Poll

Have we been vistited by Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's)?

Yes, and they are friendly.
Yes, and they are a threat to our existence.
Yes, and they are a neutral presence.
No. Aliens exist but could care less about us.
No. Aliens do not exist at all. Humans are the only intelligent life in the Cosmos.
I am uncertain whether we have been visited by UFO's.
There can BE no certainty as to whether aliens exist until they BLUNTLY make their presence known by making an in-your-face appearance to Earth.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)

  • 38 Replies
  • 9535 Views
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« on: September 20, 2015, 09:49:26 PM »
This is a very curious question I have had for some time to see how the people of this site would stand on matters of this nature. Do vote, and then comment accordingly if you so desire. I look forward to hearing what each of you has to say.
Logged
?

LawfulRebelUK

  • 6
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2015, 04:25:15 AM »
I say yes and friendly but you should consider that they are both identified and government owned so could be considered a threat, in theory.  They are called TFM's which is a tesla flying machine - Enjoy this extract from his book and plese join my group for tesla facts and the full book - free

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1495572397425750

The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla

Chapter Six

UFOs and Electrogravity Propulsion

Did Tesla Discover the Secrets of Antigravity?

Nikola Tesla has been credited for the creation of much of the technology that
we take for granted today. Without the genius of Tesla we would not have radio,
television, AC electricity, Tesla coil, flourescent lighting, neon lighting, radio
control devices, robotics, x-rays, radar, microwaves and dozens of other amazing
inventions.
Because of this, it is no surprise that Tesla also delved into the world of flight
and possibly, antigravity. In fact, his last patent in 1928 (#6,555,114), was for a
flying machine that resembled both a helicopter and an airplane. Before he died,
Tesla reportedly devised plans for the engine of a spaceship. He called it the
anti-electromagnetic field drive or Space Drive.
William R. Lyne writes in Occult Ether Physics (Creatopia Productions), that
a lecture Tesla prepared for the Institute of Immigrant Welfare (May. 12, 1938),
dealt with his Dynamic Theory of Gravity. Tesla said in his lecture that this was:
"One of two far reaching discoveries, which I worked out in all details in the years
1893 and 1894."
While researching Tesla's statements, Lyne discovered that more complete
statements concerning these discoveries could only be gleaned from scattered and
sparse sources, because Tesla's papers are concealed in government vaults for
national security reasons.
When Lyne specifically asked for these papers at the National Security
Research Center (now the Robert J. Oppenheimer Research Center) in 1979, he
was denied access because they were still classified. In his 1938 lecture, Tesla said
he was progressing with the work, and hoped to give the theory to the world very
soon. The two great discoveries to which Tesla referred, were:
1. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity - which assumed a field of force which
accounts for the motions of bodies in space; assumption of this field of force
dispenses with the concept of space curvature (ala Einstein); the ether has an
indispensable function in the phenomena (of universal gravity, inertia,
momentum, and movement of heavenly bodies, as well as all atomic and
molecular matter).
74
The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla
2. Environmental Energy - the Discovery of a new physical Truth: there is no
energy in matter other than that received from the environment. (Which goes
against Einstein's E=mc2). The usual Tesla birthday announcement - on his 79th
birthday (1935) - Tesla made a brief reference to the theory saying it applies to
molecules and atoms as well as to the largest heavenly bodies, and to "... all matter
in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate
disintegration."
In an article, Man's Greatest Achievement, Tesla outlined his Dynamic Theory
of Gravity by saying that the luminiferous ether fills all space. The ether is acted
upon by the life-giving creative force and is thrown into "infinitesimal whirls"
("micro helices") at near the speed of light, becoming ponderable matter. When
the force subsides and motion ceases, matter reverts to the ether (a form of
"atomic decay").
Man can harness these processes to: Precipitate matter from the ether. Create
whatever he wants with the matter and energy derived. Alter the earth's size.
Control earth's seasons (weather control). Guide earth's path through the
Universe, like a spaceship. Cause the collisions of planets to produce new suns
and stars, heat, and light. Originate and develop life in infinite forms.
When Tesla was 82, instead of speaking at a dinner party, he issued a written
statement. Although this was soon after he had been struck by a car, his mind was
obviously still capable of mounting an attack on Einstein's theory of relativity:
"I have worked out a dynamic theory of gravity in all details and hope to give
this to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of
heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle
speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the
relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or
presence of celestial bodies.
"Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still very
self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and
the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that
the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it
appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and,
producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves.
"Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed
curvature of space is entirely impossible - However, even if it existed it would not
75
The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla
explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of
force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All
literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion."
It is a great pity that Tesla never published his dynamic theory of gravity.
Modern thinking about gravity suggests that when a heavy object moves it emits
gravitational waves that radiate at the speed of light. These gravity waves behave
in similar ways to many other types of waves.
Tesla's greatest inventions were all based on the study of waves. He always
considered sound, light, heat, X-rays and radio waves to be related phenomena
that could be studied using the same sort of maths. His differences with Einstein
suggest that he had extended this thinking to gravity.
In the 1980s he was proved to be right. A study of energy loss in a double
neutron star pulsar called PSR 1913 + 16 proved that gravity waves exist. Tesla's
idea that gravity is a field effect is now taken more seriously than Einstein took it.
Unfortunately, Tesla never revealed what had led him to this conclusion. He
never explained his theory of gravitation to the world. The attack he made on
Einstein's work was considered outrageous by the scientific establishment of the
time, and only now do we have enough understanding of gravity to realize that
he was right.
How to Build a Flying Saucer
Tesla had discovered that the electrostatic emission from the surface of a
conductor will always concentrate where the surface curves or even presents an
edge. The sharper the curve or edge, the greater the concentration of electron
emission. Tesla also observed that an electrostatic charge will flow over the
surface of a conductor rather than penetrate it. This is called the Faraday or Skin
Effect, discovered by Michael Faraday many years ago.
This also explains the principles of the Faraday Cage which is used in high
voltage research labs to protect humans and electrosensitive equipment from
harm. According to eyewitness reports of interiors of UFOs, there is a circular
column or channel through the center of the vehicle.
This reportedly serves as a superstructure for the rest of the saucer shaped
vehicle, and also carries a high voltage, high frequency coil. It is believed to be a
76
The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla
resonant transformer which gives the electrostatic and electromagnetic charge to
the craft and establishes polarity.
This coil is relative to what is known as a Tesla coil. The Tesla Coil of course,
was invented by Tesla in 1891. This column or channel is approximately two feet
in diameter and is hollow. On some vehicles this hollow area has a turbine
generator in it.
When the vacuum is created on one hemisphere of the craft, the atmospheric
pressure is allowed to rush through the tube to drive a sort of turbine electrical
generator. Some reports say the extraterrestrials use this system as stationary
power plants for electrical energy on their planets as well.
The eyes of the craft are arranged by electro-optic lenses placed at quadrants or
wherever they wish to see from. The screen-like monitors are placed on a console
where the navigator can observe all areas around and about the vehicle at the
same time. This includes the magnification lenses which are used without
changing positions.
There are also windows about elbow level and about one foot through or thick.
This distance would have to be in view of the four or more walls or plates of the
capacitor hulls making up the major portion of the craft. The windows have an iris
type of shutter so that when it is closed, it allows electrostatic charge to flow
evenly.

So many hidden secrets - who do you tell! Where do you start?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1495572397425750/?ref=bookmarks
Logged
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2015, 12:44:22 PM »
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, of course. That is the whole point of this board, to express one's opinion, however much it might vary from the "perceived wisdom" of the collective consciousness (or subconsciousness, for that matter).

It is my personal opinion that aliens do exist, and they don't like us. Most Humans (at least Americans) seem to think that aliens DO exist, but they seem to have gotten this idea in their head that they are benevolent. Probably they have spent too much time watching "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", which, although both series have their baddies, are, for the most part, loaded with nice guys like Wookies and even Klingons (who turned out not to be so bad after all [and even Romulans have their own sense of honour, although they are enemies of Humans]).

Personally, I think the film "Battleship" (a far less popular science fiction film from 2012) had a much more realistic view. To quote one of the scientists, "If they find us, its going to be like Columbus and the Indians, and we're going to be the Indians".

I mean, let us be frank for a moment. If aliens have the ability and the technology to cross interstellar space, and possibly inter-galactic space to get here, that means that they are going to be so far beyond our technology that it is just completely ridiculous. NASA just said that we shall be going to Mars in the 2030's. My G-d. We put a man on the Moon in 1969, and it is going to take us until an est. 2035 to put a man on Mars? That is 66 years! That is an AWFULLY long time to go very LITTLE distance! Pretty damn sorry achievement if you ask me. And what will we find there when we do? Not a whole hell of a lot, to be blunt. Rocks. Maybe with some evidence of life eons ago. That's nice. That will effect the average Human precisely how?

I mean, ok, it is a necessary step in our space evolution, I agree, but it's one that could have, and should have, happened by 1986 or so! Heck, if you follow the "Star Trek" time of events, Humans were fighting the Eugenics Wars in the 1990's,and Khan Noonien Singh was ruling over three fourth's of Asia, as I do recall, and was finally defeated and placed in a sleeper ship, the SS Botany Bay, and sent away from Earth to go bye-bye for awhile to seek his life elsewhere so as not to be a hassle for the rest of the species!

My point is this: Somewhere along the way we Humans managed to get thrown off what was looking like a pretty good trajectory toward MASSIVE accomplishments in science that could only be dreamed of in the '40's, started to come to fruition in the '50's, did so in the '60's and early '70's, and all of a sudden everything ground to a halt.

Of course, there are reasons for that. The defence budget of the USA and the USSR went completely ape-shit. People began worrying more about how to save their lives than how to get people off the ground and into space. By the time the Cold War ended in a Capitalist victory (which was better than a Communist victory, but was still not a total delight bar none, as Capitalism has things about it that suck too), other things rose up to replace it, such as problems in the Middle East in particular (those old religious and ethnic issues that come back to haunt people in EVERY age, especially in THAT part of the world), instability in Europe and Africa (the Balkan Wars and Rwanda being prime examples), environmental concerns (whether you believe in climate change or not, you can't dispute that there is a HUGE amount of money and energy going into it), and G-d knows what else. The above is NOT an exhaustive list.

So, back to my point. You have to consider the fact that if UFO's have come to visit us, they have technology WAY beyond our comprehension. They are so far above us that they don't even compare to Columbus vs. the Indians. More like Columbus vs. a colony of monkeys, and no, I am NOT comparing Native American persons to monkeys. I am saying that the Natives were more like the Spaniards than we are like the aliens that will be coming/have already come to visit our world.

And they, like the Spaniards, will come to colonise, and to use. They will not come to benefit us, any more than the Spaniards came to benefit the Natives. One can talk about "the White Man's Burden"and all that until one is blue in the face, but the fundamental fact is that any benefit the non-White residents of the Spanish, British, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian, and German Empires (and any others I may have missed) got (and they did get quite a few, particularly in the case of the British), was secondary to the benefits those colonial powers got!

And at LEAST, for the most part, the Humans that ran those Empires perceived the native persons as Humans! Maybe a lesser Human, but still as Human. The aliens that come, if they come, will NOT perceive us as one of them, endowed with the same rights as they! We will be little better than animals to them, to use as they please, to experiment on, like we do with rabbits, chimpanzees, dogs, etc. Who knows, they might even decide to keep the better specimens as pets!

Granted, this is my own perspective. And I have NEVER, EVER, in all my time alive on this planet, hoped to be wrong so spectacularly as I do now. Because, to put it bluntly, if I am right, and I have no good reason to believe that I am NOT right, then we, my friends, are royally SCREWED.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2015, 03:56:55 PM by Yaakov ben Avraham »
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2015, 07:08:40 AM »
God created the cosmos for man and man alone. We are forbidden from leaving the Earth: when those of Babylon tried to climb to the Heavens they were struck down.
There are no aliens. Life only exists if it is created by God, and God would not create anything else. Supposed UFOs are probably demons in their endless attempt to draw us away from God's truth and man's significance.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2015, 03:50:47 PM »
Quote from: Testify on September 23, 2015, 07:08:40 AM
God created the cosmos for man and man alone. We are forbidden from leaving the Earth: when those of Babylon tried to climb to the Heavens they were struck down.

That is certainly a, well, interesting interpretation of the story. Not one that I share, but ok. I have always understood the story to be interpreted in a non-literal sense.

I seriously doubt that any Human being was being stupid enough to honestly think they could build a building (a Babylonian ziggurat, to be precise) that would literally reach the Dwelling Place of G-d. But, ok.
 
Quote
There are no aliens. Life only exists if it is created by God, and God would not create anything else.

Rather presumptuous, is it not, to speak for G-d? Certainly the Bible, even the Christian variety, which I have read, doesn't make any claim toward answering this question.

Quote
Supposed UFOs are probably demons in their endless attempt to draw us away from God's truth and man's significance.

And what would make something a demon as opposed to just a very nasty life form out to do evil stuff? And how would we know the difference per se?

"are probably". Upon what do you base this presumption? Nowhere in the Bible does it make this assumption, explicitly or implicitly. In fact, UFOs are not mentioned  at all, at least, not the last time I checked the text, either Jewish or Christian.

I mean, hey, you are allowed your own POV, I am just playing what is commonly called in Christian circles "the Devil's Advocate". Jews don't believe in a Devil per se so I can't use the term myself as such. But you see my point. Anyway, I appreciate seeing your vote. I look forward to to hearing more of your reasoning. Peace.
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2015, 04:25:40 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 23, 2015, 03:50:47 PM
That is certainly a, well, interesting interpretation of the story. Not one that I share, but ok. I have always understood the story to be interpreted in a non-literal sense.

I seriously doubt that any Human being was being stupid enough to honestly think they could build a building (a Babylonian ziggurat, to be precise) that would literally reach the Dwelling Place of G-d. But, ok.
Humans are fools, and often arrogant. They seek to reach the heavens even in our time.

Quote

Rather presumptuous, is it not, to speak for G-d? Certainly the Bible, even the Christian variety, which I have read, doesn't make any claim toward answering this question.
The Creation and motivation are explained in Genesis. God made man, and beasts so that man would not be alone. To create an alien race that is not near man would contradict what the Bible states.
I do not speak for God: I speak as God. I say as He said. The Bible contains all the answers, though sometimes it may take some thinking to fully realize.

Quote
And what would make something a demon as opposed to just a very nasty life form out to do evil stuff? And how would we know the difference per se?
Demons are fallen angels: angels are celestial beings, unlike humans and animals

Quote
"are probably". Upon what do you base this presumption? Nowhere in the Bible does it make this assumption, explicitly or implicitly. In fact, UFOs are not mentioned  at all, at least, not the last time I checked the text, either Jewish or Christian.

I mean, hey, you are allowed your own POV, I am just playing what is commonly called in Christian circles "the Devil's Advocate". Jews don't believe in a Devil per se so I can't use the term myself as such. But you see my point. Anyway, I appreciate seeing your vote. I look forward to to hearing more of your reasoning. Peace.
I say 'probably' because I am not convinced of any reliable account of a UFO. UFOs would not exist in a God-created universe, as there would be no species not explicitly meant for mankind's benefit. A species that does not exist on Earth would not match God's will, and there is nowhere for those beings to come from. The other planets are illusions, and to create whole stellar systems independent of humanity (the purpose of creation) is clearly not what God would do.
With no reason for God to create them, and nowhere for them to come from, aliens would not exist. Demons, who would want to fool people into believing there is no God as creator, would do what they can to make people question what the Bible says. Pretending to be aliens may be one way.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2015, 08:09:25 PM »
Quote from: Testify on September 23, 2015, 04:25:40 PM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 23, 2015, 03:50:47 PM
That is certainly a, well, interesting interpretation of the story. Not one that I share, but ok. I have always understood the story to be interpreted in a non-literal sense.

I seriously doubt that any Human being was being stupid enough to honestly think they could build a building (a Babylonian ziggurat, to be precise) that would literally reach the Dwelling Place of G-d. But, ok.
Humans are fools, and often arrogant. They seek to reach the heavens even in our time.

Humans are arrogant, but they are not abysmally stupid. Even a Human knows that the Dwelling Place of G-d is not a literal physical location.

Quote
Quote

Rather presumptuous, is it not, to speak for G-d? Certainly the Bible, even the Christian variety, which I have read, doesn't make any claim toward answering this question.
The Creation and motivation are explained in Genesis. God made man, and beasts so that man would not be alone. To create an alien race that is not near man would contradict what the Bible states.
I do not speak for God: I speak as God. I say as He said. The Bible contains all the answers, though sometimes it may take some thinking to fully realize.

The creation of Earth is explained in Genesis, as is our Solar System, and the  Stars, from OUR perspective. How would the creation of an alien race contradict what the Bible states?

Quote
Quote
And what would make something a demon as opposed to just a very nasty life form out to do evil stuff? And how would we know the difference per se?
Demons are fallen angels: angels are celestial beings, unlike humans and animals

Of course, this is a purely Christian point of view, not shared by Jews, or Muslims for that matter, but I'll avoid Muslim theology for the present. Looking at it from the Jewish point of view, Angels have no freewill and cannot rebel, unlike Humans, who can.

Quote
Quote
"are probably". Upon what do you base this presumption? Nowhere in the Bible does it make this assumption, explicitly or implicitly. In fact, UFOs are not mentioned  at all, at least, not the last time I checked the text, either Jewish or Christian.

I mean, hey, you are allowed your own POV, I am just playing what is commonly called in Christian circles "the Devil's Advocate". Jews don't believe in a Devil per se so I can't use the term myself as such. But you see my point. Anyway, I appreciate seeing your vote. I look forward to to hearing more of your reasoning. Peace.
I say 'probably' because I am not convinced of any reliable account of a UFO. UFOs would not exist in a God-created universe, as there would be no species not explicitly meant for mankind's benefit. A species that does not exist on Earth would not match God's will, and there is nowhere for those beings to come from. The other planets are illusions, and to create whole stellar systems independent of humanity (the purpose of creation) is clearly not what God would do.

And why is Creation intended ONLY for Man? That is a remarkably arrogant attitude to have. Furthermore, how can you say that other planets are illusions? You have no way of backing that up. And certainly science as we understand it says you are completely wrong here.

Quote
With no reason for God to create them, and nowhere for them to come from, aliens would not exist. Demons, who would want to fool people into believing there is no God as creator, would do what they can to make people question what the Bible says. Pretending to be aliens may be one way.

That is an illogical statement. Demons might in fact exist. But if they do, why would they imitate aliens from this dimension? Wouldn't they be by definition extra-dimensional?
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2015, 04:39:51 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 23, 2015, 08:09:25 PM
Humans are arrogant, but they are not abysmally stupid. Even a Human knows that the Dwelling Place of G-d is not a literal physical location.
I disagree. We observe its light every day, and even Elijah was taken up to heaven physically.

Quote
The creation of Earth is explained in Genesis, as is our Solar System, and the  Stars, from OUR perspective. How would the creation of an alien race contradict what the Bible states?
A lie of omission is still a lie, and God does not lie. God told us everything that He created, and the order, and told us the all was put here for man. If there were another race too distant to be of any benefit to man, this would not be true.

Quote
Of course, this is a purely Christian point of view, not shared by Jews, or Muslims for that matter, but I'll avoid Muslim theology for the present. Looking at it from the Jewish point of view, Angels have no freewill and cannot rebel, unlike Humans, who can.
I find this unlikely. Free will is God's greatest gift, His servants would have it in some degree. I believe it is likely they possess a limited form (they cannot disobey God save by falling, and it is a permanent choice, save for those that fell before the Atonement) but they would certainly possess it.

Quote
And why is Creation intended ONLY for Man? That is a remarkably arrogant attitude to have. Furthermore, how can you say that other planets are illusions? You have no way of backing that up. And certainly science as we understand it says you are completely wrong here.
It is not arrogant to quote God's word. This is what He said.
Science as we understand it believes the world is round, billions of years old, and that we're monkeys without souls. Science is wrong. Lies perpetuated by demons are not God's truth. The planets we observe are radiance: seven worlds and seven archangels.

Quote
That is an illogical statement. Demons might in fact exist. But if they do, why would they imitate aliens from this dimension? Wouldn't they be by definition extra-dimensional?
It doesn't matter what they trulya re: truth isn't important to the fallen. If they want to deceive and draw people away from God, they will do so by spreading stories contrary to Him.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2015, 08:33:06 AM »
Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 04:39:51 AM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 23, 2015, 08:09:25 PM
Humans are arrogant, but they are not abysmally stupid. Even a Human knows that the Dwelling Place of G-d is not a literal physical location.
I disagree. We observe its light every day, and even Elijah was taken up to heaven physically.

You observe the light of the Sun, which is the light of the star that lights our Solar system. Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind. It does not indicate that heaven is a literal place.

Quote
Quote
The creation of Earth is explained in Genesis, as is our Solar System, and the  Stars, from OUR perspective. How would the creation of an alien race contradict what the Bible states?
A lie of omission is still a lie, and God does not lie. God told us everything that He created, and the order, and told us the all was put here for man. If there were another race too distant to be of any benefit to man, this would not be true.

QUOTE-26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.-END QUOTE Genesis Chapter 1, KJV.

G-d gave man dominion over the EARTH, not over anything else. He could very well have created other things, other planets, other races, other parts of the Universe without impugning his Holy Word.

Quote
Quote
Of course, this is a purely Christian point of view, not shared by Jews, or Muslims for that matter, but I'll avoid Muslim theology for the present. Looking at it from the Jewish point of view, Angels have no freewill and cannot rebel, unlike Humans, who can.
I find this unlikely. Free will is God's greatest gift, His servants would have it in some degree. I believe it is likely they possess a limited form (they cannot disobey God save by falling, and it is a permanent choice, save for those that fell before the Atonement) but they would certainly possess it.

You may find it as unlikely as you wish. That is your personal business. I find the whole concept of the Christian Atonement unlikely, and frankly offensive in the extreme. So there you are.

Quote
Quote
And why is Creation intended ONLY for Man? That is a remarkably arrogant attitude to have. Furthermore, how can you say that other planets are illusions? You have no way of backing that up. And certainly science as we understand it says you are completely wrong here.
It is not arrogant to quote God's word. This is what He said.
Science as we understand it believes the world is round, billions of years old, and that we're monkeys without souls. Science is wrong. Lies perpetuated by demons are not God's truth. The planets we observe are radiance: seven worlds and seven archangels.

Of course science believes the world is round and billions of years old. Because it is. It does not believe we are monkeys, because we are not. Nor does it say anything about the soul one way or another, since such a discussion (whether such a thing exists or not) lies beyond the realm of scientific inquest. The fact that you would even suggest such things bespeaks a PROFOUND ignorance of science that is mindblowing in the extreme.

Quote
Quote
That is an illogical statement. Demons might in fact exist. But if they do, why would they imitate aliens from this dimension? Wouldn't they be by definition extra-dimensional?
It doesn't matter what they trulya re: truth isn't important to the fallen. If they want to deceive and draw people away from God, they will do so by spreading stories contrary to Him.

A response that has nothing to do with what I said.
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2015, 09:05:47 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 08:33:06 AM
You observe the light of the Sun, which is the light of the star that lights our Solar system. Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind. It does not indicate that heaven is a literal place.
The Sun is not a star. In Genesis, the light that defines what day is was created before anything else (Genesis 1:3-5), and so if day was defined in the absence of stars, then day must be defined by God's light alone.
If one may be transported to heaven by physical means (a whirlwind), it must be a physical place.

Quote
G-d gave man dominion over the EARTH, not over anything else. He could very well have created other things, other planets, other races, other parts of the Universe without impugning his Holy Word.
God gave man dominion over all that which lives on the Earth, but also all that which exists in the air. God also confirms that every plant exists on the surface of the Earth, so there can be no such thing elsewhere. God defined, He does not qualify: man has dominion of that which is on the Earth, and that which is on the Earth is all that there is.

Quote
Of course science believes the world is round and billions of years old. Because it is. It does not believe we are monkeys, because we are not. Nor does it say anything about the soul one way or another, since such a discussion (whether such a thing exists or not) lies beyond the realm of scientific inquest. The fact that you would even suggest such things bespeaks a PROFOUND ignorance of science that is mindblowing in the extreme.
I am not ignorant, I simply believe that He who created the world will know more about it than a handful of flawed, corruptible humans. We have the genealogy of Jesus dating back to Adam, and we have the Earth being laid out, and eveyr point on its surface being visible from a high mountain. God has told us of the world, and I will listen to Him.
Science says the soul evolved, or that monkeys have souls. Both of those notions are blasphemous.

Quote
Quote
That is an illogical statement. Demons might in fact exist. But if they do, why would they imitate aliens from this dimension? Wouldn't they be by definition extra-dimensional?
It doesn't matter what they truly are: truth isn't important to the fallen. If they want to deceive and draw people away from God, they will do so by spreading stories contrary to Him.

A response that has nothing to do with what I said.
[/quote]
How is it not? You seem to claim that demons would be truthful about their origins. This is not so: they would tell what it takes to deceive and to draw people away from God. Aliens from another world defy the Bible and so God.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2015, 09:56:11 AM »
I shall quote a little differently here than usual, to make things a bit more clear.

QUOTE-The Sun is not a star. In Genesis, the light that defines what day is was created before anything else (Genesis 1:3-5), and so if day was defined in the absence of stars, then day must be defined by God's light alone.-END QUOTE

The Rabbis clearly said that indeed, the light that existed before the Fourth Day of Creation was the light that emanates from the Throne of G-d. However, G-d then created the Sun to rule the Day, and the Moon to rule the Night. At that point, the light emanating from the Throne of G-d no longer lights our world.

The question of Elijah need not occupy us, as I have given my answer.

G-d in no way suggested that EVERY plant exists on Earth. He was in Genesis referring to the Creation of the Earth. He was not speaking of the creation of other places. The fact that he did not speak of it does not mean that it did not occur.

The descent of Jesus, if in fact he lived at all (and there is very good reason to believe he did not) is entirely irrelevant. The existence of one Jewish Rabbi of doubtful orthodoxy but considerable rhetorical skills is not the topic of our discussion.

Science says nothing about the soul. Nor does it say anything about monkeys having them, or us being monkeys. I assure you my ancestors did not swing from their tails.

It is illogical to suggest that aliens from another world defy the Bible and G-d. Such a point of view makes no sense.
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2015, 10:10:39 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 09:56:11 AM
The Rabbis clearly said that indeed, the light that existed before the Fourth Day of Creation was the light that emanates from the Throne of G-d. However, G-d then created the Sun to rule the Day, and the Moon to rule the Night. At that point, the light emanating from the Throne of G-d no longer lights our world.
I agree with your first sentence. However:

Genesis 1:4-5 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This is before the creation of anything, still. Day and night are defined exclusively with respect to the light emanating from God and Heaven. It's only later than the Sun and stars exist:

Genesis 1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The Sun clearly is not a star, as scientists claim, as it was made separately: but even this is ambiguous. What is said, is that God created a greater light to occupy the day, and a lesser for the night, but this refers clearly to the amount of light, as the day/night cycle has already been designed: He formalized it at this stage, but the Sun already existed. It is clear God is not creating new lights, as the moon did not exist for four thousand more years. The lesser light of the stars (angels) govern the night, the Sun (Heaven) at day.

Quote
G-d in no way suggested that EVERY plant exists on Earth. He was in Genesis referring to the Creation of the Earth. He was not speaking of the creation of other places. The fact that he did not speak of it does not mean that it did not occur.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Quote
The descent of Jesus, if in fact he lived at all (and there is very good reason to believe he did not) is entirely irrelevant. The existence of one Jewish Rabbi of doubtful orthodoxy but considerable rhetorical skills is not the topic of our discussion.
Jesus Christ certainly did exist, and certainly was real. I am Christian, I will not pretend otherwise. His genealogy is given, so from that we may determine the age of the Earth, approximately, as we know all those that lived form him to Adam.

Quote
Science says nothing about the soul. Nor does it say anything about monkeys having them, or us being monkeys. I assure you my ancestors did not swing from their tails.
I am aware they did not. The claims of science and the theory of evolution are false. Science does not need to mention the soul for its consequences to be clear. If we, humans with souls, evolved from monkeys, then did the soul evolve, or did monkeys have them?
Or was man created as he now is, soul and body and all?

Quote
It is illogical to suggest that aliens from another world defy the Bible and G-d. Such a point of view makes no sense.
I have explained why it does. They defy the claims of the Bible: to believe in aliens you deny man's sovereignty, and so deny God's word.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2015, 11:36:18 AM »
Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 10:10:39 AM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 09:56:11 AM
The Rabbis clearly said that indeed, the light that existed before the Fourth Day of Creation was the light that emanates from the Throne of G-d. However, G-d then created the Sun to rule the Day, and the Moon to rule the Night. At that point, the light emanating from the Throne of G-d no longer lights our world.
I agree with your first sentence. However:

Genesis 1:4-5 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Granted that the day/night cycle originated before the sun and moon did. How does this change the fact that the Sun is a star?

Quote
This is before the creation of anything, still. Day and night are defined exclusively with respect to the light emanating from God and Heaven. It's only later than the Sun and stars exist:

Genesis 1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The Sun clearly is not a star, as scientists claim, as it was made separately:

The fact that it is made separately does not imply that it is not a star.

Quote
but even this is ambiguous. What is said, is that God created a greater light to occupy the day, and a lesser for the night, but this refers clearly to the amount of light, as the day/night cycle has already been designed: He formalized it at this stage, but the Sun already existed. It is clear God is not creating new lights, as the moon did not exist for four thousand more years. The lesser light of the stars (angels) govern the night, the Sun (Heaven) at day.

Where are we getting the figure of 4,000 years? Furthermore, it is understood by most biblical commentators, Jewish and Christian alike, that the Two Great Lights are the Sun and the Moon.

Quote
Quote
G-d in no way suggested that EVERY plant exists on Earth. He was in Genesis referring to the Creation of the Earth. He was not speaking of the creation of other places. The fact that he did not speak of it does not mean that it did not occur.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Note that it says every plant upon the Earth! It says nothing about plants elsewhere.

Quote
Quote
The descent of Jesus, if in fact he lived at all (and there is very good reason to believe he did not) is entirely irrelevant. The existence of one Jewish Rabbi of doubtful orthodoxy but considerable rhetorical skills is not the topic of our discussion.
Jesus Christ certainly did exist, and certainly was real. I am Christian, I will not pretend otherwise. His genealogy is given, so from that we may determine the age of the Earth, approximately, as we know all those that lived form him to Adam.

Given that the two genealogies given for him in the NT conflict with each other considerably, I'll take that statement with a grain of salt.

Quote
Quote
Science says nothing about the soul. Nor does it say anything about monkeys having them, or us being monkeys. I assure you my ancestors did not swing from their tails.
I am aware they did not. The claims of science and the theory of evolution are false. Science does not need to mention the soul for its consequences to be clear. If we, humans with souls, evolved from monkeys, then did the soul evolve, or did monkeys have them?
Or was man created as he now is, soul and body and all?

Science does not claim that Humans evolved from monkeys, because we did not. It merely claims that there is a common link between one member of the Primate family (us) and another member of the Primate family (them).

Quote
Quote
It is illogical to suggest that aliens from another world defy the Bible and G-d. Such a point of view makes no sense.
I have explained why it does. They defy the claims of the Bible: to believe in aliens you deny man's sovereignty, and so deny God's word.

Your suggestion that aliens defy the claims of the Bible is illogical, and serves no purpose.
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2015, 12:56:50 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 11:36:18 AM
Granted that the day/night cycle originated before the sun and moon did. How does this change the fact that the Sun is a star?
The fact that it is made separately does not imply that it is not a star.

If all the stars were made at one time, and the Sun was made at another time, this shows the Sun is not a star.
If the day and night cycle originated before anything, such as stars and the 'light to govern the day', this shows that the light that defines the day can only be God's light. Why would God define day and night by His light, and then redefine it later for no reason? There was no need for Him to create a different day and night, He would not need light to work by.
The excuses offered are inescapably bad ones. God is perfect, and God is wise, and He means what he says. Night and day are defined by the light He creates.

Quote
Where are we getting the figure of 4,000 years? Furthermore, it is understood by most biblical commentators, Jewish and Christian alike, that the Two Great Lights are the Sun and the Moon.
The time spanned by the genealogies has long been calculated.
Many things are understood by many people. It is still clear that the moon did not exist until Christ's birth, and that the Sun which defines day came before the 'great light'.

Quote
Note that it says every plant upon the Earth! It says nothing about plants elsewhere.
It does specify 'every plant', and follows this by stating that they all exist on the Earth.

Quote
Given that the two genealogies given for him in the NT conflict with each other considerably, I'll take that statement with a grain of salt.
They do not: the genealogy written of in Matthew gave it on Joseph's side, while Luke gave Mary's. Luke is very clear that the genealogy he writes of is not direct ('as was supposed' in 3:23), and it was customary in that time for her ancestors to be counted under Joseph's. One could not speak to a woman without certain conditions being met, and everything that was the wife's became the husband's.

Quote
Your suggestion that aliens defy the claims of the Bible is illogical, and serves no purpose.
The truth does not have to serve any purpose beyond the truth. Denying the importance of man, and letting exist life that is not for man, or more life that possesses souls, is to defy God.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2015, 01:27:06 PM »
Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 12:56:50 PM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 11:36:18 AM
Granted that the day/night cycle originated before the sun and moon did. How does this change the fact that the Sun is a star?
The fact that it is made separately does not imply that it is not a star.

If all the stars were made at one time, and the Sun was made at another time, this shows the Sun is not a star.

It shows nothing of the sort. It simply shows they were made separately.
 
Quote
If the day and night cycle originated before anything, such as stars and the 'light to govern the day', this shows that the light that defines the day can only be God's light. Why would God define day and night by His light, and then redefine it later for no reason? There was no need for Him to create a different day and night, He would not need light to work by.
The excuses offered are inescapably bad ones. God is perfect, and God is wise, and He means what he says. Night and day are defined by the light He creates.

You are operating on a hopelessly subjective definition of what "bad" means. Furthermore, QUOTE-14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:-END QUOTE Genesis Chapter 1 KJV boldface mine. Seems pretty clear what the two great lights are for to me, and since the commentators, both Jewish and Christian, are pretty clear that the Lights are the Sun and the Moon, I think I shall go with them rather than you.

It is illogical for G-d to repeat himself. He wouldn't create something twice. So the light in the beginning and the Two Great Lights must be different things.

Quote
Quote
Where are we getting the figure of 4,000 years? Furthermore, it is understood by most biblical commentators, Jewish and Christian alike, that the Two Great Lights are the Sun and the Moon.
The time spanned by the genealogies has long been calculated.
Many things are understood by many people. It is still clear that the moon did not exist until Christ's birth, and that the Sun which defines day came before the 'great light'.

Without a doubt, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Aside from the fact that the planet's age at Jesus's birth (if he lived at all) is nowhere stated in the NT, the idea that the Moon did not exist until then is patently ridiculous to the point of being willfully stupid. No one, Jewish or Christian, holds that point of view.

Quote
Quote
Note that it says every plant upon the Earth! It says nothing about plants elsewhere.
It does specify 'every plant', and follows this by stating that they all exist on the Earth.

It does not say they ALL live on earth, it simply says every plant that lives upon the Earth.

Quote
Quote
Given that the two genealogies given for him in the NT conflict with each other considerably, I'll take that statement with a grain of salt.
They do not: the genealogy written of in Matthew gave it on Joseph's side, while Luke gave Mary's. Luke is very clear that the genealogy he writes of is not direct ('as was supposed' in 3:23), and it was customary in that time for her ancestors to be counted under Joseph's. One could not speak to a woman without certain conditions being met, and everything that was the wife's became the husband's.

Given the fact that according to Christians, Jesus HAD no human father, giving his genealogy is irrelevant, since it would not apply. And Jewish law, then and now, dictates that one is a Jew by virtue of the mother, but that TRIBAL affiliation is through the father. Since Jesus had no human father, he could not have a tribal affiliation. Neither then nor now is adoption sufficient to allow for that. In the event that a person is adopted by a Jewish family, for example, conversion to Judaism must still take place. This is the case now, and was the case then.

This is why, for example, the claim that Jesus was a descendant of King David is a wash. In fact, he probably was, through Mary. But that would have been irrelevant. And since he supposedly had no human father (if you are inclined to believe that virgin birth silliness, which I am not), Joseph's descent from David would not have mattered. And although one can convert into the Jewish Faith, one cannot be converted into a line of descent. Jewish Law does not allow for that now, nor did it ever.

Quote
Quote
Your suggestion that aliens defy the claims of the Bible is illogical, and serves no purpose.
The truth does not have to serve any purpose beyond the truth. Denying the importance of man, and letting exist life that is not for man, or more life that possesses souls, is to defy God.

That is an illogical answer, that is untrue and serves no purpose.
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2015, 02:24:48 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 01:27:06 PM
It shows nothing of the sort. It simply shows they were made separately.

You are operating on a hopelessly subjective definition of what "bad" means. Furthermore, QUOTE-14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:-END QUOTE Genesis Chapter 1 KJV boldface mine. Seems pretty clear what the two great lights are for to me, and since the commentators, both Jewish and Christian, are pretty clear that the Lights are the Sun and the Moon, I think I shall go with them rather than you.

It is illogical for G-d to repeat himself. He wouldn't create something twice. So the light in the beginning and the Two Great Lights must be different things.

If stars were made at one point, how could one be made at a different point? God defines stars and the Sun very different.
Great Lights clearly refers to the amount of light. At the very least, you must concede this as a possibility. Science has been slowly overcoming God's truth for the past centuries, but if you compare my words to what the original Christians who walked with Christ knew and thought, and those that lived closer to the time, I am sure you would find similarities. I do not believe God would have lied, or allowed them to continue living in deception.
In the present however, people are influenced by words other than God's.

Quote
Without a doubt, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Aside from the fact that the planet's age at Jesus's birth (if he lived at all) is nowhere stated in the NT, the idea that the Moon did not exist until then is patently ridiculous to the point of being willfully stupid. No one, Jewish or Christian, holds that point of view.
The planet's age is not stated, by his genealogy back to Adam is.
No one admits to holding the view. Jews certainly would not as it would require God marked the birth of Christ. Christians would be mocked, as you mock me.
At the birth of Christ, we know that there appeared in the sky a bright, luminous, celestial object which could be likened only to a star, and which moved visibly across the sky.

Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Matthew 2:9-10 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

The moon rises in the east, and is the only celestial object that we can observe to move visibly across the sky. It is clearly the Star of Bethlehem. Further, we have a record of its brightness:

Book of James 21:2 We saw a very great star shining among those stars and dimming them so that the stars appeared not

For a sky with no moon, the stars would have been far brighter, until the new brightly-shining object appeared, and would appear to dim the stars. It is likely the moon was brighter at that time, but even so we can confirm its brightness was compared to that of the Sun: God in Heaven.



Quote
It does not say they ALL live on earth, it simply says every plant that lives upon the Earth.
It does not, it specifies that we have been given every plant, and that all of those plants live upon the Earth. The difference in phrasing may be subtle, but it is clearly there.

Quote
Given the fact that according to Christians, Jesus HAD no human father, giving his genealogy is irrelevant, since it would not apply. And Jewish law, then and now, dictates that one is a Jew by virtue of the mother, but that TRIBAL affiliation is through the father. Since Jesus had no human father, he could not have a tribal affiliation. Neither then nor now is adoption sufficient to allow for that. In the event that a person is adopted by a Jewish family, for example, conversion to Judaism must still take place. This is the case now, and was the case then.

This is why, for example, the claim that Jesus was a descendant of King David is a wash. In fact, he probably was, through Mary. But that would have been irrelevant. And since he supposedly had no human father (if you are inclined to believe that virgin birth silliness, which I am not), Joseph's descent from David would not have mattered. And although one can convert into the Jewish Faith, one cannot be converted into a line of descent. Jewish Law does not allow for that now, nor did it ever.
The genealogies were to show Christ had two claims to the throne of David. You must acknowledge who the books were written for. Those who did not accept the virgin birth, like you, must accept that he is descended in the male line from David. Those that accept the birth will still see he is descended from David (and special dispensation should exist for the lone individual who does not have a human father).
The notion of a virgin birth is an unlikely one. I believe 'virgin' is a mistranslation: it is commonly accepted to be a word meaning 'young woman' or perhaps 'maiden', whose meaning changed over the intervening time. Jesus would be born of Joseph's seed, as well as blessed and chosen by God. However, even if there truly was a virgin birth, there is no reason to believe Joseph would not be the biological father: this would be within God's power. That God may do this before they consumated their marriage would be a sign of His power.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2015, 04:38:37 PM »
Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 01:27:06 PM
It shows nothing of the sort. It simply shows they were made separately.

You are operating on a hopelessly subjective definition of what "bad" means. Furthermore, QUOTE-14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:-END QUOTE Genesis Chapter 1 KJV boldface mine. Seems pretty clear what the two great lights are for to me, and since the commentators, both Jewish and Christian, are pretty clear that the Lights are the Sun and the Moon, I think I shall go with them rather than you.

It is illogical for G-d to repeat himself. He wouldn't create something twice. So the light in the beginning and the Two Great Lights must be different things.

If stars were made at one point, how could one be made at a different point? God defines stars and the Sun very different.
Great Lights clearly refers to the amount of light. At the very least, you must concede this as a possibility. Science has been slowly overcoming God's truth for the past centuries, but if you compare my words to what the original Christians who walked with Christ knew and thought, and those that lived closer to the time, I am sure you would find similarities.

Certainly no Christian scholar that I ever read, I am familiar with many of them, dating all the way back to the Patristic Period, ever came up with the stuff you are inventing out of whole cloth.

Quote
I do not believe God would have lied, or allowed them to continue living in deception.
In the present however, people are influenced by words other than God's.

Quote
Without a doubt, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Aside from the fact that the planet's age at Jesus's birth (if he lived at all) is nowhere stated in the NT, the idea that the Moon did not exist until then is patently ridiculous to the point of being willfully stupid. No one, Jewish or Christian, holds that point of view.
The planet's age is not stated, by his genealogy back to Adam is.
No one admits to holding the view. Jews certainly would not as it would require God marked the birth of Christ. Christians would be mocked, as you mock me.
At the birth of Christ, we know that there appeared in the sky a bright, luminous, celestial object which could be likened only to a star, and which moved visibly across the sky.

Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Matthew 2:9-10 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

The moon rises in the east, and is the only celestial object that we can observe to move visibly across the sky. It is clearly the Star of Bethlehem. Further, we have a record of its brightness:

Book of James 21:2 We saw a very great star shining among those stars and dimming them so that the stars appeared not

For a sky with no moon, the stars would have been far brighter, until the new brightly-shining object appeared, and would appear to dim the stars. It is likely the moon was brighter at that time, but even so we can confirm its brightness was compared to that of the Sun: God in Heaven.

Even Christians are smart enough to tell the difference between a Moon and a star. And the Wise Men were, according to most scholars, astronomers. They surely would have known the difference. They weren't stupid, and had they seen something as large as the Moon pop up that had never been in the sky before, they wouldn't have called it a star! You seem to imply that everybody in the world except yourself is an idiot. I would suggest to you that in fact, it is you who are being willfully ignorant. I do not say you are an idiot, but rather, that you are being willfully ignorant. The two are very different.

Quote
Quote
It does not say they ALL live on earth, it simply says every plant that lives upon the Earth.
It does not, it specifies that we have been given every plant, and that all of those plants live upon the Earth. The difference in phrasing may be subtle, but it is clearly there.


I do not see that every plant lives on the Earth, at least NOT in the English. I would have to go back to the Hebrew to verify what in fact it does say, and I would have to go to a person whose Hebrew is in fact better than my own. Since in fact neither of us knows Hebrew (I suspect you don't know it at all, and I don't know it well enough for this), this is a moot argument.

Quote
Quote
Given the fact that according to Christians, Jesus HAD no human father, giving his genealogy is irrelevant, since it would not apply. And Jewish law, then and now, dictates that one is a Jew by virtue of the mother, but that TRIBAL affiliation is through the father. Since Jesus had no human father, he could not have a tribal affiliation. Neither then nor now is adoption sufficient to allow for that. In the event that a person is adopted by a Jewish family, for example, conversion to Judaism must still take place. This is the case now, and was the case then.

This is why, for example, the claim that Jesus was a descendant of King David is a wash. In fact, he probably was, through Mary. But that would have been irrelevant. And since he supposedly had no human father (if you are inclined to believe that virgin birth silliness, which I am not), Joseph's descent from David would not have mattered. And although one can convert into the Jewish Faith, one cannot be converted into a line of descent. Jewish Law does not allow for that now, nor did it ever.
The genealogies were to show Christ had two claims to the throne of David. You must acknowledge who the books were written for. Those who did not accept the virgin birth, like you, must accept that he is descended in the male line from David. Those that accept the birth will still see he is descended from David (and special dispensation should exist for the lone individual who does not have a human father).
The notion of a virgin birth is an unlikely one. I believe 'virgin' is a mistranslation: it is commonly accepted to be a word meaning 'young woman' or perhaps 'maiden', whose meaning changed over the intervening time. Jesus would be born of Joseph's seed, as well as blessed and chosen by God. However, even if there truly was a virgin birth, there is no reason to believe Joseph would not be the biological father: this would be within God's power. That God may do this before they consumated their marriage would be a sign of His power.

According to Jewish Law, only a claim through the father has any validity. And no special dispensation can be granted in Jewish Law, even assuming someone IS born of a virgin, however ridiculous that notion is in fact. I agree with the statement that the correct translation of the Hebrew is "young woman". It would be biologically impossible for Joseph to be the father if he didn't consummate his marriage to Mary to give his seed to her for Jesus. Even G-d does not break the rules of logic. This is like G-d making a married bachelor. Or a four-sided triangle. Such things are impossible by definition. And a person who is born of a virgin having a male biological parent is one of them.

And if he is a descendant of David in blood, so what? So were most of the people who lived in Bethlehem. He is no more a King of Israel than his father was, assuming Joseph was his father. And the fact that he was a borderline bastard makes it even worse. Joseph, according to the NT, was betrothed to Mary, not married to her. Now, according to Jewish Law, if two people, betrothed to each other, did the wham-bam-thank-you-Ma'am before they were married, the child was NOT illegitimate, but it was looked upon VERY unfavourably. And words such as Mamzer would probably be thrown around for the rest of the kid's life, even though technically, he wasn't. And he would have a VERY hard time finding a mate that was more than gutter-snipe, to be blunt. That might in fact be why Jesus never married.

Today of course, Jewish Law is such that you can't do the wham-bam until you are married, or the baby is a bastard. Betrothal isn't sufficient. But at the time, technically it was.
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2015, 05:26:58 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Certainly no Christian scholar that I ever read, I am familiar with many of them, dating all the way back to the Patristic Period, ever came up with the stuff you are inventing out of whole cloth.
You assume every word written by Christian scholars is maintained. Demons exist: demons deceive. What I say comes from the Bible, God's word, alone and directly. There is no room for demons to spread lies or conceal truth.

Quote
Even Christians are smart enough to tell the difference between a Moon and a star. And the Wise Men were, according to most scholars, astronomers. They surely would have known the difference. They weren't stupid, and had they seen something as large as the Moon pop up that had never been in the sky before, they wouldn't have called it a star! You seem to imply that everybody in the world except yourself is an idiot. I would suggest to you that in fact, it is you who are being willfully ignorant. I do not say you are an idiot, but rather, that you are being willfully ignorant. The two are very different.
The moon had never existed until that time: they had no other word for a shining object in the sky. The texts define it to be very different to a star. Name one star which moves enough that it may easily be followed, and may easily be spotted as new.
All I believe is that God is not a fool. He would announce to all that the Messiah was born, and creating a second light to mirror His own, and to shine when the demons shine in the sky, would be one way to do that.

Quote
I do not see that every plant lives on the Earth, at least NOT in the English. I would have to go back to the Hebrew to verify what in fact it does say, and I would have to go to a person whose Hebrew is in fact better than my own. Since in fact neither of us knows Hebrew (I suspect you don't know it at all, and I don't know it well enough for this), this is a moot argument.
That is not necessary. God is not incompetent.

Quote
According to Jewish Law, only a claim through the father has any validity. And no special dispensation can be granted in Jewish Law, even assuming someone IS born of a virgin, however ridiculous that notion is in fact. I agree with the statement that the correct translation of the Hebrew is "young woman". It would be biologically impossible for Joseph to be the father if he didn't consummate his marriage to Mary to give his seed to her for Jesus. Even G-d does not break the rules of logic. This is like G-d making a married bachelor. Or a four-sided triangle. Such things are impossible by definition. And a person who is born of a virgin having a male biological parent is one of them.
The correct translation is virgin, at the time of King James. The word is much like 'maiden' which may mean 'has not had sex', or may simply mean 'woman'.
However, if Mary was truly a virgin, I see no reason why transporting and blessing Joseph's seed would be beyond the power of He who made the world. It seems a very minor act. It is also a logical one: Jesus would be a bastard otherwise for the simple fact Mary and God are not and could not be married. He can very easily be a biological child of Joseph and a virgin Mary, and be blessed by God.

And if he is a descendant of David in blood, so what? So were most of the people who lived in Bethlehem. He is no more a King of Israel than his father was, assuming Joseph was his father. And the fact that he was a borderline bastard makes it even worse. Joseph, according to the NT, was betrothed to Mary, not married to her. Now, according to Jewish Law, if two people, betrothed to each other, did the wham-bam-thank-you-Ma'am before they were married, the child was NOT illegitimate, but it was looked upon VERY unfavourably. And words such as Mamzer would probably be thrown around for the rest of the kid's life, even though technically, he wasn't. And he would have a VERY hard time finding a mate that was more than gutter-snipe, to be blunt. That might in fact be why Jesus never married.[/quote]
Jesus never married because God cannot marry a human, nor can God's human aspect. Christ must be a descendant of David to adhere to the Messianic prophecies which predicted him: Matthew and Luke verified this.
For the child to be had before betrothal would serve one of two purposes, depending on your interpretation. If Mary was a virgin, it could serve as evidence of this: if Mary was not, it would illustrate how good may result from sin, and how the Atonement was coming.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2015, 06:51:14 PM »
Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 05:26:58 PM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Certainly no Christian scholar that I ever read, I am familiar with many of them, dating all the way back to the Patristic Period, ever came up with the stuff you are inventing out of whole cloth.
You assume every word written by Christian scholars is maintained. Demons exist: demons deceive. What I say comes from the Bible, God's word, alone and directly. There is no room for demons to spread lies or conceal truth.

What you say is your interpretation of the Bible, which seems quite warped, at least it does not match any other interpretation I have ever heard before from any other scholar or person at all, Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, or Protestant, and I am familiar with most of the major ones throughout history.

Quote
Quote
Even Christians are smart enough to tell the difference between a Moon and a star. And the Wise Men were, according to most scholars, astronomers. They surely would have known the difference. They weren't stupid, and had they seen something as large as the Moon pop up that had never been in the sky before, they wouldn't have called it a star! You seem to imply that everybody in the world except yourself is an idiot. I would suggest to you that in fact, it is you who are being willfully ignorant. I do not say you are an idiot, but rather, that you are being willfully ignorant. The two are very different.
The moon had never existed until that time: they had no other word for a shining object in the sky. The texts define it to be very different to a star. Name one star which moves enough that it may easily be followed, and may easily be spotted as new.

Venus, although it is a planet, has been called "the Evening Star" for centuries, and is noticeably visible, and moves, and has been noted to do so, since long before the birth of Jesus, if in fact he existed at all. Mars is another. I am sure that if they had not already had a word for it, they would have invented one, but the fact exists that languages of the time did in fact HAVE words for "star" and "moon". Hebrew did at the time, I can guarantee that, as did Aramaic. Even I have enough familiarity with the languages to assure you of that. Latin did as well. "Astra" being "star", "stella" being another word for it. And "luna" being "moon". And yes, these words existed BEFORE Jesus was even thought of. I know the history of Latin better than that! Evidently you do not, however.
 
Quote
All I believe is that God is not a fool. He would announce to all that the Messiah was born, and creating a second light to mirror His own, and to shine when the demons shine in the sky, would be one way to do that.

Given that nobody cares about when the Jewish Messiah is going to be born except the Jews, I find that highly unlikely in the extreme.

Quote
Quote
I do not see that every plant lives on the Earth, at least NOT in the English. I would have to go back to the Hebrew to verify what in fact it does say, and I would have to go to a person whose Hebrew is in fact better than my own. Since in fact neither of us knows Hebrew (I suspect you don't know it at all, and I don't know it well enough for this), this is a moot argument.
That is not necessary. God is not incompetent.

An illogical response, not worthy of a reply on my part.

Quote
Quote
According to Jewish Law, only a claim through the father has any validity. And no special dispensation can be granted in Jewish Law, even assuming someone IS born of a virgin, however ridiculous that notion is in fact. I agree with the statement that the correct translation of the Hebrew is "young woman". It would be biologically impossible for Joseph to be the father if he didn't consummate his marriage to Mary to give his seed to her for Jesus. Even G-d does not break the rules of logic. This is like G-d making a married bachelor. Or a four-sided triangle. Such things are impossible by definition. And a person who is born of a virgin having a male biological parent is one of them.
The correct translation is virgin, at the time of King James. The word is much like 'maiden' which may mean 'has not had sex', or may simply mean 'woman'.

Ah, no. The Hebrew "b'almah" always meant "young woman", even at the time King James lived in 1611. "b'tulah" means "virgin". But that is not the word that was used in Isaiah 7:14. The fact is that the translators of the Septuagint used the word "parthenos" in Greek, which can mean EITHER "young woman" or virgin" depending on context (they only had one word at the time whereas Hebrew had two, as did English, both in the time of King James and now), and the Christians, for Christological reasons, chose to translate the word, incorrectly, as "virgin".

Quote
However, if Mary was truly a virgin, I see no reason why transporting and blessing Joseph's seed would be beyond the power of He who made the world. It seems a very minor act. It is also a logical one: Jesus would be a bastard otherwise for the simple fact Mary and God are not and could not be married. He can very easily be a biological child of Joseph and a virgin Mary, and be blessed by God.

The fact is that the NT says that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost, not by Joseph's seed. It makes no logical sense to assume that he was begotten by some mystical transfer of seed when it says quite clearly differently. You are clearly reaching here, and inventing some crazy stuff. What the hell are you smoking? Can I have some of that? Man, it must be some good doobage, dude!

Quote
Quote
And if he is a descendant of David in blood, so what? So were most of the people who lived in Bethlehem. He is no more a King of Israel than his father was, assuming Joseph was his father. And the fact that he was a borderline bastard makes it even worse. Joseph, according to the NT, was betrothed to Mary, not married to her. Now, according to Jewish Law, if two people, betrothed to each other, did the wham-bam-thank-you-Ma'am before they were married, the child was NOT illegitimate, but it was looked upon VERY unfavourably. And words such as Mamzer would probably be thrown around for the rest of the kid's life, even though technically, he wasn't. And he would have a VERY hard time finding a mate that was more than gutter-snipe, to be blunt. That might in fact be why Jesus never married.
Jesus never married because God cannot marry a human, nor can God's human aspect. Christ must be a descendant of David to adhere to the Messianic prophecies which predicted him: Matthew and Luke verified this.
For the child to be had before betrothal would serve one of two purposes, depending on your interpretation. If Mary was a virgin, it could serve as evidence of this: if Mary was not, it would illustrate how good may result from sin, and how the Atonement was coming.

Or he never married because he was a borderline bastard, which is far more likely. And since the concept of the Atonement is one of the most repulsive doctrines ever to be foisted upon the human species, I simply won't speak further on such an illogical claim as the idea that good results from sin, other than to say if that is the case, I think I'll start fornicating with my neighbour's wife forthwith. After all, some good should result from it.  ;D ;D

Obviously, I am kidding in the last two sentences, about the fornicating part, at least, albeit NOT about the Atonement part.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 06:53:22 PM by Yaakov ben Avraham »
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2015, 05:00:46 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 06:51:14 PM
Venus, although it is a planet, has been called "the Evening Star" for centuries, and is noticeably visible, and moves, and has been noted to do so, since long before the birth of Jesus, if in fact he existed at all. Mars is another. I am sure that if they had not already had a word for it, they would have invented one, but the fact exists that languages of the time did in fact HAVE words for "star" and "moon". Hebrew did at the time, I can guarantee that, as did Aramaic. Even I have enough familiarity with the languages to assure you of that. Latin did as well. "Astra" being "star", "stella" being another word for it. And "luna" being "moon". And yes, these words existed BEFORE Jesus was even thought of. I know the history of Latin better than that! Evidently you do not, however.

Lucifer is the Morning Star, also named Sirius. Venus is the archangel Ramiel, who once Fell but was forgiven with the Atonement, and Mars is Sariel. They would always have existed, and would not be a sufficient announcement for God to speak of His son.
Simply because you believe the word Luna existed does not make it do. Demons do love to mislead, and it is very easy to doctor history.
 
Quote
Given that nobody cares about when the Jewish Messiah is going to be born except the Jews, I find that highly unlikely in the extreme.
Just because people do not care is no reason for them not to be informed. The Savior is come: God gave us many signs of Christ's divinity, this would merely be another.

Quote
The fact is that the NT says that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost, not by Joseph's seed. It makes no logical sense to assume that he was begotten by some mystical transfer of seed when it says quite clearly differently. You are clearly reaching here, and inventing some crazy stuff. What the hell are you smoking? Can I have some of that? Man, it must be some good doobage, dude!
The Holy Spirit performing the transfer would not contradict any of what I said. Why does God's word anger you so? When I speak of Christ's sacrifice, or of the Bible's truth, you respond with scorn, and with blind rejection. This is common to those who have hardened their hearts, so convinced that what they and they alone believe must be truth, that they will accept nothing else, and no other's authority.

Quote
I simply won't speak further on such an illogical claim as the idea that good results from sin, other than to say if that is the case, I think I'll start fornicating with my neighbour's wife forthwith. After all, some good should result from it.  ;D ;D

Obviously, I am kidding in the last two sentences, about the fornicating part, at least, albeit NOT about the Atonement part.
God demonstrating His love for humanity is beauty. There is nothing repulsive about sacrifice: sacrifice must be honored.
Good may result from sin. This does not sin being evil: ends do not justify means. It merely indicate's God's power, He who brings light forth from the darkness.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2015, 05:21:16 AM »
All of this is without doubt the most absurd, in fact, willfully stupid response I have ever heard, but I shall respond once more.

Quote from: Testify on September 25, 2015, 05:00:46 AM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2015, 06:51:14 PM
Venus, although it is a planet, has been called "the Evening Star" for centuries, and is noticeably visible, and moves, and has been noted to do so, since long before the birth of Jesus, if in fact he existed at all. Mars is another. I am sure that if they had not already had a word for it, they would have invented one, but the fact exists that languages of the time did in fact HAVE words for "star" and "moon". Hebrew did at the time, I can guarantee that, as did Aramaic. Even I have enough familiarity with the languages to assure you of that. Latin did as well. "Astra" being "star", "stella" being another word for it. And "luna" being "moon". And yes, these words existed BEFORE Jesus was even thought of. I know the history of Latin better than that! Evidently you do not, however.

Lucifer is the Morning Star, also named Sirius. Venus is the archangel Ramiel, who once Fell but was forgiven with the Atonement, and Mars is Sariel. They would always have existed, and would not be a sufficient announcement for God to speak of His son.

Again, angels do not fall. We have been over this.
 
Quote
Simply because you believe the word Luna existed does not make it do. Demons do love to mislead, and it is very easy to doctor history.

Since authors prior to the birth of Jesus used the word, that is simply a stupid response. Since the Romans had a Goddess of the Moon, that makes it an even more stupid response.
 
Quote
Quote
Given that nobody cares about when the Jewish Messiah is going to be born except the Jews, I find that highly unlikely in the extreme.
Just because people do not care is no reason for them not to be informed. The Savior is come: God gave us many signs of Christ's divinity, this would merely be another.

The Jewish Messiah is not a Saviour, dying and rising god-figure. We leave that for pagans, like Christians.

Quote
Quote
The fact is that the NT says that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost, not by Joseph's seed. It makes no logical sense to assume that he was begotten by some mystical transfer of seed when it says quite clearly differently. You are clearly reaching here, and inventing some crazy stuff. What the hell are you smoking? Can I have some of that? Man, it must be some good doobage, dude!
The Holy Spirit performing the transfer would not contradict any of what I said. Why does God's word anger you so? When I speak of Christ's sacrifice, or of the Bible's truth, you respond with scorn, and with blind rejection. This is common to those who have hardened their hearts, so convinced that what they and they alone believe must be truth, that they will accept nothing else, and no other's authority.

That is an emotional, and also stupid response. Anger is not the right word. That would imply that I cared enough. You assume the NT is true. The text of the NT contradicts itself in so many places as to become laughable within ten minutes. Especially with the so-called "sacrifice".

Quote
Quote
I simply won't speak further on such an illogical claim as the idea that good results from sin, other than to say if that is the case, I think I'll start fornicating with my neighbour's wife forthwith. After all, some good should result from it.  ;D ;D

Obviously, I am kidding in the last two sentences, about the fornicating part, at least, albeit NOT about the Atonement part.
God demonstrating His love for humanity is beauty. There is nothing repulsive about sacrifice: sacrifice must be honored.
Good may result from sin. This does not sin being evil: ends do not justify means. It merely indicate's God's power, He who brings light forth from the darkness.

Like I said, I shall start fornicating with my neighbour's wife. The results should be beneficial for all concerned.  ;D ;D
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2015, 05:53:18 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 25, 2015, 05:21:16 AM
All of this is without doubt the most absurd, in fact, willfully stupid response I have ever heard, but I shall respond once more.
You claim not to be angered by God's word, and yet you offer nothing except for scorn and insults. if, as you claim, you do not care, perhaps you should consider why His word arouses such a reaction in you.

Quote
Again, angels do not fall. We have been over this.
You said you do not believe they do. This is yoru choice: you have free will. It does not make it true.

Quote
Since authors prior to the birth of Jesus used the word, that is simply a stupid response. Since the Romans had a Goddess of the Moon, that makes it an even more stupid response.
So you believe. This does not make it true. Demons deceive.

Quote
The Jewish Messiah is not a Saviour, dying and rising god-figure. We leave that for pagans, like Christians.
Paganism, such as the obsession with naming Archangels after Pagan deities such as Saturn and Jupiter, is left to demons. We believe that God may work miracles.

Quote
The text of the NT contradicts itself in so many places as to become laughable within ten minutes. Especially with the so-called "sacrifice".
God's inspired translation, the King James Version, does not, despite the best attempts of people to ignore or willfully misinterpet the text. One may find attempted contradictions in any long work, but when examined there is no such thing present. People who seem to defame God will lie, however.

Quote
Like I said, I shall start fornicating with my neighbour's wife. The results should be beneficial for all concerned.
You have free will. It would remain a sin, however.
God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, but thou shalt not kill. Do you believe Abraham endeavoring to obey God was a bad thing?
God knows far more of what is moral than any mortal. True, God saved Isaac: just as Christ was not truly killed, and just as, if Mary was not a virgin, she would not have been guilty of fornication as her union would have been chosen and blessed by God (the absence of a priest does not mean a wedding has not occurred: Adam and Eve did not fornicate, they were married by God).
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2015, 08:26:38 AM »
Quote from: Testify on September 25, 2015, 05:53:18 AM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 25, 2015, 05:21:16 AM
All of this is without doubt the most absurd, in fact, willfully stupid response I have ever heard, but I shall respond once more.
You claim not to be angered by God's word, and yet you offer nothing except for scorn and insults. if, as you claim, you do not care, perhaps you should consider why His word arouses such a reaction in you.

The NT is not G-d's word.

Quote
Quote
Again, angels do not fall. We have been over this.
You said you do not believe they do. This is yoru choice: you have free will. It does not make it true.
The same could be said in reverse.

Quote
Quote
Since authors prior to the birth of Jesus used the word, that is simply a stupid response. Since the Romans had a Goddess of the Moon, that makes it an even more stupid response.
So you believe. This does not make it true. Demons deceive.

An illogical response. EVERY single mythology in the world had a goddess (or occasionally god) of the moon. That means the moon existed before Jesus, who may in fact not have existed at all. Denial of this is not only illogical, it is pure idiocy.

Quote
Quote
The Jewish Messiah is not a Saviour, dying and rising god-figure. We leave that for pagans, like Christians.
Paganism, such as the obsession with naming Archangels after Pagan deities such as Saturn and Jupiter, is left to demons. We believe that God may work miracles.

Quote
The text of the NT contradicts itself in so many places as to become laughable within ten minutes. Especially with the so-called "sacrifice".
God's inspired translation, the King James Version, does not, despite the best attempts of people to ignore or willfully misinterpet the text. One may find attempted contradictions in any long work, but when examined there is no such thing present. People who seem to defame God will lie, however.

The KJV was translated by 54 scholars of the Church of England, most of whom were chosen for various and sundry political reasons. Although quite talented, they did make mistakes in the translation. One of those mistakes we have already discussed. Isaiah 7:14 should read "young woman" rather than "virgin". There are several other errors, which have been recognised by scholars today. The KJV Only Movement is illogical by definition. it defies intelligence. The next question would be, what about other languages? Does Castilian have a divinely inspired translation? What about French? Or Chinese?

Quote
Quote
Like I said, I shall start fornicating with my neighbour's wife. The results should be beneficial for all concerned.
You have free will. It would remain a sin, however.
God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, but thou shalt not kill. Do you believe Abraham endeavoring to obey God was a bad thing?
God knows far more of what is moral than any mortal. True, God saved Isaac: just as Christ was not truly killed, and just as, if Mary was not a virgin, she would not have been guilty of fornication as her union would have been chosen and blessed by God (the absence of a priest does not mean a wedding has not occurred: Adam and Eve did not fornicate, they were married by God).

In fact, that is the point. G-d forbade human sacrifice when he saved Isaac. It is therefore illogical to expect that he would sacrifice his own son. Of course, the idea that G-d has a son, or that a man is G-d. is purely pagan thinking, making Christianity a quasi-paganistic religion.

I shall agree that G-d married Adam and Eve. That is understood by the Rabbis and Sages of Blessed Memory. The NT, however, makes it VERY clear that Joseph was ESPOUSED to Mary, not married to her.

Fundamentally, your arguments deny logic, and present straight stupidity. It is not insulting to state a fact. If I called YOU stupid, that would be an insult. But informing you that an argument is stupid is a far different thing.

By definition, the KJV Only Movement defies any kind of intelligent analysis. Anyone who holds to it should be arrested for felony silliness, if nothing else. It has been proven from the Masoretic Text  that there are errors in the English. Another of those is at the very beginning, when it says, QUOTE-5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.-END QUOTE Genesis Chapter 1 KJV.

The correct translation from the Hebrew is the following: QUOTE-And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.-END QUOTE Genesis 1:5 JPS 1917.

Notice the end of the text. "And there was evening and there was morning, one day."  Not, the first day. The correct translation from the Hebrew is the cardinal number, not the ordinal number. The distinction may appear minor, but it is not. Not only was it One Day, it was One G-d, with nothing but Himself. Nothing alive but HE. This is emphasised by the use of the Cardinal Number.
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2015, 10:27:39 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 25, 2015, 08:26:38 AM
The NT is not G-d's word.

The same could be said in reverse.
So you believe. The Holy Spirit has confirmed otherwise to me.

Quote
An illogical response. EVERY single mythology in the world had a goddess (or occasionally god) of the moon. That means the moon existed before Jesus, who may in fact not have existed at all. Denial of this is not only illogical, it is pure idiocy.
This is your claim. History can be rewritten and faked: most cultures merely had deities of the night or the stars, the Sun, perhaps Halley's Comet. There is no clear confirmation that could not have been faked by demons seeking to draw people away from God.

Quote
The KJV was translated by 54 scholars of the Church of England, most of whom were chosen for various and sundry political reasons. Although quite talented, they did make mistakes in the translation. One of those mistakes we have already discussed. Isaiah 7:14 should read "young woman" rather than "virgin". There are several other errors, which have been recognised by scholars today. The KJV Only Movement is illogical by definition. it defies intelligence. The next question would be, what about other languages? Does Castilian have a divinely inspired translation? What about French? Or Chinese?
I don't know about other languages, I speak English. English is, however, one of the best spread languages.
People can be selected for many reasons. This does not prevent God inspiring and aiding their work. Your so-called mistakes are ambiguous at best.
The KJV movement makes a great deal of sense, when considered. It was the first translation intended to be accessible. Predating it was, for example, the Bishop's Bible, intended only for people higher in the Church, and not for the public. The KJV was for everyone. Let us not forget that God would not need multiple translations: He only needs one copy of his words, with no ambiguity.
Before the KJV, the corrupt and the demonic directly opposed the idea of the common people reading from the Bible themselves. Many Bibles were not in English, and so could only be read by the upper classes: and they would preach fractions to bastardize God's word and manipulate. This was not God's will. When His will was enacted, and an accessible translation was made public, it was no longer possible to suppress: so they muddied the water, providing multiple new translations to confuse truth-seekers.
The KJV remains the truth.

Quote
In fact, that is the point. G-d forbade human sacrifice when he saved Isaac. It is therefore illogical to expect that he would sacrifice his own son. Of course, the idea that G-d has a son, or that a man is G-d. is purely pagan thinking, making Christianity a quasi-paganistic religion.
God did not sacrifice Christ: man did. God knew it would happen, yes: but He knows everything that would happen. Planning for it is no crime.

Quote
I shall agree that G-d married Adam and Eve. That is understood by the Rabbis and Sages of Blessed Memory. The NT, however, makes it VERY clear that Joseph was ESPOUSED to Mary, not married to her.
Espoused by human standards. Just because two people were not married by human authority does not mean they are not married by God's.

Quote
Notice the end of the text. "And there was evening and there was morning, one day."  Not, the first day. The correct translation from the Hebrew is the cardinal number, not the ordinal number. The distinction may appear minor, but it is not. Not only was it One Day, it was One G-d, with nothing but Himself. Nothing alive but HE. This is emphasised by the use of the Cardinal Number.
Not only is that distinction minor, it is meaningless. The first day directly implies that there was nothing before: nothing other than God Himself. Hebrew contains subtleties that English does not, and literal translations would lead to a book of nonsense. A translation does not need to be literal or word-for-word to  be accurate.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2015, 11:39:26 AM »
Quote from: Testify on September 25, 2015, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 25, 2015, 08:26:38 AM
The NT is not G-d's word.

The same could be said in reverse.
So you believe. The Holy Spirit has confirmed otherwise to me.

And the Mormons are convinced by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is the Word of G-d. How subjective! Another stupid response, from someone who seems full of them today.

Quote
Quote
An illogical response. EVERY single mythology in the world had a goddess (or occasionally god) of the moon. That means the moon existed before Jesus, who may in fact not have existed at all. Denial of this is not only illogical, it is pure idiocy.
This is your claim. History can be rewritten and faked: most cultures merely had deities of the night or the stars, the Sun, perhaps Halley's Comet. There is no clear confirmation that could not have been faked by demons seeking to draw people away from God.

Incorrect. Just looking at three, the Roman, the Greek, the Celtic, all three had deities of the Moon, as did the Arabs, the Babylonians, the Aztecs, the Maya, and G-d knows who else. Try again.

Quote
Quote
The KJV was translated by 54 scholars of the Church of England, most of whom were chosen for various and sundry political reasons. Although quite talented, they did make mistakes in the translation. One of those mistakes we have already discussed. Isaiah 7:14 should read "young woman" rather than "virgin". There are several other errors, which have been recognised by scholars today. The KJV Only Movement is illogical by definition. it defies intelligence. The next question would be, what about other languages? Does Castilian have a divinely inspired translation? What about French? Or Chinese?
I don't know about other languages, I speak English. English is, however, one of the best spread languages.
People can be selected for many reasons. This does not prevent God inspiring and aiding their work. Your so-called mistakes are ambiguous at best.
The KJV movement makes a great deal of sense, when considered. It was the first translation intended to be accessible. Predating it was, for example, the Bishop's Bible, intended only for people higher in the Church, and not for the public. The KJV was for everyone. Let us not forget that God would not need multiple translations: He only needs one copy of his words, with no ambiguity.
Before the KJV, the corrupt and the demonic directly opposed the idea of the common people reading from the Bible themselves. Many Bibles were not in English, and so could only be read by the upper classes: and they would preach fractions to bastardize God's word and manipulate. This was not God's will. When His will was enacted, and an accessible translation was made public, it was no longer possible to suppress: so they muddied the water, providing multiple new translations to confuse truth-seekers.
The KJV remains the truth.

Incorrect again. Henry VIII, whatever his personal failings, was very up to speed in one respect. He put the Great Bible, which was the first major translation of the Bible into English to reach the people at large, into every single parish church. Every single communicant of the Church of England was allowed to read it whenever they so desired simply by entering the church and looking at it. QUOTE-In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."-END QUOTE Wikipedia, article on the Great Bible, located at the site as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible

Quote
Quote
In fact, that is the point. G-d forbade human sacrifice when he saved Isaac. It is therefore illogical to expect that he would sacrifice his own son. Of course, the idea that G-d has a son, or that a man is G-d. is purely pagan thinking, making Christianity a quasi-paganistic religion.
God did not sacrifice Christ: man did. God knew it would happen, yes: but He knows everything that would happen. Planning for it is no crime.

Planning to sacrifice your own son is the very height of evil. Of course, the whole concept of G-d having a son is a pagan concept, but there you are.

Quote
Quote
I shall agree that G-d married Adam and Eve. That is understood by the Rabbis and Sages of Blessed Memory. The NT, however, makes it VERY clear that Joseph was ESPOUSED to Mary, not married to her.
Espoused by human standards. Just because two people were not married by human authority does not mean they are not married by God's.

Given that G-d created Adam and Eve directly, one can assume that their relationship was blessed by said Creator. However, the NT says specifically that Mary and Joseph were espoused. Not married. There is no room for weasling out of that, however much you might want to play with the English.

Quote
Quote
Notice the end of the text. "And there was evening and there was morning, one day."  Not, the first day. The correct translation from the Hebrew is the cardinal number, not the ordinal number. The distinction may appear minor, but it is not. Not only was it One Day, it was One G-d, with nothing but Himself. Nothing alive but HE. This is emphasised by the use of the Cardinal Number.
Not only is that distinction minor, it is meaningless. The first day directly implies that there was nothing before: nothing other than God Himself. Hebrew contains subtleties that English does not, and literal translations would lead to a book of nonsense. A translation does not need to be literal or word-for-word to  be accurate.

When the subtlety can be captured without making nonsense, as it can in this case, it should be. Ergo, the translation of the KJV is less accurate than the JPS 1917.

You are well on your way to proving yourself to be far more foolish than just about anyone I have ever met. You have clearly indicated a total lack of knowledge of history, not only of languages, but of the concept of mythologies around the world, of the history of the Bible in English, and G-d only knows what else. You are either profoundly ignorant, which is correctable through education, or profoundly stupid, which is not. I would hope for the former, but I am beginning to be truly convinced that it is the latter. I have never seen this kind of foolishness in my life. This goes beyond any question of UFOs. You are entitled to believe what you wish on that subject. But denying reality is just insane. I suggest meds. If you tell me where you live, I can locate some excellent psychiatrists for you.

Another error of many in the KJV is in the beginning of the text when it talks about one of the rivers that comes out of Eden going into Ethiopia. It should read "Cush". And there are two lands called Cush. One was Ethiopia. However, this is NOT the Cush that was spoken of in the Bible, but rather the Cush, or Kush, as it is sometimes spelled, that is located in or near modern Turkey. To call it Ethiopia is a glaring error.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 12:36:08 PM by Yaakov ben Avraham »
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2015, 12:58:05 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 25, 2015, 11:39:26 AM
And the Mormons are convinced by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is the Word of G-d. How subjective! Another stupid response, from someone who seems full of them today.
If you believe it to be subjective, you have not felt God. 

Quote
Incorrect. Just looking at three, the Roman, the Greek, the Celtic, all three had deities of the Moon, as did the Arabs, the Babylonians, the Aztecs, the Maya, and G-d knows who else. Try again.
So you believe.

Quote
Incorrect again. Henry VIII, whatever his personal failings, was very up to speed in one respect. He put the Great Bible, which was the first major translation of the Bible into English to reach the people at large, into every single parish church. Every single communicant of the Church of England was allowed to read it whenever they so desired simply by entering the church and looking at it. QUOTE-In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."-END QUOTE Wikipedia, article on the Great Bible, located at the site as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible
It was quite literally called the chained bible. It was intended exclusively to be read in Church, and by the priests and Church speakers, and it would be impossible to spend time reading or interpreting. It was not meant to be accessible.

Quote
Planning to sacrifice your own son is the very height of evil. Of course, the whole concept of G-d having a son is a pagan concept, but there you are.
Then Abraham is the height of all evil.
What happened to Christ can not really be called a murder. He lives still, and altered the entire human afterlife. Further, imagining Christ as a literal son is a flawed concept. He is more a manifestation of God: and even in the OT God manifested Himself in many ways. Christ was simply a more meaningful example.

Quote
Given that G-d created Adam and Eve directly, one can assume that their relationship was blessed by said Creator. However, the NT says specifically that Mary and Joseph were espoused. Not married. There is no room for weasling out of that, however much you might want to play with the English.
I am not weasling. They certainly were espoused, by the human authority spoken of and researched by the Gospel writers. This does not preclude a divine marriage. At no point does the Bible describe Adam and Eve as married, but it is wholly reasonable to conclude that they were, by God: a manner unrecognizable to humans, is it not?

Quote
When the subtlety can be captured without making nonsense, as it can in this case, it should be. Ergo, the translation of the KJV is less accurate than the JPS 1917.
If you believe the subtley can be accurately translated, why did you not give that translation? The translation you gave does not imply any of what you said, and 'the first day' seems to make your meaning far clearer. Or would you suggest every passage in the Bible be appended with a footnote describing the intricacies of translation?

Yet again, you offer insults when you are finished. Why does God's word anger you so?

The names of places have altered with time.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2015, 01:13:39 PM »
Quote from: Testify on September 25, 2015, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 25, 2015, 11:39:26 AM
And the Mormons are convinced by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is the Word of G-d. How subjective! Another stupid response, from someone who seems full of them today.
If you believe it to be subjective, you have not felt God.

Dodging my point. 

Quote
Quote
Incorrect. Just looking at three, the Roman, the Greek, the Celtic, all three had deities of the Moon, as did the Arabs, the Babylonians, the Aztecs, the Maya, and G-d knows who else. Try again.
So you believe.

So history dictates.

Quote
Quote
Incorrect again. Henry VIII, whatever his personal failings, was very up to speed in one respect. He put the Great Bible, which was the first major translation of the Bible into English to reach the people at large, into every single parish church. Every single communicant of the Church of England was allowed to read it whenever they so desired simply by entering the church and looking at it. QUOTE-In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."-END QUOTE Wikipedia, article on the Great Bible, located at the site as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible
It was quite literally called the chained bible. It was intended exclusively to be read in Church, and by the priests and Church speakers, and it would be impossible to spend time reading or interpreting. It was not meant to be accessible.

It was meant to be read by any parishioner who would comfortably enter the church to read it. "...whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it." Your inability to comprehend English is a personal problem.

Quote
Quote
Planning to sacrifice your own son is the very height of evil. Of course, the whole concept of G-d having a son is a pagan concept, but there you are.
Then Abraham is the height of all evil.

Had he done it, I would agree. But G-d prevented that.
 
Quote
What happened to Christ can not really be called a murder. He lives still, and altered the entire human afterlife. Further, imagining Christ as a literal son is a flawed concept. He is more a manifestation of God: and even in the OT God manifested Himself in many ways. Christ was simply a more meaningful example.

Quote
Given that G-d created Adam and Eve directly, one can assume that their relationship was blessed by said Creator. However, the NT says specifically that Mary and Joseph were espoused. Not married. There is no room for weasling out of that, however much you might want to play with the English.
I am not weasling. They certainly were espoused, by the human authority spoken of and researched by the Gospel writers. This does not preclude a divine marriage. At no point does the Bible describe Adam and Eve as married, but it is wholly reasonable to conclude that they were, by God: a manner unrecognizable to humans, is it not?

We've been over this.

Quote
Quote
When the subtlety can be captured without making nonsense, as it can in this case, it should be. Ergo, the translation of the KJV is less accurate than the JPS 1917.
If you believe the subtley can be accurately translated, why did you not give that translation? The translation you gave does not imply any of what you said, and 'the first day' seems to make your meaning far clearer. Or would you suggest every passage in the Bible be appended with a footnote describing the intricacies of translation?

Yes, in fact, the Bible should be provided with extensive commentary, which is what you find with the Rabbinical commentaries.

Quote
Yet again, you offer insults when you are finished. Why does God's word anger you so?

An illogical response, since the NT is not G-d's Word, any more than the Qur'an is.

Quote
The names of places have altered with time.

We've been over this.

This will be my last response. I have proven my point. No further discussion is necessary. Anyone who reads this and has a brain will see that you are clearly uneducated, or most likely willfully stupid.Anyone who denies historical fact should not be allowed to leave their house and enter the public, and should be denied use of the Internet, so that they cannot misinform the public with their BS. You might be inclined to act the fool, but I am not. My suggestion is to find a serious psychiatrist, and some good meds. If you choose not to do that, then you have personal problems. I shall close now. And put you on ignore You serve no purpose. The argument has ended, and you have clearly lost. You have grasped at straws, and they have ripped apart before your eyes.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 01:17:25 PM by Yaakov ben Avraham »
Logged
*

Testify

  • 420
  • +0/-0
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2015, 01:25:18 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 25, 2015, 01:13:39 PM
Dodging my point. 
Directly addressing your point is far from dodging. You have accused me of this before, and when you are called out for it, then you dodge.
My claim is not subjective. God may not be faked. If you have any true faith, you would not claim He could be.

Quote
So history dictates.
So demons tell.

Quote
It was meant to be read by any parishioner who would comfortably enter the church to read it. "...whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it." Your inability to comprehend English is a personal problem.
How many Bibles for how many parishioners? How often do you believe they could read without a priest over their shoulder? They would not read in privacy, they would not have much time, nor much quiet. This was explained to you: my comprehension is not the problem here. You have decided that all I say must be wrong, and must be mocked, and put no thought into understanding my words or my meaning.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Planning to sacrifice your own son is the very height of evil. Of course, the whole concept of G-d having a son is a pagan concept, but there you are.
Then Abraham is the height of all evil.
Had he done it, I would agree. But G-d prevented that.
That was not your claim. You specifically said 'planning'. Will you persist in criticizing my comprehension?
 
Quote
An illogical response, since the NT is not G-d's Word, any more than the Qur'an is.
So you claim. Anyone who prays with an open mind and heart, and does not merely follow what their parents taught them, will find God's word to be truth.

Farewell. I hope you find God, and I hope you are less lured to the sin of wrath in the future.
Logged
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
*

Charming Anarchist

  • 558
  • +0/-0
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2015, 03:37:09 PM »
( ) There can BE no certainty as to whether aliens exist until CRISIS ACTORS make their presence known by making an in-your-face appearance on the Silver Screen. 
Logged
*

Misero

  • 1261
  • +0/-0
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFO's)
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2015, 04:40:57 AM »
"A lie of omission"
What? I could say that not including the prairie dog in the bible was a lie of omission.
Logged
Quote from: jroa on October 10, 2014, 08:28:45 AM
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »