pagan myths.
Read the book call "The Golden Bough" by sir James Frazer, to find out where the virgin birth came from.... Mithras!
The Golden Bough was throughly refuted by academic historians shortly after it appeared. In fact, i was the final nail in the coffin for the so-called Jesus-as-myth hypothesis among scholars. There are lots of Internet popularizers today, but that just makes it look all the less credible.
Mithra was not born of a virgin. We are producing a video called Mithra-busters that refutes some of these fallacies. Stay tuned.
believe is the Lord Jesus death and rescurrection to life and immortality!
Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The sign mentioned in Isaiah 7:10-16 prophecy, was given to King Ahaz, that the young woman before would conceive and before the boy child would turn seven (age of accountability) The two Kings, who Ahaz feared would their his kingdom and land taken from them. Therefore it has nothing to do with a future virgin birth!
This a problem since you quote Isaiah and Matthew 12:39 as having authority and yet you reject Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:34.
It makes no sense when people use Isaiah to support their argument and then reject the Gospel writers interpretation of the same verse as meaning a "virgin."
By the first century AD there was never any thought that it could mean anything else.
I would disagree... All religions are skeptical towards other religions... they downright know those religions are false as are there gods... HOW? Because they were told so... generally from a young age. So they think they can't possibly be wrong.
As for modern skeptics... I don't see it as being cynical to ask questions. I see it as wanting to gain knowledge and not taking everything everyone says as truth.
I truly believe you are backwards on your assumptions.
I like how they play the 'old person' music for the backdrop when they recite lies. It makes what they say more palatable for oldsters who might otherwise use their brains and recognize a lie when they hear it.
You EDOMITES can hide comments on your blasphemy but you can't hide from GOD's wrath. Instead of questioning the Messiah's existence you should bow down and pray for forgiveness. Let's see you do a story on Isaac's sons Esau and Jacob, who became the Chosen people ISREAL aka blacks, native americans, mexicans, hatians, cubans, etc. All 10 so-called missing tribes. God know who his people are and will, just as the scriptures say, bring them back to power in his Kindgom. You people are ATHIESTS.
I just commented on your channel. Once again, there is no historical evidence for a Moses & Abraham. The creation stories are recycled myths.
Go to school. Get an education. Study human evolution and move forward. You talk about slavery? You my friend are a slave to a mans invention - religion.
Jennings is a DEVIL and Edomite, who God hate, for this very reason. They are heathens, blasphemers and liars. Read and follow story of Isaac sons twins Jacob (Israel) and Esau (the devil). It reveals why God hate Esau, tells of God's Elect (Isreal)--not to be mistaken for Askenar Jews (Edomites) occupying Israel today. The entire bible is about Esau and Jacob's life and final fate. Esau aka Edom, Edomites, Idumaea or Idumea gets DESTROYED in the end, see Obadiah and Revelation, and other books.
i am going to keep watching, please tell me how to refute the myth: Jesus used magic and hypnotism to alter memories and inject images and memories in people's mind.
I believe in miracles for I have witnessed them. But I have reason not to trust the church and will not accept what they profess as truth simply because they say it is so. What sayeth the earliest sources of a virgin giving birth?
I have been visited by the real Jesus and I have never experienced what Gods Love is since. It is totally and completely unconditional. He can see right through you and there is nothing in you that He "rejects". He totally accepts you fully. And his power is awesome. And He was accompanied by heavenly music which is full of love and power too. It is awesome to hear. The song will remain a secret until I meet everyone in heaven. By then you'll not care anyway since it'll be the best place ever!
You don't have any more authority than anyone does. You, like everyone else are simply picking and choosing which parts are literal and which aren't to suite your own needs. An all powerful creator should be better at making his message clear so there wouldn't be 10,000 religions and 31,800 denominations.
His ways are not our ways nor His thoughts our thoughts they are of a much higher order (Isaiah 55:11). Can Pinocio outsmart or out-think or suppose himself to be wiser and more in tune with reality his maker?
People don't leave their home cities for a census. Just plain stupid. The only census that dates near the alleged birth was 10 years after the death of King Herod the Great. oops
There was a worldwide (Roman Empire) census from 5 to 3 BC recorded in multiple sources.
Later Roman records indicate that men were required to return to their homelands to register. A census from 48 AD records the return of people to their native land for the census.
Another census taken in the year 104 AD said:
"... it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."
There was no such empire-wide census and no such sources. It is absurd to imagine somebody would return to the homeland of a distant ancestor for a tax census. Herod and Quirinius could not have had jurisdiction of Syria at the same time. And Joseph was from Galilee anyway - not part of Syria or Judea at that time.
The Josephus reference is Antiquities, XVII, 2: 4: it refers to the Jews giving Caesar an assurance of their good-will rather than an oath to be faithful to Caesar. Any such assurance is irrelevant, as it is not a 'census' , and would not require anybody to go to the homeland of a centuries distant ancestor.
Matthew has Jesus born under Herod, Luke under Qurinius. In 5BC Rome was not a Roman province, Herod was in charge: by the time Q was governor, Herod was dead. And there's no 'in part'.
"Census would not require anybody to go to the homeland of a centuries distant ancestor. "
This is wrong for several reasons. Here is just one:
A record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. with similar wording to the Gospel of Luke:
"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."
There is a difference between going home for a census, and going to the home of a distant ancestor. David was 1,000 years in Joseph's past. You are seriously suggesting that, for the purposes of taxation, Rome required all descendants of David to go to Bethlehem? It's analogous to a US citizen of English extraction going to Normandy for a census because they're descended from William the Conqueror.
First, you are reading something into the text that was not there. Joseph's family was not in Nazareth for 1000 years -- impossible according to biblical history. Mary's cousin Elizabeth was from the hill country of Judea. So they had relatives still in Judah. It was their "homeland" according to Luke.
Second, the Jews were REQUIRED to walk to Jerusalem at least three times a year for the Spring and fall feast days.
I understand that he went to Bethlehem because he was a descendant of David - who lived 1000 years previously.
Now you tell me a Galilean became an honorary Judean for the purposes of a tax census (or is it conscription now?) because his wife had a cousin from Judea?
No, I didn't write anything like this. I gave three reasons why Joseph was required to be in Jerusalem for the feasts and in Bethlehem for the registration.
Joseph probably registered after the Feast of Tabernacles in 5 BC and stayed with relatives in Bethlehem until the birth. He was also required to not work for a year after marriage by Mosaic law.
Third, according to the book of Numbers and elsewhere, the Jews traditionally took a census by tribal affiliation. Herod, a converted Jew, would have been obliged to follow the Law in this practice.
Luke always explains to his Gentile audience that everything was done "according to the [Mosaic] law."
"Matthew has Jesus born under Herod, Luke under Qurinius"
First, king and procurator was not the same office. Luke has Jesus born under Herod WHILE Quirinius was governing Syria.
Second, we don't have the full list of Syrian governors. There is a gap from 4 to 1 BC.
Third, the worldwide census was conducted from 5 BC to at least 3 BC.
What you have against Quirinius not being in charge of the census during this time is only an argument from silence. There is no evidence to prove he was not.
Luke 2:2 makes mention of the "first" registration.
"This registration first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria" (NKJV).
Luke mentions ANOTHER census in Acts 5:37:
"After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed."
Luke makes no attempt to link the census of 6 AD described in Acts with what he describes as the first registration in his Gospel account. So its evident that Luke has two registrations. The first is a worldwide registration for the swearing of an oath of loyalty in about 5 BC. The second is a local census of Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea administrated in 6 AD.
The verb applied to Caesar in Josephus is εὐνοήσειν (eunoesein) it simply means to be well-inclined. It doesnt even mean an oath, never mind a census: if it was an oath, I would expect something involving a ὅρκον.
Can you give any instance anywhere where eunoesein indicates the holding of a tax census (ἀπογραφὴ)?
Josephus adds that "above 6000 Pharisees refused to swear." The fact that Josephus knew how many refused to swear shows it was a census.
A census was usually given to tell how many loyal men would be available for military service. That is why an oath of loyalty was taken. There are also records in other parts of the world of a census at about this time. The proof is given in the video if you would watch it. We even have the exact words to the oath.
So a census is any count of people? The NT Greek lexicon defines ἀπογραφὴ (Luke 2:2) as a registration in the public records of persons together with their income and property for the purposes of taxation. The verbal promise of goodwill described by Josephus is categorically and by definition NOT a census.
Nor could such an oath have anything to do with military service - at that time the army was confined to Roman citizens.
The Josephus translators make it clear that it was the swearing of an oath. It fits the overall tenor of the Nativity story. King Herod was insanely jealous of pretend messianic usurpers. He had hundreds or even thousands killed according to Josephus. He finally missed his chance to kill the true King according to Matthew. Luke give us the reason why Joseph and Mary were in Judea and the background for the tensions as corroborated by Josephus in his passage about the Pharisees who refused.
The difficulty is not the date of the worldwide census or the date of the death of Herod.
The question is whether Quirinius was actually a governor of Syria from late 4 BC to February 5th, 2 BC, when the census for the oath of allegiance was completed in other provinces throughout the Empire.
My solution is that Quirinius would have been considered a ruler over several provinces in the absence of a provincial governor in Syria, even while ruling in Cilicia, on Syria's border.
If Quirinius was a general in Cilicia, why would Luke a) say he was hegemon of Syria; and b) mention it at all? What sense would it make to identify the year of the messiahs birth and a global census in relation to the holder of a military post in a marginal region?
Plus, you don't seem to understand that Rome - neither its governors nor its censuses - would apply in a client kingdom. It's kind of the idea of client kingdoms.
Luke, writing to a Greek speaking audience in the Balkans and Asia Minor, mentions Augustus, Herod and Quirinius.
Since Quirinius was famous as a military ruler in the region east of the people Luke was writing to, it makes sense to refer to him and not Varus, the governor of Syria in 5 BC, someone that Greeks over 60 years later might not recognize.
Quirinius was not a RULER. He was RULING Syria. The verb form is used.
A Canadian writes historical biography about a soldier in World War II:
"The war ceased when Dwight D. Eisenhower was serving as the chief commander over the combined allied forces."
But ... Eisenhower was SUPREME COMMANDER over the allied forces. Harry Truman was the commander-in-chief of America's forces. Eisenhower did not become president and commander-in-chief until 1953.
A Canadian reading these words might not care much about the distinction between "supreme" and "chief" commander.
It would be better for us today if Luke had said Varus was governor of Syria when Jesus was born.
But he does not.
Why?
The Greeks in Asia Minor would remember nothing about Varus' short tenure of less than 2 years (60 years prior to their day). They would remember Quirinius' long reign of over two decades in numerous offices.
Therefore, Luke to refers to the "first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria" -- the same that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
Judea was not part of Syria or the Empire at the time. Client kings did NOT administer Roman censuses. Governor Quirinius is NOT compatible with Herod; if governor of Syria means a military position in Cilicia , dating a worldwide census by such post would be absurd. History does not record any 2BCcensus: an oath to Herod + Caesar is NOT a census/ἀπογραφὴ!! Connecting it to military service is also absurd, given that such service was restricted to Roman citizens.
The whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod]
He adds that above 6000 Pharisees refused to swear.
So Josephus is wrong?
I think too you may be hung up on the idea of a "Roman census." The word Luke uses means simply a registration -- it could be a registration for any reason. This one for an oath of loyalty fits the bill for late 5 BC.
"εὐνοήσειν (eunoesein) it simply means to be well-inclined. It doesnt even mean an oath"
"Eunoesein" is often used to mean swearing to give support.
Josephus elsewhere uses it to mean an oath: "Then he attributes to us an imaginary oath (eunoesein) ..." Against Apion II.121
An oath of loyalty from Paphos in Cyprus sworn to Tiberius around 14 AD also makes use of eunoesein. T.B Mitford, 'A Cypriot Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius," Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960) 75-79.
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Unless the tree is metaphorical (which it is) then you are forcing a literal meaning on to a metaphor, which is bad exegesis.
Thales of Miletus (600 BC) knew the world was round. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in 200 BC.
It's possible that Moses thought the world was flat. But the inspired books of Moses are silent on the shape. At the time of kings, the Jews probably knew the shape of the earth and certainly in the time of Jesus the shape (and size) was known.
More apologetics. Anything that shows the bible is wrong is a metaphor. You simply pick and choose the parts you want to apologize for by claiming they are metaphor, yet you lack any logical reason for this picking and choosing. If the tree or tower are metaphorical, then so Jesus Christ dying for people's sins.
By what authority do YOU decide what is and isn't a metaphor? You decided this is one because it's impossible. Yet you dismiss impossibility when it comes to people rising from the dead, walking on water, etc. Who are you to say what is meant literally? If you claim this is a metaphor, then the resurrection of Christ is too.
I can claim it was meant metaphorically and not literally, just like you are doing.
Duwr is Hebrew for sphere and chuwg is circle. The believed that the heavens traveled in a circle above the Earth much like a record player. The path of all the heavenly bodies was in a circle. Whatever part the sun was over was daytime, whatever part the sun wasn't over top was night. But the crucial part of the words are their context. chuwg usually refers to flat things like a coin and Duwr for things like balls.
Wrong again. that is simply NOT fact at all. While the two can from time to time be interchanged, the correct term would have been Duwr and NOT Chuwg in this usage.
And again, the examples I provided demonstrate that they absolutely meant a circle without question. You cannot see the 4 corners of the Earth from a tower on ANY sphere. ONLY on a circle. Please stop this apologetic nonsense.
In 29:3 it means like a sphere. Everywhere. There is no escape. A mound is not flat like a circle. Had they been talking about surrounding from all sides, and not every direction like a mound, Chuwg would ave been used. You asked why. The answer is the context.
But we're not translating the word mount remember? It's in another sentence being used to describe the situation and apply a context that shows us they were not simply surrounded in a circle, but more in a sphere shape (like a mount which is 3 dimensional).
This image is an army surrounding Israel in a circle, not over and above them in a sphere.
You are right when you say "like a mound" is a thought parallel. It means basically the same thing as the first sentence. Israel is under siege. Armies surround them. (But they are not underground and in the sky.)
for jcr4runner...just incase my reply didnt go through....
christopher columbus/western europe though the earth was flat, thats a a pretty huge gap between 3rd centurny bc and 1492 ce....once again, you are a bullshitter
You are showing a vast amount of ignorance here. Europeans prior to Columbus did NOT think the world was flat. But don't argue with me, cite your sources.
you could wiki flat earth or go read a history book? the people who wrote the bible thought the world was flat...do you even know when paul, mark, matthew, luke and john wrote there gospels? after 33 ce, the year Jesus was crucified...why is Christ found in other religions to have existed later than that? because the bible is complete bullshit
The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above the circle of the earth (the Hebrew word for circle can also mean a sphere).Google: who invented the idea of a flat earth?
The flat earth mythology flourished between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.The flat-earth myth is a dishonest way to dismiss the Christian worldview.
No a circle does not also mean a sphere. And the description was also left out about draping the heavens over top of the circle. During those times it was widely believed the earth was a circle, not a sphere. And thus in the bible it speaks of going to a high mountain and literally seeing all 4 corners of the earth at once. That's only possible with a circle, not a sphere. Just as stopping the sun means the sun revolves around the Earth in the Bible.
Ancient people were aware the earth was a sphere especially those who were mariners. From the shore, a masted ship can be seen to be descending over the horizon.
Thales of Miletus in 600 BC, who invented geometry, knew the earth was a sphere.
The Greek mathematician Eratothenes calculated the approximate circumference of the earth in about 200 BC.
Nowhere does scripture say that the earth is flat or has four LITERAL corners.
And nowhere in the Bible does it say the Earth is a sphere. At the time the Earth was referred to as a flat circle and the moon and sun hovered over top traveling in a circle. And they talk of a mountain from where you can see all for corners. And corners means flat, not literal square corners. The Bible also claims Pi is 3. And that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Moon creates its own light. Most mariners feared falling off the side of the Earth at the time.
The Hebrews expressed measurements in round numbers. There are no fractional cubits specified above 6 1/2. Everything above 15 is expressed as a multiple of 5 except for 18, 28, 49, and 144.
The dimension of a round object can be given as 10 diameter and 30 circumference in whole cubits (rounded to the nearest cubit) and still be considered accurate.
9.5 cubits diameter * pi = 29.845+ cubits circumference.
The hebrew word translated into "virgin" is actually "young lady". Furthermore Emmanuel has been identified as Ezechias and not Jesus by many theologians.
Christianity will dissolve this century. Most religions only have a life span of 2000-2500 years before they are abandoned by many. There will always be a few who hold on, but the religion itself loses relevance.
How is referring to the bible scriptures regarding the virgin birth in any way proof? There's a good chance Jesus was illigetimate(sp). Why? Well the bible doesn't seem to have problems with incest so why would it with Mary having sex with some other guy? Consider the story(Genesis 4:17) of Cain's wife giving birth to a son! Who was Cain's wife? Had to be either Eve or Cains sister! o.O
Jesus had a prostitute (Rahab), a incestuous birth (from Tamar), an adulterous birth (from Bathsheba) and a Gentile (Ruth) in his family lineage. Those relationships were not supposed to happen, but there is no cover-up.
Luke isn't afraid to include those, but records that Jesus was born of a virgin in keeping with the prophetic sign foretold by Isaiah.
And yes, the Bible specifically says Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain got his wife from among the available women.
The supposed prophesies of the Old Testament and the Gospel accounts hardly constitute proof of Jesus' divinity. The Bible is not a history book.
And even if Adam and Eve had other children, the gene pool would still be far too small to grow a human population. The descendants would be sterile and would suffer major defects from all that incest. The Bible is also not, apparently, accurate scientifically.
So how, exactly, is the bible the inerrant word of God?
If man was created perfect in God's own image, then there was enough genetic information to form the whole human race from two people.
In fact, even evolutionists say that DNA studies have shown this to be true. There was a Newsweek cover saying that we descended from "Eve" with an ape-like woman on the cover.
So from any perspective -- creationist or evolutionist -- this argument is invalid. Each of us descended from one ancestor.
first of all, "eve" is a single fossilized specimen representing the way an entire species (which preceded humans) lived. They did not even insinuate that we all descended from that one "person".
second, it seems like you are saying that mating with a sibling will not create deformities, which it WILL. not to mention the fact that you are assuming a "perfect creation in God's image"
You are assuming a creation too in order to make this argument. It's one of the fallacies of atheism. You borrow from theism and then argue for inconsistencies brought in from outside the system.
Mating with a sibling creates "deformities" if there are recessive genes in both parents. If healthy parents carry a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia, the child might be born with the disease.
If there were no harmful recessive genes in the original gene pool then there would be no such problem.
You want to argue that Adam and Eve could not have produced the huge variety in the human gene pool. (Assuming a creation)
You then argue that Adam and Even could not have been created perfect without recessive gene defects in the image of God. (Denying a creation)
This argument is invalid.
I argue that even from an evolutionary perspective, new species are thought to almost always come from a single pair. So in any case, your argument is invalid.
i'm saying that a single couple could not have produced the variety in human gene pool, and therefore there could not have been the creation story to which you are referring. i am showing you that when YOU assume that creation story, there are huge holes in it.
most theists (including you) dont understand evolution. nobody ever said a species comes from a single pair. in fact a species branches from a previous species SLOWLY and over MANY separate specimens. not apes one day, humans the next
Animals interbreed with their own siblings all the time. There are many examples in animal breeding of all known examples of a variety descending from a single pair.
We even see it among royal families. It does cause recessive traits (all males in Britain's royal family are hemophiliacs for instance).
To say it is impossible to have the human race from a single couple is also saying all life could not have developed from a single organism.
people are quite different from "animals". although we are classified as animals, our worldwide communal lifestyle sets us apart from others. "animals" have evolved to the point where recessive genes and random genetic mutations are not quite as common (but still exist) because sibling breeding would result in an unfit specimen. with humans, we are not limited to siblings, so we have developed to the point where recessive genes are OK. its evolution.
But we are not talking about humans today, we are talking about Adam and Eve -- created without genetic imperfection in the image of God.
From one couple there are literally millions of different gene combinations that then could have resulted in the 10 billion individuals that have lived since that time.
Which genetic traits could NOT have arisen from one couple? From a merely mathematical analysis, what you are saying does not hold up.
so what youre saying is that humans today are different from "adam and eve" by the fact (not fact, not even dogma, its your personal conclusion) that they did not have the ability to produce random genetic mutations? that in itself is a contradiction because in order for us to have come from them, somewhere along the line there would have had to have a mutation that allows random mutations. but since there could not have been mutations to begin with, it is impossible!
I think you are getting outdated Darwinian theory confused with this debate.
First, evolutionists no longer say that random genetic mutations were the cause of evolution. Mutations are random noise; they do not add information.
Second, if the entire planet was wiped out except for two people, who had no harmful recessive genetic traits, there would be enough genetic information to repopulate the entire planet with the same degree of variety that we have today -- no mutations needed.
They are now saying that RANDOM mutation does not drive evolution in it's entirety. Darwin proposed something that came to be called: "phylogenetic incrementalism."
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Estridge formulated the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria. The idea that new species arise suddenly.
It is still thought of as a random process, but it concerns "genetic drift" -- not mutation.
Gould and Estridge recognized that there are huge gaps in the fossil record and species arise suddenly.
in "The Interconnected Universe" by Ervin Laszlo (1st on google when searching "phylogenetic incrementalism") Gould and Estridge are quoted as saying that evolution happens more suddenly that Darwin had previously thought. they said species were formed over the course of about 50,000 years. "suddenly"=50,000yrs. An "adam and eve" scenario would put that number down to about, um, 3 years.
no evolutionary scientist denies the existence of mutations or their role in evolution.
You can compare the amount of genetic information in human beings and the diversity that can result from a single pair to forced breeding in animals and plants. Often an entire variety of a species is bred from a single pair.
If you keep breeding with close relatives over and over again then harmful random genetic mutations cause a loss of genetic information and birth defects.
But if the original pair has no defect, then breeding within the larger population can eliminate defects that arise.
like i said, people are different from plants/animals
what you're saying in that last paragraph is true IF the pair has zero recessive genes or possibility of genetic mutations. but like i said, for modern-day humans to have mutated from a person who cannot produce mutations defies logic.
that's another thing, why does the universe HAVE to have been "created"? can't it have just always been? theists often put these self-imposed guidelines on the universe such as saying that it MUST have began and it MUST end. That's because your common sense that you have defeloped is based upon things you have seen begin and end, so you think there must have been a "start moment" and "end moment"
single cell organisms DO mutate, althought the term "recessive gene" doesnt apply to asexuals
@PR13STG0RD0 Mithra was "born" by emerging from a rock with a dagger in one hand, a torch in the other hand, Phrygian cap on his head. NO mention is made of a "virgin." There is ur first 1 moron! i would have given u more but since u posted that i have come to conclude that ur an idiot, who cant tell fact from fiction. sicko!
HelloWorld1947 5 months ago
For all my dear sceptic friends out there, Jesus is real and he is the True Lord of this world and beyond.Yes i know a lot of people want dont want to accept his existence,and I'm not going to tell you what to believe in-Just this that when ever you are in trouble - like real trouble,when you dont know where to turn, call him and trust in him.Give him a shot, and i promise you HE will deliver you.. I dont even know you guys and i probably will never meet you ever. But i wish you well. Peace :)
Jonathanakashpoddar 5 months ago
To answer the end of the video, yes but that is only assumptions on speculation that "this has to be because of A based upon simple logical conclusions" however, such historical figures that impacted that society be it kings or powerful men etc who did things for people to see can't be ignored you'd think a powerful religious figure's documentation would be safely guarded by ancient devouts and be among valuable historical record but no, not even muhammad, just scripture of religion survive
Jaegar19Ultima 6 months ago
who is Jesus bible verses:
Jesus HIMSELF said that he is a Prophet in (Luke 19:24, Matthew 13:57).
The Believers of Jesus themselves said that Jesus is a Prophet in Matthew 21:10-11.
John 8:58 Jesus was the foretold Messiah and the greatest and final Jewish Prophet.
000000001535 6 months ago
The virgin birth is a metaphor as is most of the new testament. the average bible beating american yokel doesn't have the depth of intellect to translate allegory and symbolism. It's unfortunate our educational system doesn't teach people how to think critically
brutus301 8 months ago
@DaGingerHeadMan
I also had a ferretin level of over 20,000 and a blood sat. of 98%. The UVA hospital in Charlottesville VA said they had never seen a ferretin level that high and the person live. Well I'm here and that was in 1992 I was diagnosed with Hemochromotosis. Yes miracles happen divinely and with Doctors help. God bless you and I pray you get a miracle in your life.
intkxzc459 11 months ago
Not much evidence to back it up but my feelings tell me it could be fabricated based on the radical claims there is no other book in history that we know of that has caused so much confusion and chaos in peoples thinking is this really what a god wants? if the bible is gods word he sure didn't do a very good job of proven himself even after two thousand years Christians haven't convinced everyone yet!
wachnathan 11 months ago
Athiests must stand up to all this nonesense. All religion is evil and the there is no room in the 21st century for these non-thinking fairy tales. Science is the only true path to understanding who we are and where we are going.
triplejudy 1 year ago
You are all idiots..... I cannot stand the fact this religious myth still persists. It all has very little to do with the truth...Humans are out of control in large numbers, but they can be controlled like sheep if we appeal to their sense of mysticism and spirituallity. Add in some likely opposition to maintain a sense of self and unity.... there you go...got the lot!!!! They did this 10's of 1000's of years ago..sort of worked then, but it is really working now!
PFXKaiser 1 year ago
That Jesus was born of a virgin was "confirmed" by the gospels Mathew and Luke. Just because it is written that he was born of a virgin does not mean it actually happened. I don't think they should say confirmed. There isn't even any record of Jesus even existing besides the Bible so he may have never even existed. If he did exist he was probably an annoying street preacher, the kind you avoid today. He never performed miracles.
Jshect 1 year ago
The information on the census of Quirinius is badly mangled, and the evidence actually doesn't suggest what this video suggests.
I praise the video for translating apographe as register, which is the better translation. There is also a larger problem with the word οἰκουμένη that the video does not address, which I feel is more problematic.
The census is actually dated to 6/7 CE (not 4 bce as the video suggests), which then brings into issue the discrepancy between Luke and Matt.
imperator332 1 year ago
If anyone would like to watch my series called The Truth about the Trinity, please check them out. There are tons of scriptures on how we should believe. Thank you. :)
Godlovestruth 1 year ago
So you admit that there is no proof for anything in the Bible then.
technopoptart 1 year ago
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results
H#6005 `Immanuw'el im-maw-noo-ale' from H#5973 and 410 with a pronominal suffix inserted; with us (is) God; Immanuel, a type name of Isaiah's son:--Immanuel.
emoouah 1 year ago
@ororc i agree, the virgin birth can not be proven. i bet no one believed mary and joseph (joseph didnt even believe mary until an angel appeared to him) and they probably didnt even tell anyone, except for a couple of close relatives, that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. The only way a non Christian would believe this is if you get the to Believe that Jesus is indeed the Christ. I dont see the point of defending this at all.
semajgnik 1 year ago
IT'S 2010 FOLKS! How are we STILL DEBATING ANY OF THESE RIDICULOUS RELIGIONS? HOW MUCH CAN CORPORATIONS AND PROPAGANDA CLOUD YOUR LOGIC?
EdgeOfDaCoin 1 year ago
The only evidence they offered for a Virgin birth in "the age of science" is that there is none, i.e. it is just to be believed because it cannot be proven. It is the claimant's (the supporters of the Bible) responsibility to prove the claim correct. It cannot be proven correct by reason. Unless, of course, you count the only Virgin birth that has been proven to be possible by science: cloning (which has not ever been performed on humans). And Jesus is probably not a clone.
cgoverland69 1 year ago
how is jesus from the house of david if joseph is not even his father??
cvillekeith 1 year ago
@jcr4runner no apostle wrote any of the gospels proven fact they are all attributed to the apostle read the fine print gospel acc.to mark means mark diddnt write it it was handed down if jesus was 33 his lifespan at the time he wouldnt live past 50 that is how long the lifespan was at the time also all the apostles were martyed within a few years
gafejorge1 1 year ago
@ororc - Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin. Why? Because the curse of man via the transgression of Adam is passed down through the seed of man. Jesus is King via the line of David (Joseph), but avoided the halting of the Davidic line of kingship thru Nathan (Mary's lineage)
evilunixuser1 1 year ago
Jesus NEVER established a formal religious institution (ie: the RCC) - He was the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Jewish Torah, and Tanakh. And never sought His church to be a political influence in the world. The original Christians were Jews, not Italians (Romans)
evilunixuser1 1 year ago
@jcr4runner I agree that if the Bible references a census which can be independently verified, than the author likely knew about the census, which pushes the date at which the the passages could have been written closer to the time of that census. It does not, however, lend credibility to the virgin birth claim.
Support of one claim in the Bible does not make every claim reliable. Remembering a census doesn't imply witnessing a birth. He may have chosen that event -because- it was memorable.
ororc 1 year ago
NICE VIDEO
mh9111 1 year ago
Do you know the good news?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
durbinjeff 1 year ago
@PR13STG0RD0
Your talking about Pagan religions, Judaism is totally seperate.
The Gospel writters didn't use them, they used historical evidence.
hat655 1 year ago
allahou akbar i'm muslim but what you are sayin' about a prophet is terrible,you don't even know where you are heading at
birame2008 1 year ago
I can prove the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
nijjhar1 1 year ago
@nijjhar1
The word virgin is a mistranslation of text. It's not even a real part of the scriptures, lol.
humanistheart 1 year ago
various branches of semitic languages, are a pain in the rear for non-natives to learn.
example; the Arabic word for "fire," I think has 7 different definitions.
there are numerous other multiple definition words, across all semitic languages. The Isaiah prophecy is taken WAY out of context here. Hebrew, Arabic, and yes Aramaic, all semitic languages, several of the words often have multiple definitions.
pillsburydoughboy47 2 years ago
This is Blasphemy This is Madness....This is SPARTA.
nyrnyuk 2 years ago
thetruthinlight 2 years ago
thetruthinlight 2 years ago
First, the civil ruler has the power of the sword (i.e., capital punishment; see Romans 13)
Second, this is a parable! It's a fictional story told by Jesus to prove a point. The point has nothing to do with capital punishment or murder. The parable has to do with being good stewards over what God has given us -- otherwise we will be judged in eternity for being poor stewards.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
i loooooooovvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeee jesus the massaia the son of god of israel love jesus yasus the king of israel
babaltoob 2 years ago
Christmas is a Scam to fool people into spending money they don't have. There is no evidence that Christ was born on Christmas day, Merchant Bankers & Merchants us this as a time of year to boost profits. People rack up huge debts, and this is a cruel hoax on the poor.
maria610421 2 years ago
It takes an amazing amount of illogic and mental gymnastics to believe in miracles, especially an alleged virgin birth.
I guess the age of miracles is a couple thousand years gone ...
mrmirth71 2 years ago
Christmas was celebrated on dec. 25 because the pagan holiday of the year,(a huge feast, like the Vietnamese holiday "tet") was on dec 25. So the early christian people put Christs birthdays celebration right on top of the pagan holiday, to try to instill to the people the real reason for the feast. the TRUTH shall set you free.
jataylor7 1 year ago
There is such evidence that Jesus was most likely born in the middle of march. Not December 25
jataylor7 1 year ago
Message me if you want my article on this.
Jesus' birth was 15 months after the conception of John the Baptist. According to the Gospel of Luke, John was likely conceived after one of the High Feast Days -- probably the Day of Atonement, which was on Sept 22 in 6 BC.
TIMELINE
9/22/6BC (John's conception)
6/24/5 (John's birth)
12/25/5 (Jesus' birth)
The church fathers noticed this in the 2nd century AD (some also picked Jan 2nd or 6th) far too early for the pagan copycat theory to be true.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner
'pagans' existed long before the 2nd century. Your dating of the move of jesus' birthday to this day does nothing to challenge the fact that this was chosen for political not historical or religious reasons. Also for that to work you have to a) ignore the conflicting birth account of jesus and b) start with the assumption that the gospels have a historical validity, which it does not. I'd say nice try but this wasn't, at all.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart How would you prove that the account of John's conception and birth -- which is a highly detailed timeline, has no historical validity?
How would you prove that there is even ONE timeline conflict between the two Nativity accounts?
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jataylor7
Dec 25th was an already popular festival date. Jesus' birthday was placed here to replace pagan festivals.
And funny enough the cencus that the gospels talk about never actually occured.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart Actually there are several references and inscriptions about a world wide census taking place between 5 and 3 BC at the exact time when Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem. Josephus even has an extended account of a group of Jews who ran afoul of Herod because they refused to register.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner
First of all, there was no 'worldwide' cencus. The roman empire didn't control asia, or india, or the american contenants now did they? Second of all, if you truly believe this, by all means list some sources. Go ahead, dispite the fact that no historian has ever confirmed what your suggesting, you think you have proof, so please, provide this proof.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart "Worldwide" in that day meant Roman Empire. If you are going to hold it to your understanding of the word, then I have no argument for you.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@humanistheart The problem is that the Dec 25th date was proposed in the second century. That is far to early for the pagan copycat theory to be true.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner
Pagans existed long before the 2nd century. You're logic is greatly flawed.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart How ironic you should say my logic is flawed. You are ubable to see your flaw. Prior to becoming a dominant religion in competition with paganism, Christians proposed Dec. 25th as one possible date for the Nativity in the second century along with Jan 2 and 6th -- based on the timing of John's conception (Yom Kippur). If Dec 25th was chosen in the fourth century, you would have a case, but in fact it was 200 years earlier than that. That's far too early for a copy-cat motivation.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
Is this the best support for the virgin birth? All this video does is betray the ignorance of these hopeless apologists.
blannphinella 2 years ago
the problem were facing today, the people who advertise for zues opps i mean jesus knows the lie, but don't know the truth. train the child up they should go and they will naver depart. so it's more tradition then truth.
jenncole80 2 years ago
I think to teach faith is to teach ignorance.
God gave us free will, god gave us soul, but god did not give us parents, thus making god a choice of its self. To teach anything one must have virtue in the topic, and the student must have faith in what one teaches to be good and improve morale.
ViLLiSTa 2 years ago
there will never be one way to answer the bible, for eternity we will be dismayed until Christ himself returns.
FTrain4750 2 years ago
morans
Od Ephraim Chai
odephraimchai 2 years ago
Mithras was NOT born of a virgin.
Mithras was born out of a rock.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The Jesus story is just that--a story. Abook can't prove itself to be true. You might as well try to prove that the tooth fairy exists.
PrayForMojo2 2 years ago
On the contrary, there is no mention of Jesus being born of a virgin during the early apostolic period...The virgin birth was very carefully woven into church tradition, amounst other pagan myths.
Read the book call "The Golden Bough" by sir James Frazer, to find out where the virgin birth came from.... Mithras!
DocHoliday1882 2 years ago
The Golden Bough was throughly refuted by academic historians shortly after it appeared. In fact, i was the final nail in the coffin for the so-called Jesus-as-myth hypothesis among scholars. There are lots of Internet popularizers today, but that just makes it look all the less credible.
Mithra was not born of a virgin. We are producing a video called Mithra-busters that refutes some of these fallacies. Stay tuned.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
i had dream about jesus christ
AniMatrix92reEntered 2 years ago
how did he apear to you in your dream.
jenncole80 2 years ago
The only sign we are asked to accept and
believe is the Lord Jesus death and rescurrection to life and immortality!
Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
DocHoliday1882 2 years ago
The sign mentioned in Isaiah 7:10-16 prophecy, was given to King Ahaz, that the young woman before would conceive and before the boy child would turn seven (age of accountability) The two Kings, who Ahaz feared would their his kingdom and land taken from them. Therefore it has nothing to do with a future virgin birth!
DocHoliday1882 2 years ago
This a problem since you quote Isaiah and Matthew 12:39 as having authority and yet you reject Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:34.
It makes no sense when people use Isaiah to support their argument and then reject the Gospel writers interpretation of the same verse as meaning a "virgin."
By the first century AD there was never any thought that it could mean anything else.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
dont believe the virgin birth yet believe the walking on water? an rising from the dead?
BahamasIllestMC 2 years ago
Jesus was the offspring of Roman Ruler Julius Caesar and Pharaoh Cleopatra .
flubno 2 years ago
You express the quality of modern skepticism! These people live 50 years prior to Jesus.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
and regardless of flubno's ignorance... What is wrong with being skeptical?
chyrd 2 years ago
Nothing. Christians are skeptical about false religions and false gods.
What modern skeptics express is not true skepticism, but rather "cynicism."
They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I would disagree... All religions are skeptical towards other religions... they downright know those religions are false as are there gods... HOW? Because they were told so... generally from a young age. So they think they can't possibly be wrong.
As for modern skeptics... I don't see it as being cynical to ask questions. I see it as wanting to gain knowledge and not taking everything everyone says as truth.
I truly believe you are backwards on your assumptions.
chyrd 2 years ago
god is ONE
AliMr1986 2 years ago
I like how they play the 'old person' music for the backdrop when they recite lies. It makes what they say more palatable for oldsters who might otherwise use their brains and recognize a lie when they hear it.
TRUCKEEDOG666 2 years ago
You EDOMITES can hide comments on your blasphemy but you can't hide from GOD's wrath. Instead of questioning the Messiah's existence you should bow down and pray for forgiveness. Let's see you do a story on Isaac's sons Esau and Jacob, who became the Chosen people ISREAL aka blacks, native americans, mexicans, hatians, cubans, etc. All 10 so-called missing tribes. God know who his people are and will, just as the scriptures say, bring them back to power in his Kindgom. You people are ATHIESTS.
cookiemonsterog 2 years ago
you say atheist like it's a bad thing...
chyrd 2 years ago
I just commented on your channel. Once again, there is no historical evidence for a Moses & Abraham. The creation stories are recycled myths.
Go to school. Get an education. Study human evolution and move forward. You talk about slavery? You my friend are a slave to a mans invention - religion.
TheConquerMentality 2 years ago
There are non-religious scholars with PhDs who accept the existence of Moses and Abraham. How many degrees do you have?
As for evidence, there is archaelogical evidence of the Jews conquest of Canaan about the time the Bible says it happened.
There are the five books of Moses.
There is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele (Google it) that is the earliest evidence corroborating to a degree the biblical narrative.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
why do man have to be told by man who god is, why man don't hear or know god for them self.
jenncole80 2 years ago
Jennings is a DEVIL and Edomite, who God hate, for this very reason. They are heathens, blasphemers and liars. Read and follow story of Isaac sons twins Jacob (Israel) and Esau (the devil). It reveals why God hate Esau, tells of God's Elect (Isreal)--not to be mistaken for Askenar Jews (Edomites) occupying Israel today. The entire bible is about Esau and Jacob's life and final fate. Esau aka Edom, Edomites, Idumaea or Idumea gets DESTROYED in the end, see Obadiah and Revelation, and other books.
cookiemonsterog 2 years ago
that's rude ...."jennings is a devil"...yeah that's civilized...how is it possible for god to hate and love simultaneous the same persons?
michaeljobr 2 years ago
peter jenning got pwned
silverwolfalpha 2 years ago
i am going to keep watching, please tell me how to refute the myth: Jesus used magic and hypnotism to alter memories and inject images and memories in people's mind.
silverwolfalpha 2 years ago
i can't tell if this is in favour or the bible or attempting to provide evidence to disprove it
ManusCelerDei 2 years ago
Watch from the beginning.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
that jay jenning guy is wrong jesus is alive and well and is coming back one day
CollinsWorldPictures 2 years ago
I believe in miracles for I have witnessed them. But I have reason not to trust the church and will not accept what they profess as truth simply because they say it is so. What sayeth the earliest sources of a virgin giving birth?
enikhanjohorns 2 years ago
Oh dear. Isaiah 7:14 does not translate to 'virgin'.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
I have been visited by the real Jesus and I have never experienced what Gods Love is since. It is totally and completely unconditional. He can see right through you and there is nothing in you that He "rejects". He totally accepts you fully. And his power is awesome. And He was accompanied by heavenly music which is full of love and power too. It is awesome to hear. The song will remain a secret until I meet everyone in heaven. By then you'll not care anyway since it'll be the best place ever!
ThePersecuted1 2 years ago
Religions are all fake. Jesus, although a nice story for children, never existed. Too bad !
nclusiau 2 years ago
Coming in for the quick kill I see.
ThePersecuted1 2 years ago
My last word is that a mound is not flat.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
You don't have any more authority than anyone does. You, like everyone else are simply picking and choosing which parts are literal and which aren't to suite your own needs. An all powerful creator should be better at making his message clear so there wouldn't be 10,000 religions and 31,800 denominations.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
Last word is yours!
jcr4runner 2 years ago
His ways are not our ways nor His thoughts our thoughts they are of a much higher order (Isaiah 55:11). Can Pinocio outsmart or out-think or suppose himself to be wiser and more in tune with reality his maker?
ThePersecuted1 2 years ago
People don't leave their home cities for a census. Just plain stupid. The only census that dates near the alleged birth was 10 years after the death of King Herod the Great. oops
HoleDweller 2 years ago
There was a worldwide (Roman Empire) census from 5 to 3 BC recorded in multiple sources.
Later Roman records indicate that men were required to return to their homelands to register. A census from 48 AD records the return of people to their native land for the census.
Another census taken in the year 104 AD said:
"... it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."
jcr4runner 2 years ago
There was no such empire-wide census and no such sources. It is absurd to imagine somebody would return to the homeland of a distant ancestor for a tax census. Herod and Quirinius could not have had jurisdiction of Syria at the same time. And Joseph was from Galilee anyway - not part of Syria or Judea at that time.
pemicx 2 years ago
So many objections, so little space. But start with this:
Josephus states, The whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod]
Based on Josephus writings, this oath was sworn in about the year 5 B.C.
The census took place in other parts of the known Roman world as well.
Luke doesn't say Quirinius and Herod ruled at the same time, he says the census took place (in part) while Quirinius was governing Syria.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The Josephus reference is Antiquities, XVII, 2: 4: it refers to the Jews giving Caesar an assurance of their good-will rather than an oath to be faithful to Caesar. Any such assurance is irrelevant, as it is not a 'census' , and would not require anybody to go to the homeland of a centuries distant ancestor.
Matthew has Jesus born under Herod, Luke under Qurinius. In 5BC Rome was not a Roman province, Herod was in charge: by the time Q was governor, Herod was dead. And there's no 'in part'.
pemicx 2 years ago
Do we have the record of who was the governor of Syria from 4 to 1 BC?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"Census would not require anybody to go to the homeland of a centuries distant ancestor. "
This is wrong for several reasons. Here is just one:
A record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. with similar wording to the Gospel of Luke:
"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."
jcr4runner 2 years ago
There is a difference between going home for a census, and going to the home of a distant ancestor. David was 1,000 years in Joseph's past. You are seriously suggesting that, for the purposes of taxation, Rome required all descendants of David to go to Bethlehem? It's analogous to a US citizen of English extraction going to Normandy for a census because they're descended from William the Conqueror.
pemicx 2 years ago
First, you are reading something into the text that was not there. Joseph's family was not in Nazareth for 1000 years -- impossible according to biblical history. Mary's cousin Elizabeth was from the hill country of Judea. So they had relatives still in Judah. It was their "homeland" according to Luke.
Second, the Jews were REQUIRED to walk to Jerusalem at least three times a year for the Spring and fall feast days.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I understand that he went to Bethlehem because he was a descendant of David - who lived 1000 years previously.
Now you tell me a Galilean became an honorary Judean for the purposes of a tax census (or is it conscription now?) because his wife had a cousin from Judea?
pemicx 2 years ago
No, I didn't write anything like this. I gave three reasons why Joseph was required to be in Jerusalem for the feasts and in Bethlehem for the registration.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Joseph probably registered after the Feast of Tabernacles in 5 BC and stayed with relatives in Bethlehem until the birth. He was also required to not work for a year after marriage by Mosaic law.
Third, according to the book of Numbers and elsewhere, the Jews traditionally took a census by tribal affiliation. Herod, a converted Jew, would have been obliged to follow the Law in this practice.
Luke always explains to his Gentile audience that everything was done "according to the [Mosaic] law."
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"Matthew has Jesus born under Herod, Luke under Qurinius"
First, king and procurator was not the same office. Luke has Jesus born under Herod WHILE Quirinius was governing Syria.
Second, we don't have the full list of Syrian governors. There is a gap from 4 to 1 BC.
Third, the worldwide census was conducted from 5 BC to at least 3 BC.
What you have against Quirinius not being in charge of the census during this time is only an argument from silence. There is no evidence to prove he was not.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Luke 2:2 makes mention of the "first" registration.
"This registration first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria" (NKJV).
Luke mentions ANOTHER census in Acts 5:37:
"After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed."
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Luke makes no attempt to link the census of 6 AD described in Acts with what he describes as the first registration in his Gospel account. So its evident that Luke has two registrations. The first is a worldwide registration for the swearing of an oath of loyalty in about 5 BC. The second is a local census of Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea administrated in 6 AD.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The verb applied to Caesar in Josephus is εὐνοήσειν (eunoesein) it simply means to be well-inclined. It doesnt even mean an oath, never mind a census: if it was an oath, I would expect something involving a ὅρκον.
Can you give any instance anywhere where eunoesein indicates the holding of a tax census (ἀπογραφὴ)?
pemicx 2 years ago
Josephus adds that "above 6000 Pharisees refused to swear." The fact that Josephus knew how many refused to swear shows it was a census.
A census was usually given to tell how many loyal men would be available for military service. That is why an oath of loyalty was taken. There are also records in other parts of the world of a census at about this time. The proof is given in the video if you would watch it. We even have the exact words to the oath.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
So a census is any count of people? The NT Greek lexicon defines ἀπογραφὴ (Luke 2:2) as a registration in the public records of persons together with their income and property for the purposes of taxation. The verbal promise of goodwill described by Josephus is categorically and by definition NOT a census.
Nor could such an oath have anything to do with military service - at that time the army was confined to Roman citizens.
pemicx 2 years ago
The Josephus translators make it clear that it was the swearing of an oath. It fits the overall tenor of the Nativity story. King Herod was insanely jealous of pretend messianic usurpers. He had hundreds or even thousands killed according to Josephus. He finally missed his chance to kill the true King according to Matthew. Luke give us the reason why Joseph and Mary were in Judea and the background for the tensions as corroborated by Josephus in his passage about the Pharisees who refused.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The difficulty is not the date of the worldwide census or the date of the death of Herod.
The question is whether Quirinius was actually a governor of Syria from late 4 BC to February 5th, 2 BC, when the census for the oath of allegiance was completed in other provinces throughout the Empire.
My solution is that Quirinius would have been considered a ruler over several provinces in the absence of a provincial governor in Syria, even while ruling in Cilicia, on Syria's border.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
If Quirinius was a general in Cilicia, why would Luke a) say he was hegemon of Syria; and b) mention it at all? What sense would it make to identify the year of the messiahs birth and a global census in relation to the holder of a military post in a marginal region?
Plus, you don't seem to understand that Rome - neither its governors nor its censuses - would apply in a client kingdom. It's kind of the idea of client kingdoms.
pemicx 2 years ago
Audience relevance!
Matthew, writing to the Jews, mentions Herod only
Luke, writing to a Greek speaking audience in the Balkans and Asia Minor, mentions Augustus, Herod and Quirinius.
Since Quirinius was famous as a military ruler in the region east of the people Luke was writing to, it makes sense to refer to him and not Varus, the governor of Syria in 5 BC, someone that Greeks over 60 years later might not recognize.
Quirinius was not a RULER. He was RULING Syria. The verb form is used.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
4 BC to 3 BC
Events in order of occurrence:
Herod dies.
Quintilius Varus of Syria takes over the jurisdiction of Judea.
Varus quells an uprising around the time of the feast of Pentecost crucifying 2000 Jews in the process.
Varus jurisdiction over Syria ends - 4 BC.
Herod Archaelus takes rulership of Judea.
Joseph, Mary and Jesus return to Nazareth.
Quirinius remains in the east as a military governor over Galatia, Cilicia, and possibly now Syria, completing the census.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
A Canadian writes historical biography about a soldier in World War II:
"The war ceased when Dwight D. Eisenhower was serving as the chief commander over the combined allied forces."
But ... Eisenhower was SUPREME COMMANDER over the allied forces. Harry Truman was the commander-in-chief of America's forces. Eisenhower did not become president and commander-in-chief until 1953.
A Canadian reading these words might not care much about the distinction between "supreme" and "chief" commander.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
It would be better for us today if Luke had said Varus was governor of Syria when Jesus was born.
But he does not.
Why?
The Greeks in Asia Minor would remember nothing about Varus' short tenure of less than 2 years (60 years prior to their day). They would remember Quirinius' long reign of over two decades in numerous offices.
Therefore, Luke to refers to the "first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria" -- the same that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"Plus, you don't seem to understand that Rome - neither its governors nor its censuses - would apply in a client kingdom."
Judea was part of the province of Syria. Herod had a kind of "client rule" as a "king" but he was under the military jurisdiction of Syria.
The census was for Augustus' Silver Jubilee in early 2 BC. History records it was conducted in Spain, Armenia, Paphlagonia, and Judea.
It was worldwide.
It was a way of adding glory to Augustus as a god.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Judea was not part of Syria or the Empire at the time. Client kings did NOT administer Roman censuses. Governor Quirinius is NOT compatible with Herod; if governor of Syria means a military position in Cilicia , dating a worldwide census by such post would be absurd. History does not record any 2BCcensus: an oath to Herod + Caesar is NOT a census/ἀπογραφὴ!! Connecting it to military service is also absurd, given that such service was restricted to Roman citizens.
pemicx 2 years ago
Judea was not a PROVINCE of the Empire, but it was in fact considered part of Syria.
In 63 BC, Pompey conquered Jerusalem and the region; he made Syria a province and Judea a client kingdom of Rome.
In 57-55 BCE. Aulus Gabinius, proconsul of Syria, split Hasmonean Kingdom into Galilee, Samaria & Judea.
In 40-39 BC, Herod the Great was appointed King of the Jews by the Roman Senate, but did not gain control over Judea until 37 BC.
After this time, Judea was under Syria's jurisdiction.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"Client kings did NOT administer Roman censuses."
According to Josephus:
The whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod]
He adds that above 6000 Pharisees refused to swear.
So Josephus is wrong?
I think too you may be hung up on the idea of a "Roman census." The word Luke uses means simply a registration -- it could be a registration for any reason. This one for an oath of loyalty fits the bill for late 5 BC.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"History does not record any 2 BC census"
Correct. The oath was taken at various times in various parts of the world from late 5 BC to 3 BC.
This was in preparation for the Silver Jubliee for Augustus was celebrated on February 5th, 2 BC.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"εὐνοήσειν (eunoesein) it simply means to be well-inclined. It doesnt even mean an oath"
"Eunoesein" is often used to mean swearing to give support.
Josephus elsewhere uses it to mean an oath: "Then he attributes to us an imaginary oath (eunoesein) ..." Against Apion II.121
An oath of loyalty from Paphos in Cyprus sworn to Tiberius around 14 AD also makes use of eunoesein. T.B Mitford, 'A Cypriot Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius," Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960) 75-79.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Only possible with a flat circle, not a sphere.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
Unless the tree is metaphorical (which it is) then you are forcing a literal meaning on to a metaphor, which is bad exegesis.
Thales of Miletus (600 BC) knew the world was round. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in 200 BC.
It's possible that Moses thought the world was flat. But the inspired books of Moses are silent on the shape. At the time of kings, the Jews probably knew the shape of the earth and certainly in the time of Jesus the shape (and size) was known.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
More apologetics. Anything that shows the bible is wrong is a metaphor. You simply pick and choose the parts you want to apologize for by claiming they are metaphor, yet you lack any logical reason for this picking and choosing. If the tree or tower are metaphorical, then so Jesus Christ dying for people's sins.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
You are saying that Daniel thought this was a literal tree?
It's not a metaphor for a kingdom that would take over all of the known kingdoms of the world?
We interpret things literally when they are meant literally, but when the author means it to be a metaphor we literally interpret it as a metaphor.
Daniel's visions are metaphors.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
By what authority do YOU decide what is and isn't a metaphor? You decided this is one because it's impossible. Yet you dismiss impossibility when it comes to people rising from the dead, walking on water, etc. Who are you to say what is meant literally? If you claim this is a metaphor, then the resurrection of Christ is too.
I can claim it was meant metaphorically and not literally, just like you are doing.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
I have the authority to decide because I am trained to decide. I have a degree in English literature and I teach it for a living.
I have also studied biblical interpretation.
The principles of biblical criticism are similar to the rules of literary criticism.
You can have the last word:
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Duwr is Hebrew for sphere and chuwg is circle. The believed that the heavens traveled in a circle above the Earth much like a record player. The path of all the heavenly bodies was in a circle. Whatever part the sun was over was daytime, whatever part the sun wasn't over top was night. But the crucial part of the words are their context. chuwg usually refers to flat things like a coin and Duwr for things like balls.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
No, Duwr and Chuwg can be used to describe both a circle and a sphere. You are incorrect. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Chuwg is used only once in the whole Bible, so to say it ALWAYS means circle is a matter of interpretation of ONE verse. That's bad exegesis.
Duwr can mean circle or ball. Compare Isaiah 22:18 with Isaiah 29:3. One place Duhr means a ball another means a circle.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Wrong again. that is simply NOT fact at all. While the two can from time to time be interchanged, the correct term would have been Duwr and NOT Chuwg in this usage.
And again, the examples I provided demonstrate that they absolutely meant a circle without question. You cannot see the 4 corners of the Earth from a tower on ANY sphere. ONLY on a circle. Please stop this apologetic nonsense.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
Isaiah 29:3: I will encamp against you all around, (Duwr ) I will lay siege against you with a mound, And I will raise siegeworks against you.
So Duwr here means circle.
Hebrew was not as specific as modern day languages. There are fewer words in the language. So most words had many shades of meaning.
In Isaiah 22:18 Duwr means ball.
"He will surely turn violently and toss you like a ball (Duwr) into a large country."
Now explain why Chuwg must always mean circle?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
In 29:3 it means like a sphere. Everywhere. There is no escape. A mound is not flat like a circle. Had they been talking about surrounding from all sides, and not every direction like a mound, Chuwg would ave been used. You asked why. The answer is the context.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
Mound is a different word entirely. Duwr is the word translated "all around" -- IOW encircled.
Anyway I am through with this.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
But we're not translating the word mount remember? It's in another sentence being used to describe the situation and apply a context that shows us they were not simply surrounded in a circle, but more in a sphere shape (like a mount which is 3 dimensional).
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
We are translating "all around."
"I will encamp against you all around" (Duwr )
This image is an army surrounding Israel in a circle, not over and above them in a sphere.
You are right when you say "like a mound" is a thought parallel. It means basically the same thing as the first sentence. Israel is under siege. Armies surround them. (But they are not underground and in the sky.)
The plain meaning of this is "encircled."
Anyway, I said you can have the last word.
Go ahead.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
for jcr4runner...just incase my reply didnt go through....
christopher columbus/western europe though the earth was flat, thats a a pretty huge gap between 3rd centurny bc and 1492 ce....once again, you are a bullshitter
cursedlife13 2 years ago
You are showing a vast amount of ignorance here. Europeans prior to Columbus did NOT think the world was flat. But don't argue with me, cite your sources.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
you could wiki flat earth or go read a history book? the people who wrote the bible thought the world was flat...do you even know when paul, mark, matthew, luke and john wrote there gospels? after 33 ce, the year Jesus was crucified...why is Christ found in other religions to have existed later than that? because the bible is complete bullshit
cursedlife13 2 years ago
No, the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.
The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above the circle of the earth (the Hebrew word for circle can also mean a sphere).Google: who invented the idea of a flat earth?
The flat earth mythology flourished between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.The flat-earth myth is a dishonest way to dismiss the Christian worldview.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
No a circle does not also mean a sphere. And the description was also left out about draping the heavens over top of the circle. During those times it was widely believed the earth was a circle, not a sphere. And thus in the bible it speaks of going to a high mountain and literally seeing all 4 corners of the earth at once. That's only possible with a circle, not a sphere. Just as stopping the sun means the sun revolves around the Earth in the Bible.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
Ancient people were aware the earth was a sphere especially those who were mariners. From the shore, a masted ship can be seen to be descending over the horizon.
Thales of Miletus in 600 BC, who invented geometry, knew the earth was a sphere.
The Greek mathematician Eratothenes calculated the approximate circumference of the earth in about 200 BC.
Nowhere does scripture say that the earth is flat or has four LITERAL corners.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
And nowhere in the Bible does it say the Earth is a sphere. At the time the Earth was referred to as a flat circle and the moon and sun hovered over top traveling in a circle. And they talk of a mountain from where you can see all for corners. And corners means flat, not literal square corners. The Bible also claims Pi is 3. And that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Moon creates its own light. Most mariners feared falling off the side of the Earth at the time.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
The PI objection always seemed trite to me.
The Hebrews expressed measurements in round numbers. There are no fractional cubits specified above 6 1/2. Everything above 15 is expressed as a multiple of 5 except for 18, 28, 49, and 144.
The dimension of a round object can be given as 10 diameter and 30 circumference in whole cubits (rounded to the nearest cubit) and still be considered accurate.
9.5 cubits diameter * pi = 29.845+ cubits circumference.
Hey, did you see the SUNSET last night?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
No, YOU should wiki flat earth and you'll find that most literate ancient people already knew the earth was a sphere.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The hebrew word translated into "virgin" is actually "young lady". Furthermore Emmanuel has been identified as Ezechias and not Jesus by many theologians.
Karakta 2 years ago
Christianity will dissolve this century. Most religions only have a life span of 2000-2500 years before they are abandoned by many. There will always be a few who hold on, but the religion itself loses relevance.
achtung26 2 years ago
How is referring to the bible scriptures regarding the virgin birth in any way proof? There's a good chance Jesus was illigetimate(sp). Why? Well the bible doesn't seem to have problems with incest so why would it with Mary having sex with some other guy? Consider the story(Genesis 4:17) of Cain's wife giving birth to a son! Who was Cain's wife? Had to be either Eve or Cains sister! o.O
99minerkc 2 years ago
Jesus had a prostitute (Rahab), a incestuous birth (from Tamar), an adulterous birth (from Bathsheba) and a Gentile (Ruth) in his family lineage. Those relationships were not supposed to happen, but there is no cover-up.
Luke isn't afraid to include those, but records that Jesus was born of a virgin in keeping with the prophetic sign foretold by Isaiah.
And yes, the Bible specifically says Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain got his wife from among the available women.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The supposed prophesies of the Old Testament and the Gospel accounts hardly constitute proof of Jesus' divinity. The Bible is not a history book.
And even if Adam and Eve had other children, the gene pool would still be far too small to grow a human population. The descendants would be sterile and would suffer major defects from all that incest. The Bible is also not, apparently, accurate scientifically.
So how, exactly, is the bible the inerrant word of God?
dbonanno 2 years ago 2
Does the human race NOT have major genetic defects?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
that is attributed to random genetic mutation, what he's referring to is an inability to form the human species.
notme98 2 years ago
If man was created perfect in God's own image, then there was enough genetic information to form the whole human race from two people.
In fact, even evolutionists say that DNA studies have shown this to be true. There was a Newsweek cover saying that we descended from "Eve" with an ape-like woman on the cover.
So from any perspective -- creationist or evolutionist -- this argument is invalid. Each of us descended from one ancestor.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
wow, you are GROSSLY mistaken.
first of all, "eve" is a single fossilized specimen representing the way an entire species (which preceded humans) lived. They did not even insinuate that we all descended from that one "person".
second, it seems like you are saying that mating with a sibling will not create deformities, which it WILL. not to mention the fact that you are assuming a "perfect creation in God's image"
notme98 2 years ago
You are assuming a creation too in order to make this argument. It's one of the fallacies of atheism. You borrow from theism and then argue for inconsistencies brought in from outside the system.
Mating with a sibling creates "deformities" if there are recessive genes in both parents. If healthy parents carry a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia, the child might be born with the disease.
If there were no harmful recessive genes in the original gene pool then there would be no such problem.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
i am not in the slightest way "assuming a creation" and i would like to hear your rationale to support such a statement.
how am i "borrowing from theism"?
oh, ok, so what you're saying is that man was not made in "god's image".
notme98 2 years ago
You want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want to argue that Adam and Eve could not have produced the huge variety in the human gene pool. (Assuming a creation)
You then argue that Adam and Even could not have been created perfect without recessive gene defects in the image of God. (Denying a creation)
This argument is invalid.
I argue that even from an evolutionary perspective, new species are thought to almost always come from a single pair. So in any case, your argument is invalid.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
i'm saying that a single couple could not have produced the variety in human gene pool, and therefore there could not have been the creation story to which you are referring. i am showing you that when YOU assume that creation story, there are huge holes in it.
most theists (including you) dont understand evolution. nobody ever said a species comes from a single pair. in fact a species branches from a previous species SLOWLY and over MANY separate specimens. not apes one day, humans the next
notme98 2 years ago
I disagree with this, but it is irrelevant.
Animals interbreed with their own siblings all the time. There are many examples in animal breeding of all known examples of a variety descending from a single pair.
We even see it among royal families. It does cause recessive traits (all males in Britain's royal family are hemophiliacs for instance).
To say it is impossible to have the human race from a single couple is also saying all life could not have developed from a single organism.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
people are quite different from "animals". although we are classified as animals, our worldwide communal lifestyle sets us apart from others. "animals" have evolved to the point where recessive genes and random genetic mutations are not quite as common (but still exist) because sibling breeding would result in an unfit specimen. with humans, we are not limited to siblings, so we have developed to the point where recessive genes are OK. its evolution.
all life could not have come from 1 organism
notme98 2 years ago
But we are not talking about humans today, we are talking about Adam and Eve -- created without genetic imperfection in the image of God.
From one couple there are literally millions of different gene combinations that then could have resulted in the 10 billion individuals that have lived since that time.
Which genetic traits could NOT have arisen from one couple? From a merely mathematical analysis, what you are saying does not hold up.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
so what youre saying is that humans today are different from "adam and eve" by the fact (not fact, not even dogma, its your personal conclusion) that they did not have the ability to produce random genetic mutations? that in itself is a contradiction because in order for us to have come from them, somewhere along the line there would have had to have a mutation that allows random mutations. but since there could not have been mutations to begin with, it is impossible!
notme98 2 years ago
I think you are getting outdated Darwinian theory confused with this debate.
First, evolutionists no longer say that random genetic mutations were the cause of evolution. Mutations are random noise; they do not add information.
Second, if the entire planet was wiped out except for two people, who had no harmful recessive genetic traits, there would be enough genetic information to repopulate the entire planet with the same degree of variety that we have today -- no mutations needed.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
outdated? they DONT say mutations cause evolution? i would LOVE to see your sources.
and your second point is not really an argument, it is just you stating what you're saying without an argument to back it up.
notme98 2 years ago
They are now saying that RANDOM mutation does not drive evolution in it's entirety. Darwin proposed something that came to be called: "phylogenetic incrementalism."
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Estridge formulated the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria. The idea that new species arise suddenly.
It is still thought of as a random process, but it concerns "genetic drift" -- not mutation.
Gould and Estridge recognized that there are huge gaps in the fossil record and species arise suddenly.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
in "The Interconnected Universe" by Ervin Laszlo (1st on google when searching "phylogenetic incrementalism") Gould and Estridge are quoted as saying that evolution happens more suddenly that Darwin had previously thought. they said species were formed over the course of about 50,000 years. "suddenly"=50,000yrs. An "adam and eve" scenario would put that number down to about, um, 3 years.
no evolutionary scientist denies the existence of mutations or their role in evolution.
notme98 2 years ago
You can compare the amount of genetic information in human beings and the diversity that can result from a single pair to forced breeding in animals and plants. Often an entire variety of a species is bred from a single pair.
If you keep breeding with close relatives over and over again then harmful random genetic mutations cause a loss of genetic information and birth defects.
But if the original pair has no defect, then breeding within the larger population can eliminate defects that arise.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
like i said, people are different from plants/animals
what you're saying in that last paragraph is true IF the pair has zero recessive genes or possibility of genetic mutations. but like i said, for modern-day humans to have mutated from a person who cannot produce mutations defies logic.
notme98 2 years ago
Yes, IF ...
It all relies on IF.
IF the universe was created out of nothing by nothing.
IF life spontaneously generated from nothing.
IF all life evolved from a single cell organism (with zero recessive genes).
IF In the beginning God created creatd the universe.
IF God created man, male and female he created them (with zero recessive genes).
jcr4runner 2 years ago
that's another thing, why does the universe HAVE to have been "created"? can't it have just always been? theists often put these self-imposed guidelines on the universe such as saying that it MUST have began and it MUST end. That's because your common sense that you have defeloped is based upon things you have seen begin and end, so you think there must have been a "start moment" and "end moment"
single cell organisms DO mutate, althought the term "recessive gene" doesnt apply to asexuals
notme98 2 years ago