@LordOfTheKraatas exactly. The doctrine of evolution teaches these mutations that we observe in nature were guided by surrounding environment. What's the chance these genes in these small mutations would get passed along? What's the chance the mutation is for the better and mutates the right pieces of genome and DNA? What's the chance this animal doesn't suffer from the mutation, and what if this animal cannot reproduce with its own species?
1. We didn't evolve from apes because humans are apes.
2. The only thing "random" with regard to evolution are genetic mutations. All of the other contributing factors make a predictable outcome. It's not "random", "chance", or "luck".
@malignantpoodle I believe what LordOfTheKraatas was trying to say was that you think we evolved from lower species. He obviously knows we humans are primates. We are not apes, we are primates. We are hominid primates with spiritual characteristics. You can parrot on, "God is a myth made by man" when in reality it isn't. Man didn't invent God for comfort, why do you think God's always getting mad at his OWN PEOPLE if his OWN PEOPLE made it up in the first place?
@malignantpoodle Heh heh heh you're just saying the same. I make a claim and I could say all you do is say 'huh uh!' as well. 'Nuh-uh! The Bible isn't true! Nuh-uh!' Perhaps you should have done more research on the old earth creationist view because you are making all the basic misconceptions on it. To think the bible says the Earth never moves is bosh. It says He set the Earth and heavens on foundations, meaning they are strictly in gravitational and physical foundations.
@malignantpoodle Let the whole world tremble in front of the Lord. He established and he put the earth in its place. And nobody can ever move it. This is a reference to the fact that the Earth's gravitational foundation cannot be moved, or destabilized. This verse clearly means that the Earth cannot be 'unstabled'.
Job 38:33 refers to the fact that the heavens control the Earth, Job 38:16 talks about undersea vents, Job 38:31 speaks of Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.
Again, it doesn't mention anything about gravity in the bible. We can be here all day and you can say that the bible means something entirely different than what it says. I can do the same thing and propose that the whole thing is an analogy for subservience to government.
Psalm 93:1 ...the Earth cannot be moved. The bible clearly and obviously states that the Earth does not and cannot be moved.
@malignantpoodle Obviously this is a reference to the foundations God set for the celestial bodies. You know these planets and stars have gravitational foundations. God is watching over our system, it is considered sacred and protected. It cannot be moved outside of its foundations, as God is protecting us. A single movement of another cosmic body could be catastrophic to the Earth. In other words we cannot be moved. It's clear and obvious that we are protected.
But it doesn't say this. It says that they don't move. It was also believed at the time that the Earth didn't move at all.
Biblical authors did not realize that the Earth moved but decided to describe it's movement within a gravitational field. They believe, and wrote, that it didn't move at all.
@malignantpoodle Did you just ignore everything I just said? Perhaps it was a reference to humanity as well, as is used often in that context.
"Say among the heathen that the LORD reigns: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously." Either it was a reference to the Earth being on strong foundations or the people having strong foundations.
Ignore? I've been addressing everything you bring up.
Wait, now it means something else? You were just explaining that it was talking about gravity, and now PERHAPS it's talking about something else altogether?
@malignantpoodle I was saying it either meant one or the other, nothing else. Wasn't that obvious or were you so clouded by your belief that you absolutely must shut out christianity and the God of the Bible?
@malignantpoodle I believe it's referring to the gravitational foundations of the Earth. We can't be moved, we simply can't. We can point to fat old Sam on the couch and say he can't be moved, that doesn't mean to say his blood isn't flowing or his thoughts have stopped.
@malignantpoodle If you're talking about the pre-Big Splash world (Big Splash is a term used for the Giant Impact Hypothesis) then that's irrelevant. We are talking of God's EARTH, not the world before it. Please tell me, too curious.
@angryspidertv as far as the earth can't be moved, ya it does move. The tilt undergos nutation,a slight, irregular motion with a main period of 18.6 years.The orientation (rather than the angle) of the Earth's axis also changes over time, precessing around in a complete circle over each 25,800 year cycle. the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart,just 15 cm per year . how much more moving can it do?It move in every way possible.
@alltiedup217 It is established on GRAVITATIONAL foundations. If there was a wandering planet that wandered through the solar system, it would move the Earth out of its orbit, it would totally destabilize everything. However that won't happen.
@angryspidertv LOL ya your just out right making shit up now.That is not even close to what it says.Even the hardest verbal gymnastics wont get you from firm immovable to established on gravitational foundations that only a wandering planet can destabilize LOL come on man talk about over reaching,is this the kind of silly rationalizing you have to do rather than admit maybe this part of the bible is a mistake?
@alltiedup217 No, not a mistake. The Earth moves a tiny bit each year. Everything moves, even things 'immovable'. We have been set on gravitational foundations. I explain it to you over and over again. I don't care if it deviates a few inches over so and so years or months, a building moves along with the continents, yet it has strong foundations.
@angryspidertv so the earth moves around the sun away from the sun wobbles back and forth orbits the galaxy and the galaxy is spinning and is moving through the universe and to you that means the earth is firm and unmovable???just what kind of movement did the bible mean?(insert excuse)I think you have failed to make your case here.
@alltiedup217 I just made my case. It's that it has been set in a firm gravitational foundation, yet Job 38:33 makes it clear the earth is controlled by the heavens. This shows that we have gravitational foundations that cannot be shaken (I explain it over and over again) but we go in cycles. duh.
@angryspidertv we go in cycles duh???the earth moving out of its orbit a little every year is not a cycle it will never move back.The only case you made here is there is no lie you won't tell yourself to hang on to a 2000 ear old delusion.And that there is no fact you won't ignore if it gets in the way of this silly superstition.
@alltiedup217 2,000 years? You're wrong there, Some books in the Old testament tell of times around 50,000 years ago. The point has been made. Do you think Earth will ever move past Mars or Jupiter unless something catasrophic happened? My point is that the Earth has been established on foundations, gravitational foundations that cannot be moved. Earth is protected. Everything moves, everything deviates. We have the basic foundations. A building can have strong foundations but it still moves
@angryspidertv LOL so if it moved past mars then you would agree tat the bible is wrong LOL what about the sun will grow and swallow the earth some day?let me guess the little fact of science is inconvenient so (insert excuse)Your point might be that but the bibles is the flat earth does not move. show me one copy older than 2000 years .The bible says nothing about things 50 000 years ago.well i guess when you can make words mean whatever you want them to whenever you want it just might
@alltiedup217 Perhaps. Earth will never be moved past Mars. I know the sun is growing larger and larger, but you've got to take into account that in Revelation it describes the universe/world going up in flames before the complete demise of the universe. It will be completely unprecedented, the universe will end in a single instantaneous moment. But we're talking about the past, not the future.... CONT(1)
@angryspidertv again that is the opposite of what it happening t the universe it is getting colder that thermodynamics is a bitch..but your evidence for any of this is what?the bible is true cause the bible says so.come on man your just making assertions people lived longer prove it what happened so that now we don't and dont quote a bible verse until you can prove the bible true(you have not) then its pointless to quote it as evidence
@alltiedup217 CONT (2) and Exodus 20:6 tells us how God lavishes unfailing love for a thousand generations. The traditional Biblical generation was 40 years, so humanity has been around for at least 40,000 years. However at first the generations apoptosis was not a huge roll and people aged less and lived longer, in fact very near 1,000 years. Since these earlier generations were more years, this shows the date for humanity is 50,000 years give or take, as paleontology describes. So yes it does
@angryspidertv again the bible cay say what it wants but the PROOF is it no older than at best 1000 years after the death of jesus if there was a jesus at all.A lot of the evidence points to the fact he was not real.As well as a list of the stuff the bible says happened most evidence shows it did not..king herod killing all the male babies you think someone else would have told that story..nope.If all you have for "proof" is the bible you have failed.sorry
@alltiedup217 It has been estimated that, at the beginning of the first century, there likely would have been only about ten to thirty boy babies under the age of two in the little town. The killing of a few children in an obscure Judean community would scarcely have attracted much attention in the notably bloody world of that day. Herod was an extremely cruel leader (and desperate to his throne) he killed several of his own family members. He could do the same to any commoner who was a threat.
@angryspidertv he was not cruel he only killed a few children in an obscure judean community that's not so bad right?I mean iit was bad enuff that the bible made a big deal out of it but hey.The bible does call it "Massacre of the Innocents." but your right it was only a few kids that not a massacre at all again the bible is wrong.but again we see you changing words to make the bible fit what you want it to mean not what it does mean.
@alltiedup217 I made it clear he was cruel. history is not very kind to Herod as it records many of his atrocities. It is well established in secular writings that Herod murdered the old and young and did not even spare his wives. Herod murdered many people, He was a bloody man.... CONT...(1)
@alltiedup217 ..CONT.. Yet this massacre is mentioned by the non-Christian writer Macrobius (A.D. 395-423). Here is his comment,
When he [emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered to kill, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son.
I never said it wasn't wrong, I made it clear that Herod was cruel. That was a very evil act. I never changed anything I said, where'd you get that from?
@angryspidertv no what you were doing was yet again making an excuse for why no one outside the bible mentioned it.No big deal only a few kids no one would have made note of it...everything else the guy did but this one thing.Ya almost 500 years after the fact its gets mentioned COME ON !!! LOL.You said it would not attract to much attention but yet 400+ years later they are still talking about it.The only reason it got mentioned by augustus is he read it in the bible.
@alltiedup217 No, emperor Augustus caesar heard of it, as I just mentioned. By the way it was MACROBUIS who wrote of it, not Augustus Caesar. Macrobius was non-christian, as I just mentioned. I didn't say it was a big deal. Did you know how much killing was going on then? I said it wouldn't matter to such a big empire then because of some obscure king's business in an obscure Judean town that didn't really matter to Rome.
@alltiedup217 So as I just pointed out, you cannot say the Massacre of Innocents never happened. Why? Well for starters Macrobius mentions Augustus' reaction to hearing about the news. Unless you can say Macrobius or emp. Augustus never existed, you can't say the Massacre never happened. Even if there was no evidence for it in Roman records (which there is, as I just pointed out) it wouldn't have mattered because the Jews weren't important too much to them and they wouldn't have cared.
@angryspidertv no one moment you are saying its not a big deal quote "The killing of a few children in an obscure Judean community would scarcely have attracted much attention" Again I know you like word games but not much attention obscure are all words to mean its not a big deal.and yes Macrobuis sorry my fault see its ok to admit you are wrong about something.give it a try some time
@alltiedup217 Thanks, and yes I'll admit I'm wrong when I see how I am. It's just that I was saying yes it was a big deal, a human life is huge. Herod murdered (unjustified killing) many of these babies. Herod didn't care. He would kill no matter how many babies if they were a threat to the throne. He even killed his own family members and friends. I was saying it wasn't huge news to the Roman empire because there were so many things going on at that time. Nobody cared about a little town.
@angryspidertv you have been shown you were wrong several times your refusal to admit it does not change the that you were and are wrong." I was saying it wasn't huge news to the Roman empire because there were so many things going on at that time. Nobody cared about a little town." but yet 500 years later they are still talking about it and A roman emp new about it come on make up your mind its one or the other Dont fall off your bike trying to back pedal
@alltiedup217 The only reason we are talking about it today, as you might have guessed, was because the Bible said it happened, not because another historian said so. The very existence of Macrobius' claims give more credibility to the Slaughter of the Innocents story. Do you think another king's petty business over an even pettier town would matter to him? Absolutely not. Yet it is recorded in the Bible as a great evil, that's why we're talking about it. Because it is said in the Bible.
@alltiedup217 the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178,). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time. Please do not get me wrong, one innocent child being killed is a horrific tragedy. The fact remains, the Slaughter of Innocents did happen, you just don't want to admit it.
@angryspidertv Why do most if not all historians say it is only legend?Why is the bible the only place to mention it, not ever luke talks about it?I'll tell you why cause it didn't happen. Geza Vermes and E. P. Sanders regard the story as creative hagiography.[11] Robert Eisenman argues that the story may have its origins in Herod's murder of his own sons, an act which made a deep impression at the time.It is a myth like alot of the bible.You have no evidence AGAIN.
@alltiedup217 The Bible is not the only place to mention it. As I said, ***Macrobius*** mentioned the act and Augustus' reaction (and the Bible does not mention Augustus' reaction). A while ago you were admitting you were wrong. Most historians also thought Troy was a legend, but later turned out to be true. Is it really that improbable that Herod would kill a handful of babies if they were a potential threat to his throne?
@alltiedup217 Besides Matthew getting it right about Herod's personality, Paul L. Maier has pointed out, "Josephus wrote for a Greco-Roman audience, which would have little concern for infant deaths. Greeks regularly practiced infanticide as a kind of birth control, particularly in Sparta, while the Roman father had the right not to lift his baby off the floor after birth, letting it die”.
So infanticide was not that big of a deal back then. That's one way Josephus wouldn't write about it.
@angryspidertv Byzantine liturgy estimated 14,000 Holy Innocents while an early Syrian list of saints stated the number at 64,000. Coptic sources raise the number to 144,000 and place the event on 29 December.Why did they need to lie?You people cling to this because you think it is some kinda prophecy and a vague one at that.I would admit it if there was evidence for it,s far there is not.
@alltiedup217 Yet Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimated that the populace of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth to be about 300 people. The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven. Everybody makes mistakes, even christians, so can you blame them for coming up with a wrong number? Sheesh, don't tell me scientists don't make mistakes. You might as well say THEY were liars, but they were only mistakes.
@angryspidertv oh i know they make mistake the only one saying they don't make mistakes is you.What difference does the population make?instead of coming up with excuses for why no one ever said anything about it other than the bible and not even anyone other than one guy in bible why not admit it might not have happened?If a scientist was faced with this much evidence he would consed he might be mistaken.Only the dogmatic theists would take this stance.
@alltiedup217 So are you denying Macrobius existed, or perhaps his account of Augustus Caesar was wrong, or something else? Hmmm, so you must deny Macrobius' claim. Josephus got a lot of his info of Herod from Nicolas of Damascus, who was Herod's friend. Herod already had a bad reputation, do you think Nicolas (AGAIN, Herod's friend) would say anything else to blacken his friend's reputation? Yet the only 'evidence' you point out is that no other historian mentions this apparent 'obscure' act.
@angryspidertv I deny there is any validity to something macrobius said 400+years after the fact.Augustus was talking about herod killing his OWN children (but yes there is some doubt as to if macrobius existed) Augustus said QUOTE "he said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son."nothing about young Jew being killed AT ALL it may have been (by christians) attributed to that event but clearly all evidence points away from it.Even the bible is unclear about if jesus went to egypt
@alltiedup217 Macrobius (ca. AD 400), one of the last pagan writers in Rome, in his book Saturnalia: “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he [the Emperor Augustus] remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig [Gr. hys] than his son’ [Gr. huios]” (2.4.11; cited in Brown 1993:226). Mac. may have gotten some of his historical facts garbled, but he could have given us a chronological key as well.
@angryspidertv funny the quote you post is from a bible web site.
Alan Cameron notes, the complete name of the first candidate is attested in an inscription to be "Flavius Macrobius Maximianus", while the second is excluded because "A praepositus must at this period have been a eunuch."
one way or the other it lends no credence to your claim that 400 + years later he thinks maybe augustus said something about herod killing his own sons again nothing to do with the biblical account.
@alltiedup217 I don't care, you copied something from... was it Secular Web? but whatever, the point is that "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old" Did you not get that part? I don't understand, you were just admitting you were wrong. Ha ha, you realized it would give credence to the Bible. It does have nothing to do with the Biblical account, Macrobius said himself in his book Saturnalia, why don't you read the WHOLE comment I posted?
@alltiedup217 See Macrobius is saying that Augustus heard of what had been done, and included his own baby in the killing. That's what he meant, it was a reference to the slaughter of innocents, but that Herod had included his own child, his own baby, to be killed. AS PART OF the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, King of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed AS WELL.
@angryspidertv LOL no that is not what he is saying at all..i know you want that to be what hes saying all he is talking about is herod killing his own son..The difference from a biblical web site and one that is not is biblical web sites LIE they only tell parts of the story.BUT all that a side 400 years later macrbius said augustus maybe heard about herod and maybe said something about him killing his own son?And that is what you call evidence?
@angryspidertv cont.so if i was to say to you some guy 400 years after jesus was killed said he read about a guy that heard something about it might not have happened from someone who might have been there,you would take that as evidence it didn't happen? See if something fits what you want to be true you will believe it. look up hearsay,hell judge judy would toss this out in one second.you'd think augustus would have said "oh you mean the guy that can raise the dead?the water to wine guy?"nope
@alltiedup217 The lengths you will go. The claim is right there in Macrobius' book Saturnalia, nobody changed anything. Macrobius did not get it from hearsay, he was writing about actual events. QUOTE: "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son’"
As PART OF the slaughter of boys two years old, he killed his own BABY son whom he also had.
@angryspidertv if its not hearsay,what is?that the deff of hersay. look at the quote you posted no where does it say anything about any other boys other than herods.Then christians go on to make all kids of shit up about the event.144000, 34000 the numbers go all over the place.Then you say no it was only a few,so much for bible prophecy where it says ALL the young would be killed.Let me guess ALL ment only a few boys in one small town... the lengths you will go to
@angryspidertv Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:so how do we verify what macrobius wrote?or do you think everything in Saturnalia is true?or like the bible just that parts you like?
hummm this is one of the times you can admit you are wrong if ya want.
@alltiedup217 The number of people in a town should not be considered a huge mistake, much like how secular scientists made mistakes in the past but then correct them. Honestly, it's a number that's not that important, like the number of asteroids in the kuiper belt. I've told you over and over again, but instead you choose to justify your claims by saying everything in Saturnalia isn't true. Pff you'll take Herod as an evil character but won't believe he would kill babies if he was scared?
@angryspidertv I never said I don't think herod would do it I said there was no evidence other than HEARSAY that he did.Further christians lied about how many children were killed and that the event could hardly be said to fit the bible prophecy of "kill ALL the young ones".it was you that over and over mentioned the population of the town.But I see you fail to admit it was hearsay evidence if the number is not that important why do you keep bringing it up ?why do you always dodge questions?
@alltiedup217 1. No christians lied. It was an honest mistake, everybody does this. Merely a mispresentation of unimportant numbers. Why would they even want to lie? It wasn't a lie.
2. You might say Macrobius' claim was false. However, he did not get his sources from the Bible or from people who read the Bible. We have two radically different sources saying the same thing, both within the boundaries of Herod's predictable character.
@angryspidertv honest mistake my ass THEY LIED the number grew and grew.why they needed a bigger number so it would fit the prophecy.happens alot people making up facts to fit yet another failed bible prediction.your quotes "So infanticide was not that big of a deal back then"yet you feel an roman emp would know about it.quote"I was saying it wasn't huge news to the Roman empire" must have been for an emp to be talking about it .your willfully ignorant about this.
@alltiedup217 "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children." Where does it say anywhere that the number had to be huge? It WAS, indeed, an honest mistake. They didn't change the numbers around purposefully, what would be the point? No, it wasn't huge news. Augustus ONLY MENTIONS it. It's obsolete compared to other things happening at that time. You keep switching here.
@angryspidertv cont ..this is too funny you contradict yourself all in one comment quote"Merely a mispresentation of unimportant numbers. then right on the end of your comment you say"I said the number was small, not unimportant." make up your mind.is the number important or not?"he did not get his sources from the Bible or from people who read the Bible" really where did he get them from?cause no one know where he got it from we DO know it was hearsay ,that is a fact.
@alltiedup217 I meant what happened was not unimportant, but it was not important to the world back then. Seriously, you think I'M the one who can't make up his mind? *snort* do you think it happened or not? I think you realized it did happen, but you realized if it did happen it would validate Jesus' existence, so you're denying it now.
@angryspidertv as always (snort)must be the drugs your doing to come up with this bullshit. you always that's not what I meant,that's not what they meant, that's not what the word means.its not hearsay. you can't make up your mind about anything you say. you flip flop back and forth. Merely a mispresentation of unimportant numbers.I said the number was small, not unimportant.total contradiction no way around it. bible said ALL THE YOUNG clearly by your own admission not all, not even very many
@alltiedup217 It said all the young in the town, not all the young in the world. Herod can't decree that ALL the children in the whole world be killed, only in that town. I was not flip flopping back and forth. You're hardly listening to what I'm saying. The number of babies was counted wrongly. However it was recounted (the population of the town was around 300 or something) so this makes it even more plausible. I already made clear what I held to. You're just not listening. Pointless.
@alltiedup217 Shall I explain it to you again? I believe all the babies in Bethlehem were killed by Herod. I believe the number of the population was around 300. I believe this was well inside Herod's character, as you should too. I believe Macrobius (an OUTSIDE source) wrote of it. I believe it shouldn't have been recorded by most other historians because it wasn't important to the world back then compared to other things going on. I believe the numbers were re-estimated and correct.
@angryspidertv Shall I explain it to you again I don't care what you believe.I am interested in what can be supported by EVIDENCE. NOTHING you"BELIEVE is supported by evidence.If it was prophecy and important to the story why is it so vague why did it say ALL not a few or some ALL.quote from you" It said all the young in the town," no its say under 2 and in the region.killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, not even close to the prohpecy
@alltiedup217 Matthew 2: "...from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her childrn, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more’”
The existence of Macrobius mentioning the slaughter is sufficient. Nobody would be talking about it because, as I mentioned, it was hardly noteworthy.
@alltiedup217 Macrobius could not have gotten his information from hearsay, as I just mentioned an act like what Herod did (although truly evil) was happening all over the world, and wasn't even comparable with all the assassinations and killings going on at that time (before Macrobius). Unless he had read it in the Bible (which he didn't) or unless he had heard it of somebody who had read it in the Bible (the Bible says nothing about Augustus here) then your claims are empty.
@angryspidertv ok really you need to look up the word hearsay you obviously don't know what it means.Let me help you /unless augustus said it to macrobius its hearsay/.You have no idea how he got the information.Which he didn't get from the bible?how do you know that?again speculation ,nothing more We know people lie about this event why is this not one of the lies?your claims are empty and baseless.
hearsay -
heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"
@alltiedup217 I know what hearsay is. However I can look at a History book and see the information within, that's not hearsay. A president can give a speech but that won't be considered quite as hearsay. You could read a written document, YOU might think it's hearsay. Besides Macrobius did not get his sources from the Bible, or people who had read the Bible. He was a pagan non-christian. That any source would write about such a seemingly 'obscure' event is enough for me.
@angryspidertv LOL im not a christian and I read the bible dawkins hitchens all read the bible most atheists I know have read the bible that is a silly argument and you know it.history book is one thing its verified why do you think it is that the court won't allow hearsay?is it because people lie have bad memories.BTW it is not a historical fact as I pointed out most if not all historians inc christians think its not an historical event.I do agree it is possible but unlikely.
@angryspidertv lastly you can look at a history book see the info within,but what makes it hearsay is if no one else can read the history book you're quoting, and the events you talk about are in question.Or talking about a president from 400 years ago that and saying someone might have told him about something that may or may not have happened.I'm sure you know the difference and you're just again being willfully ignorant.
@alltiedup217 HAHAHA You're saying I'M the one being willfully ignorant? Macrobius was a writer who flourished in those times, it is highly doubtful he got all of his sources from hearsay. You might even say Macrobius was there to witness the feast of Saturnalia in this aristocrat's home where they were talking about something that had been said (and most likely had been documented in the records) There were many things lost after the fall of Rome, perhaps the record of an obscure event was one.
@angryspidertv ok really get a dictionary look up the word you don't know what it means .if you did this would be a pointless argument.all you have "he must have done this" or "it must have been this way". why cause you want it to be that way?This is why I think you 'er being willfully ignorant.for the last time ANY INFO YOU GET THAT IS NOT FIRST HAND IS HEARSAY IF HE GOT IT FROM A DOCUMENT AND THAT DOCUMENT IS GONE ..HEARSAY IF WE JUST HAVE HIS WORD HEARSAY you can't be this stupid
@alltiedup217 On the contrary, I think it's your claims that are empty and baseless. You're attempting to refute a historical event that is well likely possible, that most likely would not have reached other sources or historians, only by saying 'he could have gotten that information from hearsay' even though Macrobius most likely never read the Bible (and certainly nobody on the street would have heard about Augustus' reaction)
@angryspidertv baseless you say Macrobius would not know of the story from the bible and you base this on what?you say the source was not hearsay and base it on what?you say he his source wasn't from someone who read the bible based on what?you just make shit up cause you want it to be true.I can't imagine your out cry if science had such little proof for evolution.Darwins book has been talked about by other people it must be true.
@alltiedup217 It is based on the veritable fact that Macrobius was a pagan non-christian who had no interest in Christianity. Why don't you give me evidence that Macrobius got his writings from hearsay instead while addressing the issues I have with his claims being hearsay. Macrobius gives no mention to the Bible, by the way, whereas Darwin does :P
@angryspidertv well unless he was 400 fucking years old it was hearsay.Unless it was told right to his face by a 400 year old roman emp the it was hearsay.Other wise we would have the org source and not need Macrobius at all.why can't you understand this simple point?a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as her evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay GET IT?
@angryspidertv again you have no idea if Macrobius had any interest in christianity or not you'er just making that up off the top of your head.Lots of people are not christians and still know the stories.
@angryspidertv "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant...so Marobius saying someone told him that someone told augustus is the very definition of hearsay clearly you don't understand what the word means.
@alltiedup217 I told you, he must have gotten his information from the royal records or something of that nature. Saturnalia contains an account of the discussions held at the house of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus during the holiday of the Saturnalia. Now Vettius Agorius Praetextatus was a wealthy pagan aristocrat and was a high priest in the cults of many gods. Macrobius was a writer who's works became rather well-known, I find it highly doubtful he got all his sources from hearsay, if not any
@angryspidertv cont .. The number of babies was counted wrongly. However it was recounted (the population of the town was around 300)Byzantine liturgy estimated 14,000 Holy Innocents while an early Syrian list of saints stated the number at 64,000. Coptic sources raise the number to 144,000 Hardly wrong counting it was out and out lying to make the story better. The massacre is not mentioned in Luke's gospel. guess luke didn't think it was important,not like it was bible prophecy or anything.
@alltiedup217 What? I already told you why, and the previous numbers were not meant to decieve, ignorant moron, they were numerical mistakes. Luke, as I might have already told you, skips several years after Jesus' birth (and the incident of Herod between them). So no it isn't a lie, no Luke doesn't mention it.
@angryspidertv Géza Vermes described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his time.Ed Parish Sanders Grawemeyer Award for the best book on religion published in the 1980s for Jesus and Judaism,Robert Eisenman Biblical scholar, theoretical writer, historian, archaeologist director of the Institute for the Study of Judaeo-Christian Origins at California State U, Russell Seibert Professor of Ancient History Western Michigan University.
all guys that know more than you, all say it never happened.
@angryspidertv cont... so if it was not a big deal why does the bible mention it?and why only luke?He and matt mention less interesting events it is a little strange that such a tail as this would get mention from the other guys as well?The baby Jesus having to flee for his life,not note worthy?even if it was fulfilling prophecy?yup sound like bullshit ta me.maybe if they had not waited 60 years to write it down they would not have forgotten about it.
@alltiedup217 It was a big deal, it was a story that told before Jesus' birth and the lengths of Herod's evil. But I just explained how the killing of babies, both born and unborn, wasn't a big deal to Romans, but the Bible describes the act of murder of evil. Luke describes Jesus' life, not the things that happened before. And fulfilled prophesies, all 'coincidentally' being fulfilled. This was a big deal from a Biblical perspective, but not from a worldly one (as yet would be)
@angryspidertv you do it again you say no big deal the romans could care less about it,then go on to say that you emp augustus talking about and 400+ years later macrobius talking about it.My guess it macrobius read it and then wrote about it.Or are you saying he was over 500 years old and Augustus told him in person?majority of Herod biographers, followed by biblical scholars, hold that the massacre is "legend and not historical. Why did luke not bring it up?
@alltiedup217 I don't know why Luke doesn't bring it up... Macrobius was a non-christian (more than likely pagan) Roman writer. It is highly doubtful he got the idea of the massacre of innocents from the Bible. Augustus' reaction is not said in the Bible, so macrobius must have gotten his account somewhere else. If he had no qualms killing his own sons/friends/wife/MOTHER do you really think it's so implausible Herod would kill no matter how many babies in a remote part of his kingdom?
@angryspidertv Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus didn't record this event in any of his writings. gotta wonder why?I know you guys need this to be true but its just not ,like the flat earth is just not flat the bible says it is, their is no way around it.You can tap dance, change words, whatever.the fact you have to do all this speaks volumes to the validity of your argument.like I said if I was to say the bible says the earth is purple you wouldn't give it the time of day.this however ,well...
@alltiedup217 Let's settle the flat Earth problem later. For now let's stick with this. There are several reasons why Josephus did not record the Massacre. There were some pivotal events in the first century AD that Josephus does not record, like the episode of the golden Roman shields in Jerusalem (big pivotal point). It should also be noted he got much information from Nicolas of Damascus, a friend of Herod and indeed Herod's own historian.
@malignantpoodle Also, the Bible makes references to gravity literally thousands of times. Just because the word 'gravity' never appears in the Bible does not mean to say it denies its existence. Look at any single verse that has the word 'fall' in it.
Understanding that something falls doesn't explain gravity. It's just an observation. Understanding the dynamic behind a falling object is another thing.
Fall eh? It says the stars will fall to earth. This is impossible. If they understood gravity, then they would know that the Earth would move towards the star, not vice versa... and all of the stars cannot move towards the earth.
@malignantpoodle If you are referencing Revelation, which I think you are, here it is:
"Then the second angel sounded; and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became as blood;and a third of the living creatures in the sea died and a third of the ships were destroyed." (Rev:8:8-9) Revelation speaks of other falling stars and the after-affects accurately depict meteor collisions. 1 Thessalonians 5:3 disaster will come suddenly upon us.
@malignantpoodle 1 Cor 15:41 talks about every star being different. Doesn't seem to match up to your interpretation of their thinking little points of light, which basically all look the same to us. God did not give a complete scientific revelation to the ancients because it was besides the point. God is a God of surprises, look at how much it blew us away, all these scientific discoveries. He gave us hints, but not the whole thing. And still, the Jews would call any celestial body a 'star'.
@angryspidertv as far as job he then goes on to say god controls the lightning and that it rains because there are jars of water in heaven and that only god could know when animals will give birth. job new nothing about the world he lived in(big surprise),Pleiades and Orion he thinks are gods as are all stars.Snow and hail have homes "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; sound FLAT, job 38:14 i see you left it out would clay under a seal come out like a sphere? no it would come out FLAT
@alltiedup217 Basically saying all things come by God. The verse describes God's ultimate power over the universe. He did set the physical constants in motion, after all. People can't give dates for the exact birth of something. What is your evidence for thinking Pleiades and Orion are gods? There is none, you are avoiding the subject. About Job 38:14 I will look into that. I'm sure there's an explanation. There are hundreds of scientific accuracies in the Bible, don't avoid them.
@angryspidertv What is your evidence for thinking Pleiades and Orion are gods? I don't think, they are gods I know they are stars and gases only a moron would think they are Gods like the bible says. There are hundreds of scientific accuracies in the Bible, don't avoid them.Ya so just ignore all the wrong ones then?people can give the exact date sorry your just wrong ..i mean the bible is
@angryspidertv What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?ummm does job mean static electricity?in the sky?here job had no idea how ice is formed From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens job thinks god send lightning Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? epic fail on the weather Job.don't forget job's dragon LOL
@alltiedup217 He is describing his total power and influence over the heavens. Do humans have complete control over everything? God has filled His universe with His presence. He is EVERYWHERE, God is talking about His complete domination over the elements. The ancients obviously knew ice didn't form in a womb. Poetic language, the Bible is filled with it. Job's 'dragon'. Not sure where you're getting that from. Are you talking about the Behemoth and Leviathan?
@angryspidertv so if its wrong its out of context poetic or whatever excuse you can come up with the tap dance around the fact it is WRONG..and his dragon must be poetic LOL why is it obvious they knew ice didn't come from a womb or that god controlled the lighting?the rain was water kept in jars in heaven..oh ya thats stupid it must mean its poetic. it is obvious to us ..to them mystery so much for god telling them
This guy's getting all his facts wrong... He thinks the young earth model is the only viable christian view on the Bible and science... He needs to do more research.
@malignantpoodle No, it doesn't. In medieval times many people did not have access to scripture - the catholic church was burning christians, hanging them, etc. These people seem to have been very fond of torture. The geocentric model made sense to ancient people, but now that we have science it does not directly contradict scripture
You're talking about something else. Regardless of the age of the earth interpreted, the scriptures clearly state the earth as the oldest body in the universe, that it doesn't move, and you even have instances in scripture where the sun is commanded to stop moving (Joshua 10:12).
All this yadda yadda about catholics and torture has nothing to do with the subject. The bible always describes a geocentric system.
@malignantpoodle haha... so you obviously haven't learned a thing about old earth creationism. The oldest body of the universe... you definitely are looking upon young earth science as evidence against all of christianity. Visit Evidence for God from Science, a well-know old earth creationist site. Once there type 'creation week' in the search window. I assure you your answers are there.
@malignantpoodle Hmhmhm then this proves you're unknowledgeable of how things work in the Old Earth view and in the Bible. If you truly knew what you were dealing with, you wouldn't be saying all the standard misconceptions most people get. Most don't bother to take a second look.
ah yes, just what you were waiting for eh? "this proves you're unknowledgeable..." proof positive without you having to do anything! Game over, you win!
hehe, I love how creationist "proof" is just all around us huh :)
BTW, "proving" anything to you people is impossible, considering that Christians themselves (including OEC) cannot agree on damn near anything :P
@malignantpoodle Sure, but I could say the same stuff about atheists. Nobody really ever agrees on every single aspect of life... some vary greatly, some are less. The reason YECs do not accept OEC is because they are afraid of 'conforming' to science. You seriously HAVEN'T done your research, have you.
I'm not talking about every aspect, I'm talking about MAJOR differences.
OEC doesn't conform to science either. They still believe in creation. They do not believe in evolution. They still believe in a higher power. They still believe in the afterlife. NONE of this conforms to science either.
You keep saying I haven't done my research. I was a Christian for 20 years and can already tell I know volumes more about the subject than you do.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to conform with science. YECs take the bible for what it says, and don't want to rewrite and reinterpret.
OEC has a little more sense in that taking the bible for what it says is stupid in modern times however, they still hold antiquated superstition and unsubstantiated viewpoints the same.
@malignantpoodle **SIGH** you haven't dug into this enough... I say it over and over again to people like you, science is merely the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." You can't do experiments on angels or such spiritual creatures that are watching us from a higher dimension. That's the whole Bblcl concept of FAITH. It also says to test all things. So far I'm seeing no direct contras with Bible and mainstream science.
The Earth moves. It is round. The moon is not a light. The Earth will not abide forever. Some plants that bear seeds are poisonous. Sprinkling blood from an animal around your house will not cure diseases. The list goes on. Many things contrary to what the bible states have been proven.
@malignantpoodle The Earth does move. Yet it is set in a gravitational foundation and is 'hung over nothing' as the Bible says. There are several articles on RTB addressing common atheist misconceptions like yours about the moon being light... it was described as a light, because basically it is. The sun isn't 'light' it's a source of light, and the moon reflects it. You're talking about the Exodus now, visit the videos about the Exodus Decoded, it has a lot on there.
The bible says the earth doesn't move, period. In several spots.
The moon is not a light. Reflecting light doesn't make it a light. If I shine a light on my skin, or a mirror, or a pack of cigarettes, and light gets reflected, does that make those things a light?
Of course not.
The biblical authors believed the moon to be a light. More proof that they had no divine insight or influence in their writings.
@malignantpoodle The Great light and the Lesser light was obvious in meaning they would illuminate the sky. Would your arm illuminate the sky? It's kind of obvious its meaning. You only have insufficient claims supported by... well, nothing basically.
@angryspidertv is that all you have..."no what it really means is", then insert what you want it to mean?and that is your evidence it does not say the earth is flat(it clearly does)
Incorrect. We can observe other bodies in the solar system that are obviously not rotating around the earth, rather are rotating around the sun. This is how heliocentric views took hold; it could be demonstrated that venus and mars were not in fact orbiting the earth. The perspective argument only holds for comparing the sun and earth together. But we see other bodies on their orbits not around the earth.
@malignantpoodle No sir... you are incorrect. In any closed system (the universe is a closed system, it is finite, so says science!) ANY point can be used as a fixed reference point and ALL laws of physics are MAINTAINED. Yes, the bible says the earth is the center of the universe and does not move. It's a matter of perspective. It seems God's perspective is more likely to be correct than yours. BTW, the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian. Perhaps that misconception is causing you to err.
@malignantpoodle No matter that the universe did expand. (I hold it no longer does so. There are red shifts, but there are also BLUE shifts. Color shifts are not reliable indicator of expansion anyway.) Even so, the universe is still finite. Even your scientist's say so. Therefore the rule stands. As for your claiming that I AM ignorant....ad hominem is the last resort of a failed argument.
The "rule" does not stand. Saying that the universe isn't expanding IS ignorant. And on that note, calling you by a label doesn't change the facts (be nice if it did for you eh?). If that were the case, then Christianity would be wrong for all of the Christians that call me an asshole, cocksucker, or make threats against me. Stupid fucking logic.
"Your scientists" lol! Anyway, a finite universe doesn't change anything here. Keep grasping at straws.
@KJVWordofGod Who are these scientists to whom you refer? I just completed a university astronomy course. You should never take a course like this if you want to cling to beliefs of a non-expanding universe and a finite universe. Evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
"ANY point can be used as a fixed reference point and ALL laws of physics are MAINTAINED."
This is true. BUT because everything is also relative, that means that you will observe different things from different reference points. Meaning that you won't see the same thing from Earth that you do from say...Mars. Anddd, we've seen what the Solar System looks like from every point from Earth to Pluto and even a few thousand miles from the sun. And they support heliocentricism.
@KJVWordofGod, if the earth does not rotate, satellites in geocentric orbit (orbits placed at a distance where they match the rotation of the earth) are merely sitting in space, directly above the earth, and hovering for no apparent reason. Not a very logical stance to take.
@NoAntecessor Gravity is a very weak force. Elevated to a certain point, the satellite reaches equilibrium between the earth and the universe. Newton's 1st law of motion then rules. I ask you, is it not illogical to accept an object spinning @ over 1,000 mph @ the equator in one direction has winds @ the equator that blow in the opposite direction? Even in BOTH directions? Is it not logical to hold that the earth does not move and the winds are generated by heating and cooling from the sun?
@KJVWordofGod, and this "equilibrium point" just happens to match, to the very kilometer, the 35,786 kilometers above the earth predicted by Herman Potočnik in 1928, using nothing but newtonian physics based on the rotation of the earth. How very... unlikely. Honestly, you'll have to come up with an explanation for such a stupendous coincidence. As for the motion of wind, it fits perfectly with our understanding of the earth's rotation. How else does one account for the Coriolis effect?
@NoAntecessor Did I not cite Newton's 1st Law? Why should it surprise you Newtonian physics apply? Your response to the wind motion was not a response at all. You said yes the wind is understandable. Help me understand. Give me some reasoned explanation to my previously mentioned point. The Coriolis effect is an APPARENT deflection in the rotating earth model. In the stationary earth, rotating universe model, the coriolis effect is a REAL deflection. Gravity is weak. The universe is electric.
Let's break this down one part at a time, as these comments have a size limit. If you are arguing that geostationary satellites reach an equilibrium point at exactly 35,786 kilometers above the earth, as gravity just happens to zero out at that exact point, how do you explain the astounding coincidence that this is also the exact point predicted in 1928 as being the distance for a geostationary orbit? Also, why then do satellites orbiting at further distances not fly free of the earth's gravity?
@malignantpoodle You are clearly stupid because if we believed in heliocentric theory, and geocentric theory was "right", then we could NEVER make it to another terrestrial surface in this solar system.
Check this out. I've brought up the same thing that you did to people that still believe in geocentrism. You know what they told me? "That's because NASA knows that it's a geocentric system and does all of the calculations for that but continues to lie and say we're heliocentric because they're trying to turn people away from God".
Pretty interesting video. But until athiest can come up with a foundation to base morality on, might as well keep basing morality on the Bible, since this nation was established by basically Protestant CHristians. Just saying, let's default to the already established basis for morality until athiests can come up with something more sound to base it on than just mere opinion.
If Christians were exclusively moral and atheists exclusively immoral, you'd have a point. But that's not the case. The morality argument is old and debunked. Even wolves don't eat their pups simply because nobody's looking, and as for morality and law, it's not illegal for me to have multiple sex partners in an orgy.
See my video, "The Bible Does Not Have a Monopoly on Morality""
@malignantpoodle Maybe wolves don't eat their own pups. But who can say it is wrong to, if there is no God?
You might say "Well that leads to extinction." But is extinction wrong? You may not like extinction, but that is your opinion. If i spill some ink, you may say "HA!, its wrong, that face is missing an ear!" But it isn't wrong because it was an accident, I wasn't trying to draw a face. There was no foresight put into it. It was a random accident. Therefore there is no wrong or right.
@LiquidSmooth Even when I was an athiest, i saw the problem, and said "Until i can figure out a foundation for morality, it is better to let these people pretend their is a God." See, God created man in His image. Therefore if you spit in a man's face, according to the Bible, it is like spitting in God's face. And God defines love and created His creation so His creation would be an image of Him and love others. That is why hating someone is wrong.
@LordOfTheKraatas exactly. The doctrine of evolution teaches these mutations that we observe in nature were guided by surrounding environment. What's the chance these genes in these small mutations would get passed along? What's the chance the mutation is for the better and mutates the right pieces of genome and DNA? What's the chance this animal doesn't suffer from the mutation, and what if this animal cannot reproduce with its own species?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle
oh, so do you also believe that you randomly evolved from an ape?
LordOfTheKraatas 2 months ago
@LordOfTheKraatas
Nope, nor does any evolutionist.
1. We didn't evolve from apes because humans are apes.
2. The only thing "random" with regard to evolution are genetic mutations. All of the other contributing factors make a predictable outcome. It's not "random", "chance", or "luck".
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle I believe what LordOfTheKraatas was trying to say was that you think we evolved from lower species. He obviously knows we humans are primates. We are not apes, we are primates. We are hominid primates with spiritual characteristics. You can parrot on, "God is a myth made by man" when in reality it isn't. Man didn't invent God for comfort, why do you think God's always getting mad at his OWN PEOPLE if his OWN PEOPLE made it up in the first place?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
We are apes. We are also primate. We are also animals. We are also Simians. We are also hominids. Being a primate doesn't exclude from being an ape.
You mean all man made systems exist purely for the comfort of man?
Hahahah
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle
You might want to watch out sir, this kid (angryspidertv) has made young earthers look like idiots....
LordOfTheKraatas 2 months ago
@LordOfTheKraatas
Watch out? Hehe, his argument here consists of nothing but, "nuh uh! The bible is true!"
If you're impressed with that, maybe you belong with your head in the sand.
I make YECs look like idiots too, along with creationists in general.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Heh heh heh you're just saying the same. I make a claim and I could say all you do is say 'huh uh!' as well. 'Nuh-uh! The Bible isn't true! Nuh-uh!' Perhaps you should have done more research on the old earth creationist view because you are making all the basic misconceptions on it. To think the bible says the Earth never moves is bosh. It says He set the Earth and heavens on foundations, meaning they are strictly in gravitational and physical foundations.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
No, that is not what I do. I point to demonstrable fact.
I Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Not the words from someone that knew the planet was spinning like a top while it traveled thousands of miles an hour through space.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Let the whole world tremble in front of the Lord. He established and he put the earth in its place. And nobody can ever move it. This is a reference to the fact that the Earth's gravitational foundation cannot be moved, or destabilized. This verse clearly means that the Earth cannot be 'unstabled'.
Job 38:33 refers to the fact that the heavens control the Earth, Job 38:16 talks about undersea vents, Job 38:31 speaks of Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
Again, it doesn't mention anything about gravity in the bible. We can be here all day and you can say that the bible means something entirely different than what it says. I can do the same thing and propose that the whole thing is an analogy for subservience to government.
Psalm 93:1 ...the Earth cannot be moved. The bible clearly and obviously states that the Earth does not and cannot be moved.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Obviously this is a reference to the foundations God set for the celestial bodies. You know these planets and stars have gravitational foundations. God is watching over our system, it is considered sacred and protected. It cannot be moved outside of its foundations, as God is protecting us. A single movement of another cosmic body could be catastrophic to the Earth. In other words we cannot be moved. It's clear and obvious that we are protected.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
But it doesn't say this. It says that they don't move. It was also believed at the time that the Earth didn't move at all.
Biblical authors did not realize that the Earth moved but decided to describe it's movement within a gravitational field. They believe, and wrote, that it didn't move at all.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Did you just ignore everything I just said? Perhaps it was a reference to humanity as well, as is used often in that context.
"Say among the heathen that the LORD reigns: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously." Either it was a reference to the Earth being on strong foundations or the people having strong foundations.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
Ignore? I've been addressing everything you bring up.
Wait, now it means something else? You were just explaining that it was talking about gravity, and now PERHAPS it's talking about something else altogether?
HAHAHAHA
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle I was saying it either meant one or the other, nothing else. Wasn't that obvious or were you so clouded by your belief that you absolutely must shut out christianity and the God of the Bible?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
So how are you going to explain it if you don't know what it means?
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle I believe it's referring to the gravitational foundations of the Earth. We can't be moved, we simply can't. We can point to fat old Sam on the couch and say he can't be moved, that doesn't mean to say his blood isn't flowing or his thoughts have stopped.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
Not only can we be moved, but have been.
If you think otherwise, then you obviously don't understand gravity either.
Garbage in, garbage out :)
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle If you're talking about the pre-Big Splash world (Big Splash is a term used for the Giant Impact Hypothesis) then that's irrelevant. We are talking of God's EARTH, not the world before it. Please tell me, too curious.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv as far as the earth can't be moved, ya it does move. The tilt undergos nutation,a slight, irregular motion with a main period of 18.6 years.The orientation (rather than the angle) of the Earth's axis also changes over time, precessing around in a complete circle over each 25,800 year cycle. the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart,just 15 cm per year . how much more moving can it do?It move in every way possible.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 It is established on GRAVITATIONAL foundations. If there was a wandering planet that wandered through the solar system, it would move the Earth out of its orbit, it would totally destabilize everything. However that won't happen.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv LOL ya your just out right making shit up now.That is not even close to what it says.Even the hardest verbal gymnastics wont get you from firm immovable to established on gravitational foundations that only a wandering planet can destabilize LOL come on man talk about over reaching,is this the kind of silly rationalizing you have to do rather than admit maybe this part of the bible is a mistake?
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 No, not a mistake. The Earth moves a tiny bit each year. Everything moves, even things 'immovable'. We have been set on gravitational foundations. I explain it to you over and over again. I don't care if it deviates a few inches over so and so years or months, a building moves along with the continents, yet it has strong foundations.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv so the earth moves around the sun away from the sun wobbles back and forth orbits the galaxy and the galaxy is spinning and is moving through the universe and to you that means the earth is firm and unmovable???just what kind of movement did the bible mean?(insert excuse)I think you have failed to make your case here.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 I just made my case. It's that it has been set in a firm gravitational foundation, yet Job 38:33 makes it clear the earth is controlled by the heavens. This shows that we have gravitational foundations that cannot be shaken (I explain it over and over again) but we go in cycles. duh.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv we go in cycles duh???the earth moving out of its orbit a little every year is not a cycle it will never move back.The only case you made here is there is no lie you won't tell yourself to hang on to a 2000 ear old delusion.And that there is no fact you won't ignore if it gets in the way of this silly superstition.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 2,000 years? You're wrong there, Some books in the Old testament tell of times around 50,000 years ago. The point has been made. Do you think Earth will ever move past Mars or Jupiter unless something catasrophic happened? My point is that the Earth has been established on foundations, gravitational foundations that cannot be moved. Earth is protected. Everything moves, everything deviates. We have the basic foundations. A building can have strong foundations but it still moves
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv LOL so if it moved past mars then you would agree tat the bible is wrong LOL what about the sun will grow and swallow the earth some day?let me guess the little fact of science is inconvenient so (insert excuse)Your point might be that but the bibles is the flat earth does not move. show me one copy older than 2000 years .The bible says nothing about things 50 000 years ago.well i guess when you can make words mean whatever you want them to whenever you want it just might
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Perhaps. Earth will never be moved past Mars. I know the sun is growing larger and larger, but you've got to take into account that in Revelation it describes the universe/world going up in flames before the complete demise of the universe. It will be completely unprecedented, the universe will end in a single instantaneous moment. But we're talking about the past, not the future.... CONT(1)
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv again that is the opposite of what it happening t the universe it is getting colder that thermodynamics is a bitch..but your evidence for any of this is what?the bible is true cause the bible says so.come on man your just making assertions people lived longer prove it what happened so that now we don't and dont quote a bible verse until you can prove the bible true(you have not) then its pointless to quote it as evidence
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 CONT (2) and Exodus 20:6 tells us how God lavishes unfailing love for a thousand generations. The traditional Biblical generation was 40 years, so humanity has been around for at least 40,000 years. However at first the generations apoptosis was not a huge roll and people aged less and lived longer, in fact very near 1,000 years. Since these earlier generations were more years, this shows the date for humanity is 50,000 years give or take, as paleontology describes. So yes it does
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv again the bible cay say what it wants but the PROOF is it no older than at best 1000 years after the death of jesus if there was a jesus at all.A lot of the evidence points to the fact he was not real.As well as a list of the stuff the bible says happened most evidence shows it did not..king herod killing all the male babies you think someone else would have told that story..nope.If all you have for "proof" is the bible you have failed.sorry
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 It has been estimated that, at the beginning of the first century, there likely would have been only about ten to thirty boy babies under the age of two in the little town. The killing of a few children in an obscure Judean community would scarcely have attracted much attention in the notably bloody world of that day. Herod was an extremely cruel leader (and desperate to his throne) he killed several of his own family members. He could do the same to any commoner who was a threat.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv he was not cruel he only killed a few children in an obscure judean community that's not so bad right?I mean iit was bad enuff that the bible made a big deal out of it but hey.The bible does call it "Massacre of the Innocents." but your right it was only a few kids that not a massacre at all again the bible is wrong.but again we see you changing words to make the bible fit what you want it to mean not what it does mean.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 I made it clear he was cruel. history is not very kind to Herod as it records many of his atrocities. It is well established in secular writings that Herod murdered the old and young and did not even spare his wives. Herod murdered many people, He was a bloody man.... CONT...(1)
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 ..CONT.. Yet this massacre is mentioned by the non-Christian writer Macrobius (A.D. 395-423). Here is his comment,
When he [emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered to kill, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son.
I never said it wasn't wrong, I made it clear that Herod was cruel. That was a very evil act. I never changed anything I said, where'd you get that from?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv no what you were doing was yet again making an excuse for why no one outside the bible mentioned it.No big deal only a few kids no one would have made note of it...everything else the guy did but this one thing.Ya almost 500 years after the fact its gets mentioned COME ON !!! LOL.You said it would not attract to much attention but yet 400+ years later they are still talking about it.The only reason it got mentioned by augustus is he read it in the bible.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 No, emperor Augustus caesar heard of it, as I just mentioned. By the way it was MACROBUIS who wrote of it, not Augustus Caesar. Macrobius was non-christian, as I just mentioned. I didn't say it was a big deal. Did you know how much killing was going on then? I said it wouldn't matter to such a big empire then because of some obscure king's business in an obscure Judean town that didn't really matter to Rome.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 So as I just pointed out, you cannot say the Massacre of Innocents never happened. Why? Well for starters Macrobius mentions Augustus' reaction to hearing about the news. Unless you can say Macrobius or emp. Augustus never existed, you can't say the Massacre never happened. Even if there was no evidence for it in Roman records (which there is, as I just pointed out) it wouldn't have mattered because the Jews weren't important too much to them and they wouldn't have cared.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv no one moment you are saying its not a big deal quote "The killing of a few children in an obscure Judean community would scarcely have attracted much attention" Again I know you like word games but not much attention obscure are all words to mean its not a big deal.and yes Macrobuis sorry my fault see its ok to admit you are wrong about something.give it a try some time
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Thanks, and yes I'll admit I'm wrong when I see how I am. It's just that I was saying yes it was a big deal, a human life is huge. Herod murdered (unjustified killing) many of these babies. Herod didn't care. He would kill no matter how many babies if they were a threat to the throne. He even killed his own family members and friends. I was saying it wasn't huge news to the Roman empire because there were so many things going on at that time. Nobody cared about a little town.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv you have been shown you were wrong several times your refusal to admit it does not change the that you were and are wrong." I was saying it wasn't huge news to the Roman empire because there were so many things going on at that time. Nobody cared about a little town." but yet 500 years later they are still talking about it and A roman emp new about it come on make up your mind its one or the other Dont fall off your bike trying to back pedal
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 The only reason we are talking about it today, as you might have guessed, was because the Bible said it happened, not because another historian said so. The very existence of Macrobius' claims give more credibility to the Slaughter of the Innocents story. Do you think another king's petty business over an even pettier town would matter to him? Absolutely not. Yet it is recorded in the Bible as a great evil, that's why we're talking about it. Because it is said in the Bible.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178,). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time. Please do not get me wrong, one innocent child being killed is a horrific tragedy. The fact remains, the Slaughter of Innocents did happen, you just don't want to admit it.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv Why do most if not all historians say it is only legend?Why is the bible the only place to mention it, not ever luke talks about it?I'll tell you why cause it didn't happen. Geza Vermes and E. P. Sanders regard the story as creative hagiography.[11] Robert Eisenman argues that the story may have its origins in Herod's murder of his own sons, an act which made a deep impression at the time.It is a myth like alot of the bible.You have no evidence AGAIN.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 The Bible is not the only place to mention it. As I said, ***Macrobius*** mentioned the act and Augustus' reaction (and the Bible does not mention Augustus' reaction). A while ago you were admitting you were wrong. Most historians also thought Troy was a legend, but later turned out to be true. Is it really that improbable that Herod would kill a handful of babies if they were a potential threat to his throne?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Besides Matthew getting it right about Herod's personality, Paul L. Maier has pointed out, "Josephus wrote for a Greco-Roman audience, which would have little concern for infant deaths. Greeks regularly practiced infanticide as a kind of birth control, particularly in Sparta, while the Roman father had the right not to lift his baby off the floor after birth, letting it die”.
So infanticide was not that big of a deal back then. That's one way Josephus wouldn't write about it.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv Byzantine liturgy estimated 14,000 Holy Innocents while an early Syrian list of saints stated the number at 64,000. Coptic sources raise the number to 144,000 and place the event on 29 December.Why did they need to lie?You people cling to this because you think it is some kinda prophecy and a vague one at that.I would admit it if there was evidence for it,s far there is not.
BTW biblical Flat earth is the topic of this vid.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Yet Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimated that the populace of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth to be about 300 people. The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven. Everybody makes mistakes, even christians, so can you blame them for coming up with a wrong number? Sheesh, don't tell me scientists don't make mistakes. You might as well say THEY were liars, but they were only mistakes.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv oh i know they make mistake the only one saying they don't make mistakes is you.What difference does the population make?instead of coming up with excuses for why no one ever said anything about it other than the bible and not even anyone other than one guy in bible why not admit it might not have happened?If a scientist was faced with this much evidence he would consed he might be mistaken.Only the dogmatic theists would take this stance.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 So are you denying Macrobius existed, or perhaps his account of Augustus Caesar was wrong, or something else? Hmmm, so you must deny Macrobius' claim. Josephus got a lot of his info of Herod from Nicolas of Damascus, who was Herod's friend. Herod already had a bad reputation, do you think Nicolas (AGAIN, Herod's friend) would say anything else to blacken his friend's reputation? Yet the only 'evidence' you point out is that no other historian mentions this apparent 'obscure' act.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv I deny there is any validity to something macrobius said 400+years after the fact.Augustus was talking about herod killing his OWN children (but yes there is some doubt as to if macrobius existed) Augustus said QUOTE "he said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son."nothing about young Jew being killed AT ALL it may have been (by christians) attributed to that event but clearly all evidence points away from it.Even the bible is unclear about if jesus went to egypt
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Macrobius (ca. AD 400), one of the last pagan writers in Rome, in his book Saturnalia: “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he [the Emperor Augustus] remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig [Gr. hys] than his son’ [Gr. huios]” (2.4.11; cited in Brown 1993:226). Mac. may have gotten some of his historical facts garbled, but he could have given us a chronological key as well.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv funny the quote you post is from a bible web site.
Alan Cameron notes, the complete name of the first candidate is attested in an inscription to be "Flavius Macrobius Maximianus", while the second is excluded because "A praepositus must at this period have been a eunuch."
one way or the other it lends no credence to your claim that 400 + years later he thinks maybe augustus said something about herod killing his own sons again nothing to do with the biblical account.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 I don't care, you copied something from... was it Secular Web? but whatever, the point is that "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old" Did you not get that part? I don't understand, you were just admitting you were wrong. Ha ha, you realized it would give credence to the Bible. It does have nothing to do with the Biblical account, Macrobius said himself in his book Saturnalia, why don't you read the WHOLE comment I posted?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 See Macrobius is saying that Augustus heard of what had been done, and included his own baby in the killing. That's what he meant, it was a reference to the slaughter of innocents, but that Herod had included his own child, his own baby, to be killed. AS PART OF the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, King of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed AS WELL.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv LOL no that is not what he is saying at all..i know you want that to be what hes saying all he is talking about is herod killing his own son..The difference from a biblical web site and one that is not is biblical web sites LIE they only tell parts of the story.BUT all that a side 400 years later macrbius said augustus maybe heard about herod and maybe said something about him killing his own son?And that is what you call evidence?
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@angryspidertv cont.so if i was to say to you some guy 400 years after jesus was killed said he read about a guy that heard something about it might not have happened from someone who might have been there,you would take that as evidence it didn't happen? See if something fits what you want to be true you will believe it. look up hearsay,hell judge judy would toss this out in one second.you'd think augustus would have said "oh you mean the guy that can raise the dead?the water to wine guy?"nope
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 The lengths you will go. The claim is right there in Macrobius' book Saturnalia, nobody changed anything. Macrobius did not get it from hearsay, he was writing about actual events. QUOTE: "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son’"
As PART OF the slaughter of boys two years old, he killed his own BABY son whom he also had.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv if its not hearsay,what is?that the deff of hersay. look at the quote you posted no where does it say anything about any other boys other than herods.Then christians go on to make all kids of shit up about the event.144000, 34000 the numbers go all over the place.Then you say no it was only a few,so much for bible prophecy where it says ALL the young would be killed.Let me guess ALL ment only a few boys in one small town... the lengths you will go to
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@angryspidertv Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:so how do we verify what macrobius wrote?or do you think everything in Saturnalia is true?or like the bible just that parts you like?
hummm this is one of the times you can admit you are wrong if ya want.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 The number of people in a town should not be considered a huge mistake, much like how secular scientists made mistakes in the past but then correct them. Honestly, it's a number that's not that important, like the number of asteroids in the kuiper belt. I've told you over and over again, but instead you choose to justify your claims by saying everything in Saturnalia isn't true. Pff you'll take Herod as an evil character but won't believe he would kill babies if he was scared?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv I never said I don't think herod would do it I said there was no evidence other than HEARSAY that he did.Further christians lied about how many children were killed and that the event could hardly be said to fit the bible prophecy of "kill ALL the young ones".it was you that over and over mentioned the population of the town.But I see you fail to admit it was hearsay evidence if the number is not that important why do you keep bringing it up ?why do you always dodge questions?
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 1. No christians lied. It was an honest mistake, everybody does this. Merely a mispresentation of unimportant numbers. Why would they even want to lie? It wasn't a lie.
2. You might say Macrobius' claim was false. However, he did not get his sources from the Bible or from people who read the Bible. We have two radically different sources saying the same thing, both within the boundaries of Herod's predictable character.
3. I said the number was small, not unimportant.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv honest mistake my ass THEY LIED the number grew and grew.why they needed a bigger number so it would fit the prophecy.happens alot people making up facts to fit yet another failed bible prediction.your quotes "So infanticide was not that big of a deal back then"yet you feel an roman emp would know about it.quote"I was saying it wasn't huge news to the Roman empire" must have been for an emp to be talking about it .your willfully ignorant about this.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children." Where does it say anywhere that the number had to be huge? It WAS, indeed, an honest mistake. They didn't change the numbers around purposefully, what would be the point? No, it wasn't huge news. Augustus ONLY MENTIONS it. It's obsolete compared to other things happening at that time. You keep switching here.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv cont ..this is too funny you contradict yourself all in one comment quote"Merely a mispresentation of unimportant numbers. then right on the end of your comment you say"I said the number was small, not unimportant." make up your mind.is the number important or not?"he did not get his sources from the Bible or from people who read the Bible" really where did he get them from?cause no one know where he got it from we DO know it was hearsay ,that is a fact.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 I meant what happened was not unimportant, but it was not important to the world back then. Seriously, you think I'M the one who can't make up his mind? *snort* do you think it happened or not? I think you realized it did happen, but you realized if it did happen it would validate Jesus' existence, so you're denying it now.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv as always (snort)must be the drugs your doing to come up with this bullshit. you always that's not what I meant,that's not what they meant, that's not what the word means.its not hearsay. you can't make up your mind about anything you say. you flip flop back and forth. Merely a mispresentation of unimportant numbers.I said the number was small, not unimportant.total contradiction no way around it. bible said ALL THE YOUNG clearly by your own admission not all, not even very many
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 It said all the young in the town, not all the young in the world. Herod can't decree that ALL the children in the whole world be killed, only in that town. I was not flip flopping back and forth. You're hardly listening to what I'm saying. The number of babies was counted wrongly. However it was recounted (the population of the town was around 300 or something) so this makes it even more plausible. I already made clear what I held to. You're just not listening. Pointless.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Shall I explain it to you again? I believe all the babies in Bethlehem were killed by Herod. I believe the number of the population was around 300. I believe this was well inside Herod's character, as you should too. I believe Macrobius (an OUTSIDE source) wrote of it. I believe it shouldn't have been recorded by most other historians because it wasn't important to the world back then compared to other things going on. I believe the numbers were re-estimated and correct.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv Shall I explain it to you again I don't care what you believe.I am interested in what can be supported by EVIDENCE. NOTHING you"BELIEVE is supported by evidence.If it was prophecy and important to the story why is it so vague why did it say ALL not a few or some ALL.quote from you" It said all the young in the town," no its say under 2 and in the region.killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, not even close to the prohpecy
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Matthew 2: "...from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her childrn, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more’”
The existence of Macrobius mentioning the slaughter is sufficient. Nobody would be talking about it because, as I mentioned, it was hardly noteworthy.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Macrobius could not have gotten his information from hearsay, as I just mentioned an act like what Herod did (although truly evil) was happening all over the world, and wasn't even comparable with all the assassinations and killings going on at that time (before Macrobius). Unless he had read it in the Bible (which he didn't) or unless he had heard it of somebody who had read it in the Bible (the Bible says nothing about Augustus here) then your claims are empty.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv ok really you need to look up the word hearsay you obviously don't know what it means.Let me help you /unless augustus said it to macrobius its hearsay/.You have no idea how he got the information.Which he didn't get from the bible?how do you know that?again speculation ,nothing more We know people lie about this event why is this not one of the lies?your claims are empty and baseless.
hearsay -
heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 I know what hearsay is. However I can look at a History book and see the information within, that's not hearsay. A president can give a speech but that won't be considered quite as hearsay. You could read a written document, YOU might think it's hearsay. Besides Macrobius did not get his sources from the Bible, or people who had read the Bible. He was a pagan non-christian. That any source would write about such a seemingly 'obscure' event is enough for me.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv LOL im not a christian and I read the bible dawkins hitchens all read the bible most atheists I know have read the bible that is a silly argument and you know it.history book is one thing its verified why do you think it is that the court won't allow hearsay?is it because people lie have bad memories.BTW it is not a historical fact as I pointed out most if not all historians inc christians think its not an historical event.I do agree it is possible but unlikely.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@angryspidertv lastly you can look at a history book see the info within,but what makes it hearsay is if no one else can read the history book you're quoting, and the events you talk about are in question.Or talking about a president from 400 years ago that and saying someone might have told him about something that may or may not have happened.I'm sure you know the difference and you're just again being willfully ignorant.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 HAHAHA You're saying I'M the one being willfully ignorant? Macrobius was a writer who flourished in those times, it is highly doubtful he got all of his sources from hearsay. You might even say Macrobius was there to witness the feast of Saturnalia in this aristocrat's home where they were talking about something that had been said (and most likely had been documented in the records) There were many things lost after the fall of Rome, perhaps the record of an obscure event was one.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv ok really get a dictionary look up the word you don't know what it means .if you did this would be a pointless argument.all you have "he must have done this" or "it must have been this way". why cause you want it to be that way?This is why I think you 'er being willfully ignorant.for the last time ANY INFO YOU GET THAT IS NOT FIRST HAND IS HEARSAY IF HE GOT IT FROM A DOCUMENT AND THAT DOCUMENT IS GONE ..HEARSAY IF WE JUST HAVE HIS WORD HEARSAY you can't be this stupid
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 On the contrary, I think it's your claims that are empty and baseless. You're attempting to refute a historical event that is well likely possible, that most likely would not have reached other sources or historians, only by saying 'he could have gotten that information from hearsay' even though Macrobius most likely never read the Bible (and certainly nobody on the street would have heard about Augustus' reaction)
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv baseless you say Macrobius would not know of the story from the bible and you base this on what?you say the source was not hearsay and base it on what?you say he his source wasn't from someone who read the bible based on what?you just make shit up cause you want it to be true.I can't imagine your out cry if science had such little proof for evolution.Darwins book has been talked about by other people it must be true.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 It is based on the veritable fact that Macrobius was a pagan non-christian who had no interest in Christianity. Why don't you give me evidence that Macrobius got his writings from hearsay instead while addressing the issues I have with his claims being hearsay. Macrobius gives no mention to the Bible, by the way, whereas Darwin does :P
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv well unless he was 400 fucking years old it was hearsay.Unless it was told right to his face by a 400 year old roman emp the it was hearsay.Other wise we would have the org source and not need Macrobius at all.why can't you understand this simple point?a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as her evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay GET IT?
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@angryspidertv again you have no idea if Macrobius had any interest in christianity or not you'er just making that up off the top of your head.Lots of people are not christians and still know the stories.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@angryspidertv "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant...so Marobius saying someone told him that someone told augustus is the very definition of hearsay clearly you don't understand what the word means.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 I told you, he must have gotten his information from the royal records or something of that nature. Saturnalia contains an account of the discussions held at the house of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus during the holiday of the Saturnalia. Now Vettius Agorius Praetextatus was a wealthy pagan aristocrat and was a high priest in the cults of many gods. Macrobius was a writer who's works became rather well-known, I find it highly doubtful he got all his sources from hearsay, if not any
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv cont .. The number of babies was counted wrongly. However it was recounted (the population of the town was around 300)Byzantine liturgy estimated 14,000 Holy Innocents while an early Syrian list of saints stated the number at 64,000. Coptic sources raise the number to 144,000 Hardly wrong counting it was out and out lying to make the story better. The massacre is not mentioned in Luke's gospel. guess luke didn't think it was important,not like it was bible prophecy or anything.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 What? I already told you why, and the previous numbers were not meant to decieve, ignorant moron, they were numerical mistakes. Luke, as I might have already told you, skips several years after Jesus' birth (and the incident of Herod between them). So no it isn't a lie, no Luke doesn't mention it.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv Géza Vermes described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his time.Ed Parish Sanders Grawemeyer Award for the best book on religion published in the 1980s for Jesus and Judaism,Robert Eisenman Biblical scholar, theoretical writer, historian, archaeologist director of the Institute for the Study of Judaeo-Christian Origins at California State U, Russell Seibert Professor of Ancient History Western Michigan University.
all guys that know more than you, all say it never happened.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 No, many people even doubted the accuracy of revelation, even Martin Luther and John Calvin. Now we have changed our minds about it.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv cont... so if it was not a big deal why does the bible mention it?and why only luke?He and matt mention less interesting events it is a little strange that such a tail as this would get mention from the other guys as well?The baby Jesus having to flee for his life,not note worthy?even if it was fulfilling prophecy?yup sound like bullshit ta me.maybe if they had not waited 60 years to write it down they would not have forgotten about it.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 It was a big deal, it was a story that told before Jesus' birth and the lengths of Herod's evil. But I just explained how the killing of babies, both born and unborn, wasn't a big deal to Romans, but the Bible describes the act of murder of evil. Luke describes Jesus' life, not the things that happened before. And fulfilled prophesies, all 'coincidentally' being fulfilled. This was a big deal from a Biblical perspective, but not from a worldly one (as yet would be)
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv you do it again you say no big deal the romans could care less about it,then go on to say that you emp augustus talking about and 400+ years later macrobius talking about it.My guess it macrobius read it and then wrote about it.Or are you saying he was over 500 years old and Augustus told him in person?majority of Herod biographers, followed by biblical scholars, hold that the massacre is "legend and not historical. Why did luke not bring it up?
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 I don't know why Luke doesn't bring it up... Macrobius was a non-christian (more than likely pagan) Roman writer. It is highly doubtful he got the idea of the massacre of innocents from the Bible. Augustus' reaction is not said in the Bible, so macrobius must have gotten his account somewhere else. If he had no qualms killing his own sons/friends/wife/MOTHER do you really think it's so implausible Herod would kill no matter how many babies in a remote part of his kingdom?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus didn't record this event in any of his writings. gotta wonder why?I know you guys need this to be true but its just not ,like the flat earth is just not flat the bible says it is, their is no way around it.You can tap dance, change words, whatever.the fact you have to do all this speaks volumes to the validity of your argument.like I said if I was to say the bible says the earth is purple you wouldn't give it the time of day.this however ,well...
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Let's settle the flat Earth problem later. For now let's stick with this. There are several reasons why Josephus did not record the Massacre. There were some pivotal events in the first century AD that Josephus does not record, like the episode of the golden Roman shields in Jerusalem (big pivotal point). It should also be noted he got much information from Nicolas of Damascus, a friend of Herod and indeed Herod's own historian.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv sorry 100 years after jesus not 1000 typo.
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Also, the Bible makes references to gravity literally thousands of times. Just because the word 'gravity' never appears in the Bible does not mean to say it denies its existence. Look at any single verse that has the word 'fall' in it.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
Understanding that something falls doesn't explain gravity. It's just an observation. Understanding the dynamic behind a falling object is another thing.
Fall eh? It says the stars will fall to earth. This is impossible. If they understood gravity, then they would know that the Earth would move towards the star, not vice versa... and all of the stars cannot move towards the earth.
Try again.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle If you are referencing Revelation, which I think you are, here it is:
"Then the second angel sounded; and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became as blood;and a third of the living creatures in the sea died and a third of the ships were destroyed." (Rev:8:8-9) Revelation speaks of other falling stars and the after-affects accurately depict meteor collisions. 1 Thessalonians 5:3 disaster will come suddenly upon us.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
So the biblical authors didn't know the difference between the stars and meteors?
Actually, they said stars. They were too ignorant to know that the little points of light are not their actual size :)
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle 1 Cor 15:41 talks about every star being different. Doesn't seem to match up to your interpretation of their thinking little points of light, which basically all look the same to us. God did not give a complete scientific revelation to the ancients because it was besides the point. God is a God of surprises, look at how much it blew us away, all these scientific discoveries. He gave us hints, but not the whole thing. And still, the Jews would call any celestial body a 'star'.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
The stars were different in color or brightness. Some of them moved (planets). This is no mystery.
Surprises? More like totally missed the mark on everything. Totally.
The bible doesn't need to be a textbook, but it does need to be right.
It fails.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@angryspidertv as far as job he then goes on to say god controls the lightning and that it rains because there are jars of water in heaven and that only god could know when animals will give birth. job new nothing about the world he lived in(big surprise),Pleiades and Orion he thinks are gods as are all stars.Snow and hail have homes "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; sound FLAT, job 38:14 i see you left it out would clay under a seal come out like a sphere? no it would come out FLAT
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 Basically saying all things come by God. The verse describes God's ultimate power over the universe. He did set the physical constants in motion, after all. People can't give dates for the exact birth of something. What is your evidence for thinking Pleiades and Orion are gods? There is none, you are avoiding the subject. About Job 38:14 I will look into that. I'm sure there's an explanation. There are hundreds of scientific accuracies in the Bible, don't avoid them.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angryspidertv What is your evidence for thinking Pleiades and Orion are gods? I don't think, they are gods I know they are stars and gases only a moron would think they are Gods like the bible says. There are hundreds of scientific accuracies in the Bible, don't avoid them.Ya so just ignore all the wrong ones then?people can give the exact date sorry your just wrong ..i mean the bible is
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@angryspidertv What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?ummm does job mean static electricity?in the sky?here job had no idea how ice is formed From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens job thinks god send lightning Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? epic fail on the weather Job.don't forget job's dragon LOL
alltiedup217 2 months ago
@alltiedup217 He is describing his total power and influence over the heavens. Do humans have complete control over everything? God has filled His universe with His presence. He is EVERYWHERE, God is talking about His complete domination over the elements. The ancients obviously knew ice didn't form in a womb. Poetic language, the Bible is filled with it. Job's 'dragon'. Not sure where you're getting that from. Are you talking about the Behemoth and Leviathan?
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv so if its wrong its out of context poetic or whatever excuse you can come up with the tap dance around the fact it is WRONG..and his dragon must be poetic LOL why is it obvious they knew ice didn't come from a womb or that god controlled the lighting?the rain was water kept in jars in heaven..oh ya thats stupid it must mean its poetic. it is obvious to us ..to them mystery so much for god telling them
alltiedup217 2 months ago
This guy's getting all his facts wrong... He thinks the young earth model is the only viable christian view on the Bible and science... He needs to do more research.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
Both young and old earth creation involves putting the Earth in a geocentric model.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle No, it doesn't. In medieval times many people did not have access to scripture - the catholic church was burning christians, hanging them, etc. These people seem to have been very fond of torture. The geocentric model made sense to ancient people, but now that we have science it does not directly contradict scripture
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
You're talking about something else. Regardless of the age of the earth interpreted, the scriptures clearly state the earth as the oldest body in the universe, that it doesn't move, and you even have instances in scripture where the sun is commanded to stop moving (Joshua 10:12).
All this yadda yadda about catholics and torture has nothing to do with the subject. The bible always describes a geocentric system.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle haha... so you obviously haven't learned a thing about old earth creationism. The oldest body of the universe... you definitely are looking upon young earth science as evidence against all of christianity. Visit Evidence for God from Science, a well-know old earth creationist site. Once there type 'creation week' in the search window. I assure you your answers are there.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
So you come here to tell me to tell me I'm wrong, and your explanation is for me to go and research the answer you haven't given?
I was an OEC for 20 years.
Seems someone is lacking a little bit of discernment :)
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Hmhmhm then this proves you're unknowledgeable of how things work in the Old Earth view and in the Bible. If you truly knew what you were dealing with, you wouldn't be saying all the standard misconceptions most people get. Most don't bother to take a second look.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
ah yes, just what you were waiting for eh? "this proves you're unknowledgeable..." proof positive without you having to do anything! Game over, you win!
hehe, I love how creationist "proof" is just all around us huh :)
BTW, "proving" anything to you people is impossible, considering that Christians themselves (including OEC) cannot agree on damn near anything :P
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle Sure, but I could say the same stuff about atheists. Nobody really ever agrees on every single aspect of life... some vary greatly, some are less. The reason YECs do not accept OEC is because they are afraid of 'conforming' to science. You seriously HAVEN'T done your research, have you.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
I'm not talking about every aspect, I'm talking about MAJOR differences.
OEC doesn't conform to science either. They still believe in creation. They do not believe in evolution. They still believe in a higher power. They still believe in the afterlife. NONE of this conforms to science either.
You keep saying I haven't done my research. I was a Christian for 20 years and can already tell I know volumes more about the subject than you do.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
It has nothing to do with not wanting to conform with science. YECs take the bible for what it says, and don't want to rewrite and reinterpret.
OEC has a little more sense in that taking the bible for what it says is stupid in modern times however, they still hold antiquated superstition and unsubstantiated viewpoints the same.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle **SIGH** you haven't dug into this enough... I say it over and over again to people like you, science is merely the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." You can't do experiments on angels or such spiritual creatures that are watching us from a higher dimension. That's the whole Bblcl concept of FAITH. It also says to test all things. So far I'm seeing no direct contras with Bible and mainstream science.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
So the bible says we evolved, that we were formed through natural processes with natural explanations?
The bible is rife with contradictions to science.
Correct, you can't do experiments on angels and such. You also have no evidence for their existence. Therefore, their concepts are not scientific.
But there are many parts of the bible that we can test, and every one of its claims which can be tested have failed miserably.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle explain how it has been tested and failed miserably
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
The Earth moves. It is round. The moon is not a light. The Earth will not abide forever. Some plants that bear seeds are poisonous. Sprinkling blood from an animal around your house will not cure diseases. The list goes on. Many things contrary to what the bible states have been proven.
You really haven't dug into this enough.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle The Earth does move. Yet it is set in a gravitational foundation and is 'hung over nothing' as the Bible says. There are several articles on RTB addressing common atheist misconceptions like yours about the moon being light... it was described as a light, because basically it is. The sun isn't 'light' it's a source of light, and the moon reflects it. You're talking about the Exodus now, visit the videos about the Exodus Decoded, it has a lot on there.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
The bible says the earth doesn't move, period. In several spots.
The moon is not a light. Reflecting light doesn't make it a light. If I shine a light on my skin, or a mirror, or a pack of cigarettes, and light gets reflected, does that make those things a light?
Of course not.
The biblical authors believed the moon to be a light. More proof that they had no divine insight or influence in their writings.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@malignantpoodle The Great light and the Lesser light was obvious in meaning they would illuminate the sky. Would your arm illuminate the sky? It's kind of obvious its meaning. You only have insufficient claims supported by... well, nothing basically.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
@angryspidertv
I see, so now if something is a light depends upon its luminance, not whether or not it reflects light?
The bible says the moon is a light. If you want to say it's something else, that's fine. But that's you saying it, not the bible.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
@angryspidertv is that all you have..."no what it really means is", then insert what you want it to mean?and that is your evidence it does not say the earth is flat(it clearly does)
alltiedup217 2 months ago
The geocentric model of the universe is just as valid
the acentric. There is a misconception out there that
the heliocentric (now acentric) model was "proven".
Motion in space is all relative motion from an
observational standpoint, and forces can likewise be
explained from the perspective of different cosmological
reference frames.
Consider that if you regard yourself as being at rest anywhere
in the universe, the universe will appear to rotate around you.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO
Incorrect. We can observe other bodies in the solar system that are obviously not rotating around the earth, rather are rotating around the sun. This is how heliocentric views took hold; it could be demonstrated that venus and mars were not in fact orbiting the earth. The perspective argument only holds for comparing the sun and earth together. But we see other bodies on their orbits not around the earth.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle No sir... you are incorrect. In any closed system (the universe is a closed system, it is finite, so says science!) ANY point can be used as a fixed reference point and ALL laws of physics are MAINTAINED. Yes, the bible says the earth is the center of the universe and does not move. It's a matter of perspective. It seems God's perspective is more likely to be correct than yours. BTW, the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian. Perhaps that misconception is causing you to err.
KJVWordofGod 1 year ago
@KJVWordofGod
Actually the universe is expanding, so it's incorrect to say that any point can be used as a fixed reference point because the universe is not fixed.
Your consistent display of ignorance is little cause for more of my time.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle No matter that the universe did expand. (I hold it no longer does so. There are red shifts, but there are also BLUE shifts. Color shifts are not reliable indicator of expansion anyway.) Even so, the universe is still finite. Even your scientist's say so. Therefore the rule stands. As for your claiming that I AM ignorant....ad hominem is the last resort of a failed argument.
KJVWordofGod 10 months ago
@KJVWordofGod
The "rule" does not stand. Saying that the universe isn't expanding IS ignorant. And on that note, calling you by a label doesn't change the facts (be nice if it did for you eh?). If that were the case, then Christianity would be wrong for all of the Christians that call me an asshole, cocksucker, or make threats against me. Stupid fucking logic.
"Your scientists" lol! Anyway, a finite universe doesn't change anything here. Keep grasping at straws.
malignantpoodle 10 months ago
@KJVWordofGod Who are these scientists to whom you refer? I just completed a university astronomy course. You should never take a course like this if you want to cling to beliefs of a non-expanding universe and a finite universe. Evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
ndrthrdr1 9 months ago
@KJVWordofGod
"ANY point can be used as a fixed reference point and ALL laws of physics are MAINTAINED."
This is true. BUT because everything is also relative, that means that you will observe different things from different reference points. Meaning that you won't see the same thing from Earth that you do from say...Mars. Anddd, we've seen what the Solar System looks like from every point from Earth to Pluto and even a few thousand miles from the sun. And they support heliocentricism.
tskasa1 10 months ago
@KJVWordofGod
"the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian."
Ahhh...the "No True Scottsman" Fallacy...you're speaking bunk...
tskasa1 10 months ago
@KJVWordofGod, if the earth does not rotate, satellites in geocentric orbit (orbits placed at a distance where they match the rotation of the earth) are merely sitting in space, directly above the earth, and hovering for no apparent reason. Not a very logical stance to take.
NoAntecessor 10 months ago
@NoAntecessor Gravity is a very weak force. Elevated to a certain point, the satellite reaches equilibrium between the earth and the universe. Newton's 1st law of motion then rules. I ask you, is it not illogical to accept an object spinning @ over 1,000 mph @ the equator in one direction has winds @ the equator that blow in the opposite direction? Even in BOTH directions? Is it not logical to hold that the earth does not move and the winds are generated by heating and cooling from the sun?
KJVWordofGod 10 months ago
@KJVWordofGod, and this "equilibrium point" just happens to match, to the very kilometer, the 35,786 kilometers above the earth predicted by Herman Potočnik in 1928, using nothing but newtonian physics based on the rotation of the earth. How very... unlikely. Honestly, you'll have to come up with an explanation for such a stupendous coincidence. As for the motion of wind, it fits perfectly with our understanding of the earth's rotation. How else does one account for the Coriolis effect?
NoAntecessor 10 months ago
@NoAntecessor Did I not cite Newton's 1st Law? Why should it surprise you Newtonian physics apply? Your response to the wind motion was not a response at all. You said yes the wind is understandable. Help me understand. Give me some reasoned explanation to my previously mentioned point. The Coriolis effect is an APPARENT deflection in the rotating earth model. In the stationary earth, rotating universe model, the coriolis effect is a REAL deflection. Gravity is weak. The universe is electric.
KJVWordofGod 10 months ago
Let's break this down one part at a time, as these comments have a size limit. If you are arguing that geostationary satellites reach an equilibrium point at exactly 35,786 kilometers above the earth, as gravity just happens to zero out at that exact point, how do you explain the astounding coincidence that this is also the exact point predicted in 1928 as being the distance for a geostationary orbit? Also, why then do satellites orbiting at further distances not fly free of the earth's gravity?
NoAntecessor 10 months ago
@malignantpoodle You are clearly stupid because if we believed in heliocentric theory, and geocentric theory was "right", then we could NEVER make it to another terrestrial surface in this solar system.
R1ckr011 10 months ago
@R1ckr011
You are clearly stupid because I'm saying that geocentric theory is wrong.
malignantpoodle 10 months ago
@malignantpoodle i replied to the wrong person. my bad. it was to KJV moron. whoops
R1ckr011 10 months ago
@R1ckr011
All good.
Check this out. I've brought up the same thing that you did to people that still believe in geocentrism. You know what they told me? "That's because NASA knows that it's a geocentric system and does all of the calculations for that but continues to lie and say we're heliocentric because they're trying to turn people away from God".
LOL
malignantpoodle 10 months ago
@malignantpoodle I'm done.
/RAGEQUIT.
R1ckr011 10 months ago
@malignantpoodle was answered by myself and OgeronimonominoregO and simply does not understand the concept.
KJVWordofGod 10 months ago
Comment removed
whatifsomebody 1 year ago
Pretty interesting video. But until athiest can come up with a foundation to base morality on, might as well keep basing morality on the Bible, since this nation was established by basically Protestant CHristians. Just saying, let's default to the already established basis for morality until athiests can come up with something more sound to base it on than just mere opinion.
LiquidSmooth 1 year ago
@LiquidSmooth
If Christians were exclusively moral and atheists exclusively immoral, you'd have a point. But that's not the case. The morality argument is old and debunked. Even wolves don't eat their pups simply because nobody's looking, and as for morality and law, it's not illegal for me to have multiple sex partners in an orgy.
See my video, "The Bible Does Not Have a Monopoly on Morality""
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle Maybe wolves don't eat their own pups. But who can say it is wrong to, if there is no God?
You might say "Well that leads to extinction." But is extinction wrong? You may not like extinction, but that is your opinion. If i spill some ink, you may say "HA!, its wrong, that face is missing an ear!" But it isn't wrong because it was an accident, I wasn't trying to draw a face. There was no foresight put into it. It was a random accident. Therefore there is no wrong or right.
LiquidSmooth 1 year ago
@LiquidSmooth Even when I was an athiest, i saw the problem, and said "Until i can figure out a foundation for morality, it is better to let these people pretend their is a God." See, God created man in His image. Therefore if you spit in a man's face, according to the Bible, it is like spitting in God's face. And God defines love and created His creation so His creation would be an image of Him and love others. That is why hating someone is wrong.
LiquidSmooth