Kay 17:

Your interpretation fills huge gaps with possibilities without considering the vast possibilities can also be filled in those gaps and too complicated.

The Genesis account mentioned 7 days. The account already provided the time measurement, why disregard it? Or is that the sacrifice to force an agreement with the present scientific view?

this is similar to the fact that God cannot be understood or known beyond what Jesus and "the prophets" said about him. cos every other speculation of the creator and cration are mere speculation without validation

phantasm:


Consider this statement:
The man left his room with the LAMP on. When the wife returned and entered the room, she found that the temperature was high for the husband left the LANTERN on.......
Lamp is a common name for any source of light.


Let's assume that the word "Round" was used 10years ago to describe a ball. Today, we have a word used to describe more specifically the shape of a ball which is sphere. Would it be wrong to use those words interchangeably since we've all be calling a ball 'round' before we conclude that a '3D round= sphere.'?

Even today, football is fondly called by some people the "round object" or "round ball".... Besides, both words could be applied to describe different objects or events in the book you mentioned and there is no crime using the words to desribe "1 object".

Also, the common name or description of Circles, Spheres and even some imperfect curves is ROUND. The bible was written in simple Languages and at some time, when complex words or logics are used, they are explained in the bible itself. The Bible explains itself...

so who was called Jesus before him. or do you know how many words in the dictionary today that exist only in the bible. or does the Bible God not know that the actual word is sphere then, or that it is a better word to use.

Kay 17:

Your interpretation fills huge gaps with possibilities without considering the vast possibilities can also be filled in those gaps and too complicated.

The Genesis account mentioned 7 days. The account already provided the time measurement, why disregard it? Or is that the sacrifice to force an agreement with the present scientific view?

Sir, I didnt disregard any "7days" as mentioned in Genesis. I only said the "root word" translated day (and check as many bible translations as possible) has no specific time impregnated in it. The root word could mean "a period", "season" etc. Now, how many days are in a period or season?

Granted, many translations used "day" but I am quite sure that some of those translations if not most, always explain some 'translated words' the way the 'root word implies in the context' as footnotes or appendix........

But the Bible itself is clear about the issue.

ghazzal:

so who was called Jesus before him. or do you know how many words in the dictionary today that exist only in the bible. or does the Bible God not know that the actual word is sphere then, or that it is a better word to use.

Using your arguement, let me ask you a question:
What is an annihilator? What is a creator? And differenciate between the two SCIENTIFICALLY...

(Only your answer counts here. I would disregard anyone who answers the question either in your behalf or not. And I will know if you google it out.).

If you can answer, answer. If you can't just say: I just wanted to drive out a point to you based on your arguement...

phantasm:

Using your arguement, let me ask you a question:
What is an annihilator? What is a creator? And differenciate between the two SCIENTIFICALLY...

(Only your answer counts here. I would disregard anyone who answers the question either in your behalf or not. And I will know if you google it out.).

If you can answer, answer. If you can't just say: I just wanted to drive out a point to you based on your arguement...

with the word "SCIENTIFICALLY", i dont know what u mean. annihilator is to end/kill something and creator is to make something from nothin.
what is the point

I am not saying d bible is accurate but we need dis religion called Christianity 4 peace 2 prevail I mean real Christian just imagine wat d west will do in middle east if there was no religion or no pope 2 intervene

phantasm:


Sir, I didnt disregard any "7days" as mentioned in Genesis. I only said the "root word" translated day (and check as many bible translations as possible) has no specific time impregnated in it. The root word could mean "a period", "season" etc. Now, how many days are in a period or season?

Granted, many translations used "day" but I am quite sure that some of those translations if not most, always explain some 'translated words' the way the 'root word implies in the context' as footnotes or appendix........

But the Bible itself is clear about the issue.

In other words, with assistance from the earliest manuscripts, you have no idea of within what time frame God created everything. So why assume it conformed with present scientific views?? Isn't that dishonest?!

Science: Has It Proved the Bible Wrong?
Science: Has It Proved the Bible Wrong?
In 1613 the Italian scientist Galileo published a work known as “Letters on Sunspots.” In it, he presented evidence that the earth rotates around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. By so doing, he set in motion a series of events that finally brought him before the Roman Catholic Inquisition under “vehement suspicion of heresy.” Eventually, he was forced to “recant.” Why was the idea that the earth moves around the sun viewed as heresy? Because Galileo’s accusers claimed that it was contrary to what the Bible says.
IT IS widely held today that the Bible is unscientific, and some point to Galileo’s experiences to prove it. But is this the case? When answering that question, we have to remember that the Bible is a book of prophecy, history, prayer, law, counsel, and knowledge about God. It does not claim to be a scientific textbook. Nevertheless, when the Bible does touch on scientific matters, what it says is completely accurate.
Our Planet Earth
2 Consider, for example, what the Bible says about our planet, the earth. In the book of Job, we read: “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) Compare this with Isaiah’s statement, when he says: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed of a round earth ‘hanging upon nothing’ in “the empty place” reminds us strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty space.
3 Consider, too, the earth’s amazing water cycle. Here is how Compton’s Encyclopedia describes what happens: “Water . . . evaporates from the surface of the oceans into the atmosphere . . . Steadily moving air currents in the earth’s atmosphere carry the moist air inland. When the air cools, the vapor condenses to form water droplets. These are seen most commonly as clouds. Often the droplets come together to form raindrops. If the atmosphere is cold enough, snowflakes form instead of raindrops. In either case, water that has traveled from an ocean hundreds or even thousands of miles away falls to the earth’s surface. There it gathers into streams or soaks into the ground and begins its journey back to the sea.”1
4 This remarkable process, which makes life on dry land possible, was well described about 3,000 years ago in simple, straightforward terms in the Bible: “All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The New English Bible.
5 Perhaps even more remarkable is the Bible’s insight into the history of mountains. Here is what a textbook on geology says: “From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated.”2 Compare this with the poetic language of the psalmist: “With a watery deep just like a garment you covered [the earth]. The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, valley plains proceeded to descend—to the place that you have founded for them.”—Psalm 104:6, 8.
“In the Beginning”
6 The very first verse of the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Observations have led scientists to theorize that the material universe did indeed have a beginning. It has not existed for all time. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, wrote: “The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”3
7 True, many scientists, while believing that the universe had a beginning, do not accept the statement that “God created.” Nevertheless, some now admit that it is difficult to ignore the evidence of some kind of intelligence behind everything. Physics professor Freeman Dyson comments: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”
8 Dyson goes on to admit: “Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning.”4 His comment certainly betrays the skeptical attitude of our time. But putting that skepticism aside, one notes there is a remarkable harmony between modern science and the Bible’s statement that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.
Health and Sanitation
9 Consider the Bible’s coverage of another field: health and sanitation. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being leprosy, he was put in isolation. “All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place.” (Leviticus 13:46) Even infected garments were burned. (Leviticus 13:52) In those days, this was an effective way of preventing the spread of the infection.
10 Another important law had to do with the disposal of human excrement, which had to be buried outside the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) This law no doubt saved Israel from many sicknesses. Even today, severe health problems are caused in some lands by the improper disposal of human wastes. If people in those lands would only follow the law written down thousands of years ago in the Bible, they would be much healthier.
11 The Bible’s high standard of hygiene even involved mental health. A Bible proverb said: “A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones.” (Proverbs 14:30) In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Doctor C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were angrier and more anxious under stress.5
What Does the Bible Say?
12 If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church say that Galileo’s teaching that the earth moved around the sun was unscriptural? Because of the way the authorities interpreted certain Bible verses.6 Were they correct? Let us read two of the passages they quoted and see.
13 One passage says: “The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5, The Jerusalem Bible) According to the Church’s argument, expressions such as “the sun rises” and “the sun sets” mean that the sun, not the earth, is moving. But even today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer. The Bible writer was doing exactly the same.
14 The other passage says: “You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakeable for ever and ever.” (Psalm 104:5, The Jerusalem Bible) This was interpreted to mean that after its creation the earth could never move. In fact, though, the verse stresses the permanence of the earth, not its immobility. The earth will never be ‘shaken’ out of existence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm. (Psalm 37:29; Ecclesiastes 1:4) This scripture, too, has nothing to do with the relative motion of the earth and the sun. In Galileo’s time, it was the Church, not the Bible, that hindered free scientific discussion.
Evolution and Creation
15 There is, however, an area where many would say that modern science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of living things was specially created and reproduces only “according to its kind.” Man, it says, was created “out of dust from the ground.” (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible? Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes.
16 The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
17 As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.
18 Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.
Is It Proved?
19 How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.”7 So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin’s theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much more than it does evolution.
20 Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. He says: “Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.”8 Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else.
The Origin of Life
21 Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.
22 So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different”!9
23 Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Why Not Creation
24 Despite the problems inherent in the theory of evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why is this? Why does even an authority such as Francis Hitching, who honestly points up the weaknesses of evolution, reject the idea of creation?11 Michael Denton explains that evolution, with all its failings, will continue to be taught because theories related to creation “invoke frankly supernatural causes.”12 In other words, the fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. Surely, this is the same kind of circular reasoning that we met up with in the case of miracles: Miracles are impossible because they are miraculous!
25 Besides, the theory of evolution itself is deeply suspect from a scientific viewpoint. Michael Denton goes on to say: “Being basically a theory of historical reconstruction, [Darwin’s theory of evolution] is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science. . . . Moreover, the theory of evolution deals with a series of unique events, the origin of life, the origin of intelligence and so on. Unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation.”13 The truth is that the theory of evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible’s account of the origin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a completely reasonable account of how these “unrepeatable” “unique events” came about during creative ‘days’ that stretched through millenniums of time.
What About the Flood?
26 Many point to another supposed contradiction between the Bible and modern science. In the book of Genesis, we read that thousands of years ago the wickedness of men was so great that God determined to destroy them. However, he instructed the righteous man Noah to build a large wooden vessel, an ark. Then God brought a flood upon mankind. Only Noah and his family survived, together with representatives of all the animal species. The Flood was so great that “all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.”—Genesis 7:19.
27 Where did all the water come from to cover the whole earth? The Bible itself answers. Early in the creation process, when the expanse of the atmosphere began to take shape, there came to be “waters . . . beneath the expanse” and “waters . . . above the expanse.” (Genesis 1:7; 2 Peter 3:5) When the Flood came, the Bible says: “The floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (Genesis 7:11) Evidently, the “waters . . . above the expanse” fell and provided much of the water for the inundation.
28 Modern textbooks are inclined to discount a universal flood. So we have to ask: Is the Flood just a myth, or did it really happen? Before answering that, we should note that later worshipers of Jehovah accepted the Flood as genuine history; they did not regard it as a myth. Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, and Peter were among those who referred to it as something that really happened. (Isaiah 54:9; Matthew 24:37-39; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20, 21; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:5-7) But there are questions that have to be answered about this universal Deluge.
The Floodwaters
29 First, is not the idea of the whole earth’s being flooded too farfetched? Not really. Indeed, to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher. Cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear.
30 Further, The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”14 So, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
31 For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is this possible? Well, one textbook says: “Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.”15 Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep.
32 What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins. How? Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.16 It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.
Traces of the Flood?
33 If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists found no trace of it? Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
34 Similar mistakes have been made. Concerning the time when scientists were developing their theory of ice ages, we read: “They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor.”18
35 Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event.19 Many have argued that this event was the Flood.
36 An editorial in the magazine Biblical Archaeologist observed: “It is important to remember that the story of a great flood is one of the most widespread traditions in human culture . . . Nevertheless behind the oldest traditions found in Near Eastern sources, there may well be an actual flood of gigantic proportions dating from one of the pluvial periods . . . many thousands of years ago.”20 The pluvial periods were times when the surface of the earth was much wetter than now. Freshwater lakes around the world were much larger. It is theorized that the wetness was caused by heavy rains associated with the end of the ice ages. But some have suggested that on one occasion the extreme wetness of the earth’s surface was a result of the Flood.
Mankind Did Not Forget
37 Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student.”21
38 That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it. Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.
39 Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern science. Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists’ evidence is questionable. Where they agree, the Bible is often so accurate that we have to believe it got its information from a superhuman intelligence. Indeed, the Bible’s agreement with proved science provides further evidence that it is God’s word, not man’s.
[Footnotes]
A much more detailed discussion of the subject of evolution and creation is found in the book Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? published in 1985 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
The book Planet Earth—Glacier draws attention to the way water in the form of ice sheets depresses the surface of the earth. For example, it says: “If the Greenland ice were to disappear, the island would eventually rebound some 2,000 feet.” In view of this, the effect of a sudden global flood on parts of the earth’s crust could well have been catastrophic.17

ghazzal:

yes, but that man misuse words (i.e sun rise in ....) is not a reason for the bible to misuse words too. God created this things and know better. His book should show this

Lol. You are funny. Maybe you should a little bit of the social sciences. It might help your perspective. It isn't a misuse of words. It about how man sees his enviroment and how he describes his environment from his standpoint not from the standpoint of objects around him. Do you know someone is actually standing with his head pointed at you somewhere in the world? Do you know there is actually no north or south or east or west? You north is someone else's south and your east is someone else's west. It isn't a misuse of words. You simply described your environment from your standpoint. Its a natural phenomenom. As far as man is concerned, the sun moves, not the earth. It is only in actual academic books that we describe it otherwise.

nathdim: I am not saying d bible is accurate but we need dis religion called Christianity 4 peace 2 prevail I mean real Christian just imagine wat d west will do in middle east if there was no religion or no pope 2 intervene

i once heard a conversation, Muslims are terorists-look at 9/11, and a guy from middle east answered, how many died in 9/11 event. How many died in Iraq/Afganistan attack(bombs). where is the claimed weapon of mass destruction or the built half. Who really is terorising who? i actually became dumb.

2good:

I have experienced alot of things that defies human explanation and accept ignorance on such subject matters pending when I have the exact evidence to back up my claims. Religion on the other hand tell you to throw away your brain and accept by faith even if it is the dumbest reasoning there is. That's the difference between me and you. I am open to learning and do alot of research into any thing new to me. But you have practically shut your brain to reason as long as your biblical myth or pastors tells you to do so.

Well, I dont agree with you please, and my reasons are as follows:
(Acts 17:11) 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:21, 22) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. 22 Abstain from every form of wickedness.

^^^^Be decent and post the link to the jargons

thelastPope:

You are still making the same mistake. You are making a conclusion that suggests that science has already discovered everything. The same science that just found out that pluto is not a planet. Only God knows what the curiosity will discover in mars. Science is way too limited to make any sweeping claim. We don't even have a malaria vaccine after hundreds of years of malaria!

I am not but because to a science guru i have to..

AS FAR AS AM CONCERN THERE IS NOTHING LIKE SCIENCE IT DOES'T EXIST ONLY GOD KNOWS THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH.

ghazzal:

i once heard a conversation, Muslims are terorists-look at 9/11, and a guy from middle east answered, how many died in 9/11 event. How many died in Iraq/Afganistan attack(bombs). where is the claimed weapon of mass destruction or the built half. Who really is terorising who? i actually became dumb.

[i]True Christians [/i]practice peace. They do not engage in wars. No they not, not even in retaliation.

thelastPope:

Lol. You are funny. Maybe you should a little bit of the social sciences. It might help your perspective. It isn't a misuse of words. It about how man sees his enviroment and how he describes his environment from his standpoint not from the standpoint of objects around him. Do you know someone is actually standing with his head pointed at you somewhere in the world? Do you know there is actually no north or south or east or west? You north is someone else's south and your east is someone else's west. It isn't a misuse of words. You simply described your environment from your standpoint. Its a natural phenomenom. As far as man is concerned, the sun moves, not the earth. It is only in actual academic books that we describe it otherwise.

You are right. The question is will God in/with his knowledge see our environment (which we both agree he created) the way man sees it.
another Question is ...is that part of the Bible Gods word or mans interpretation of Gods word

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
A charge often made against the Bible is that it contradicts itself. Usually, people who make this charge have not personally read the Bible; they are merely repeating what they have heard. Some, though, have found what seem to be genuine contradictions and are troubled by them.
IF IT really is the Word of God, the Bible should be harmonious, not contradictory. Why, then, do some passages seem to contradict others? To answer, we need to remember that, while the Bible is the Word of God, it was written down by a number of men over a period of several centuries. These writers had different backgrounds, writing styles, and gifts, and all these differences are reflected in the writing.
2 Moreover, if two or more writers discuss the same event, one might include details that another omits. Additionally, different writers present the subject matter in different ways. One might write it down chronologically, while another might follow a different arrangement. In this chapter, we will present some alleged contradictions in the Bible and consider how they can be reconciled, taking the above considerations into account.
Independent Witnesses
3 Some “contradictions” arise when we have two or more accounts of the same incident. For example, at Matthew 8:5 we read that when Jesus came into Capernaum, “an army officer came to him, entreating him,” asking Jesus to cure his manservant. But at Luke 7:3, we read of this army officer that “he sent forth older men of the Jews to him to ask [Jesus] to come and bring his slave safely through.” Did the army officer speak to Jesus, or did he send the older men?
4 The answer is, clearly, that the man sent the elders of the Jews. Why, then, does Matthew say that the man himself entreated Jesus? Because, in effect, the man asked Jesus through the Jewish elders. The elders served as his mouthpiece.
5 To illustrate this, at 2 Chronicles 3:1, we read: “Finally Solomon started to build the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem.” Later, we read: “Thus Solomon finished the house of Jehovah.” (2 Chronicles 7:11) Did Solomon personally build the temple from start to finish? Of course not. The actual building work was done by a multitude of craftsmen and laborers. But Solomon was the organizer of the work, the one responsible. Hence, the Bible says that he built the house. In the same way, Matthew’s Gospel tells us that the military commander approached Jesus. But Luke gives the added detail that he approached him through the Jewish elders.
6 Here is a similar example. At Matthew 20:20, 21, we read: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee approached [Jesus] with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him.” What she asked was that her sons should have the most favored position when Jesus came into his Kingdom. In Mark’s account of this same event, we read: “James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, stepped up to [Jesus] and said to him: ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever it is we ask you for.’” (Mark 10:35-37) Was it the two sons of Zebedee, or was it their mother, who made the request of Jesus?
7 Clearly, it was the two sons of Zebedee who made the request, as Mark states. But they made it through their mother. She was their spokesperson. This is supported by Matthew’s report that when the other apostles heard what the mother of the sons of Zebedee had done, they became indignant, not at the mother, but “at the two brothers.”—Matthew 20:24.
8 Have you ever heard two people describe an event that they both witnessed? If so, did you notice that each person emphasized details that impressed him? One may have left out things that the other included. Both, however, were telling the truth. It is the same with the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry, as well as with other historical events reported by more than one Bible writer. Each writer wrote accurate information even when one retained details that another omitted. By considering all the accounts, a fuller understanding of what happened can be gained. Such variations prove that the Bible accounts are independent. And their essential harmony proves that they are true.
Read the Context
9 Often, apparent inconsistencies can be resolved if we just look at the context. Consider, for example, the often-raised problem about Cain’s wife. At Genesis 4:1, 2 we read: “In time [Eve] gave birth to Cain and said: ‘I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.’ Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel.” As is well known, Cain killed Abel; but after that, we read that Cain had a wife and children. (Genesis 4:17) If Adam and Eve had only two sons, where did Cain find his wife?
10 The solution lies in the fact that Adam and Eve had more than two children. According to the context, they had a large family. At Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam became father to another son named Seth and then, in the following verse, we read: “He became father to sons and daughters.” (Genesis 5:4) So Cain could have married one of his sisters or even one of his nieces. At that early stage of human history, when mankind was so close to perfection, such a marriage evidently did not pose the risks for the children of the union that it would today.
11 Our considering the context also helps us to understand what some have claimed is a disagreement between the apostle Paul and James. At Ephesians 2:8, 9, Paul says that Christians are saved by faith, not by works. He says: “You have been saved through faith . . . not owing to works.” James, however, insists on the importance of works. He writes: “As the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26) How can these two statements be reconciled?
12 Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous—and thus deserve salvation—by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Romans 5:18.
13 James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation.
14 The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”—sharing our faith with others—is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith.—Romans 6:23; John 3:16.
Different Viewpoints
15 Sometimes the Bible writers wrote about the same event from different viewpoints, or they presented their accounts in different ways. When these differences are taken into consideration, further apparent contradictions are easy to resolve. An example of this is in Numbers 35:14, where Moses speaks of the territory east of the Jordan as “on this side of the Jordan.” Joshua, however, speaking of land to the east of the Jordan, called it “the other side of the Jordan.” (Joshua 22:4) Which is correct?
16 In fact, both are correct. According to the account in Numbers, the Israelites had not yet crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land, so to them east of the Jordan was “this side.” But Joshua had already crossed the Jordan. He was now, physically, west of the river, in the land of Canaan. So east of the Jordan was, for him, “the other side.”
17 Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.
18 The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.
Read the Account Carefully
19 Sometimes, all that is needed to resolve apparent contradictions is to read the account carefully and reason on the information provided. This is the case when we consider the conquest of Jerusalem by the Israelites. Jerusalem was listed as part of the inheritance of Benjamin, but we read that Benjamin’s tribe was unable to conquer it. (Joshua 18:28; Judges 1:21) We also read that Judah was unable to conquer Jerusalem—as if it were part of that tribe’s inheritance. Eventually, Judah defeated Jerusalem, burning it with fire. (Joshua 15:63; Judges 1: Hundreds of years later, however, David is also recorded as conquering Jerusalem.—2 Samuel 5:5-9.
20 At first glance, all of this might appear confusing, but there are in reality no contradictions. In fact, the boundary between Benjamin’s inheritance and Judah’s ran along the Valley of Hinnom, right through the ancient city of Jerusalem. What later came to be called the City of David actually lay in the territory of Benjamin, just as Joshua 18:28 says. But it is likely that the Jebusite city of Jerusalem spilled across the Valley of Hinnom and thus overlapped into Judah’s territory, so that Judah, too, had to war against its Canaanite inhabitants.
21 Benjamin was unable to conquer the city. On one occasion, Judah did conquer Jerusalem and burn it. (Judges 1:8, 9) But Judah’s forces evidently moved on, and some of the original inhabitants regained possession of the city. Later, they formed a pocket of resistance that neither Judah nor Benjamin could remove. Thus, the Jebusites continued in Jerusalem until David conquered the city hundreds of years later.
22 We meet up with a second example in the Gospels. Concerning Jesus’ being led out to his death, in John’s Gospel we read: “Bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out.” (John 19:17) However, in Luke we read: “Now as they led him away, they laid hold of Simon, a certain native of Cyrene, coming from the country, and they placed the torture stake upon him to bear it behind Jesus.” (Luke 23:26) Did Jesus carry the implement of his death, or did Simon carry it for him?
23 To begin with, Jesus evidently carried his own torture stake, as John points out. But later, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke testify, Simon of Cyrene was impressed into service to carry it for him the rest of the way to the place of execution.
Proof of Independence
24 True, there are some apparent inconsistencies in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile. But we should not assume that they are definite contradictions. Often it is merely a case of lack of complete information. The Bible provides enough knowledge to fill our spiritual need. But if it were to give us every detail about every event mentioned, it would be a huge, unwieldy library, rather than the handy, easy-to-carry volume that we have today.
25 Speaking of Jesus’ ministry, the apostle John wrote with justifiable exaggeration: “There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.” (John 21:25) It would be even more of an impossibility to record all the details of the long history of God’s people from the patriarchs to the first-century Christian congregation!
26 Actually, the Bible is a miracle of condensation. It contains enough information to enable us to recognize it as more than merely a human work. Any variations it contains prove that the writers were truly independent witnesses. On the other hand, the outstanding unity of the Bible—which we will discuss in more detail in a future chapter—demonstrates without any doubt its divine origin. It is the word of God, not of man.

Kay 17:

In your belief, what was the consequence of Joshua's command?

The consequence of Joshua's command is that he destroyed his enemies. What other consequence where you expecting?

And for your 7 days argument. Again you keep making a mistake because you haven't read the whole chapter. The 7 days wasn't referring to 7, 24hr days as we know it. If you read from Gen 1:1, that is very obvious. God was already counting days before he created the sun and moon. The sun and moon were actually created on the 4th day. So the days he referred to could not have been as we know it today because our day is a function of the sun and moon.

Please bear with my lengthy post as I do not intend to overwhelm anyone

TalkingBird:

[i]True Christians [/i]practice peace. They do not engage in wars. No they not, not even in retaliation.

yes. old testament is not relevant here. smh

I will not engage in this debate until I meet someone who can read the original language in which the manuscript of the Bible was written.

We just quote the Bible to suit our arguments, forgetting that some meanings may have been lost in translation.

ghazzal:

with the word "SCIENTIFICALLY", i dont know what u mean. annihilator is to end/kill something and creator is to make something from nothin.
what is the point

Annihilator and Creator are scientific terms. So what I meant is for you not to explain the words literally but the Scientific meaning.

But anyway, to drive to my point, the definition you gave is wrong. The simplest way to explain the two words above from the 'root meaning', i'll state them below and explain my reason for such question.

*Anihilator: Anti- particle, Negative(but not in the literal sense) .
*Creator; particle, positive(not literal also)
when a creator(particle) and annihilator(anti- particle) meets, we have pure energy(the particle decays). Both have mathematical representations but, thats not what we are talking here.
##NB: + or -, doesnt imply charge such as electron on proton. So dont expect a proton to meet with an electron to give pure energy in the sense i made above. (e.g the anti-particle of an electron is a Positron. So u could expect electron+positron= energy in eV.)##

Those are the root meaning for those words and it is from there the concept of creator/annihilator evolves from.

Now, my point: I could have come straight to you that what is the meaning of negative and positive, which ofcourse you'ld be cheap to you, or ask you to interms of particle/anti-particle which prob'ly might also be a hot cake for you. But I didnt do that. I asked you in a form I know you may not be able to understand even when I gave you clues to it.
Now, your arguement is that since God knows that a sphere is sphere, why didnt he permit the use of sphere instead of round? If i could ask you in a form you dont understand and you didnt give me my answer, how do you expect us to understand God if he had used terms we are unable to understand? There is a reason why God used what is common and understandable to us to explain what is strange or we cannot see. God could have used the angels to write the Bible or just send it to us, but he sure wants us to read, understand and apply in the language, emotions and descriptions we'd understand.......

If a friend tells you truth always, will you always trust him?
Think about that as you read this

Prophecies That Came True
Humans cannot foretell the future with any certainty. Time and again their efforts at prediction fail miserably. So a book of prophecies that did come true has to attract our attention. The Bible is such a book.
MANY Bible prophecies have come true in such detail that critics claim they were written after the fulfillment. But such claims are untrue. God, being almighty, is fully capable of prophesying. (Isaiah 41:21-26; 42:8, 9; 46:8-10) Biblical prophecies that came true are evidence of divine inspiration, not of late authorship. We will look now at some outstanding prophecies that came true—providing additional proof that the Bible is God’s word, not just man’s.
The Exile in Babylon
2 Hezekiah was king in Jerusalem for about 30 years. In 740 B.C.E. he witnessed the destruction of his northern neighbor Israel at the hands of Assyria. In 732 B.C.E. he experienced God’s saving power, when the Assyrian attempt to conquer Jerusalem had failed, with catastrophic results to the invader.—Isaiah 37:33-38.
3 Now, Hezekiah is receiving a delegation from Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon. On the surface, the ambassadors are there to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery from a severe illness. Likely, though, Merodach-baladan sees Hezekiah as a possible ally against the world power of Assyria. Hezekiah does nothing to dispel such an idea when he shows the visiting Babylonians all the wealth of his house and dominion. Perhaps he, too, wants allies against a possible return of the Assyrians.—Isaiah 39:1, 2.
4 Isaiah is the outstanding prophet of that time, and he quickly discerns Hezekiah’s indiscretion. He knows that Hezekiah’s surest defense is Jehovah, not Babylon, and tells him that his act of showing the Babylonians his wealth will lead to tragedy. “Days are coming,” says Isaiah, “and all that is in your own house and that your forefathers have stored up down to this day will actually be carried to Babylon.” Jehovah decreed: “Nothing will be left.”—Isaiah 39:5, 6.
5 Back in the eighth century B.C.E., it may have seemed unlikely for that prophecy to be fulfilled. One hundred years later, however, the situation changed. Babylon replaced Assyria as the dominant world power, while Judah became so degraded, religiously speaking, that God withdrew his blessing. Now, another prophet, Jeremiah, was inspired to repeat Isaiah’s warning. Jeremiah proclaimed: “I will bring [the Babylonians] against this land and against its inhabitants . . . And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”—Jeremiah 25:9, 11.
6 About four years after Jeremiah uttered that prophecy, the Babylonians made Judah part of their empire. Three years after that, they took some Jewish captives, along with some of the wealth of the temple at Jerusalem, to Babylon. Eight years later, Judah revolted and was again invaded by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. This time, the city and its temple were destroyed. All its wealth, and the Jews themselves, were carried off to distant Babylon, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold.—2 Chronicles 36:6, 7, 12, 13, 17-21.
7 The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land notes that when the Babylonian onslaught was over, “the destruction of the city [Jerusalem] was a total one.”1 Archaeologist W. F. Albright states: “Excavation and surface exploration in Judah have proved that the towns of Judah were not only completely destroyed by the Chaldeans in their two invasions, but were not reoccupied for generations—often never again in history.”2 Thus, archaeology confirms the shocking fulfillment of this prophecy.
The Fate of Tyre
8 Ezekiel was another ancient writer who recorded divinely inspired prophecies. He prophesied from the end of the seventh century B.C.E. on into the sixth—that is, during the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and then during the first decades of the Jews’ exile in Babylon. Even some modern critics agree that the book was written at approximately this time.
9 Ezekiel recorded a striking prophecy about the destruction of Israel’s northern neighbor Tyre, which had gone from a position of friendship with God’s people to one of enmity. (1 Kings 5:1-9; Psalm 83:2- He wrote: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. . . . And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.’”—Ezekiel 26:3, 4, 12.
10 Did this really happen? Well, a few years after Ezekiel uttered the prophecy, the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, laid siege to Tyre. (Ezekiel 29:17, 18) It was not, however, an easy siege. Tyre was partially situated on the mainland (the part called Old Tyre). But part of the city was on an island about half a mile [800 m] offshore. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the island for 13 years before it finally submitted to him.
11 It was, however, in 332 B.C.E. that Ezekiel’s prophecy was finally fulfilled in all its details. At that time, Alexander the Great, the conqueror from Macedonia, was invading Asia. Tyre, secure on its island location, held out against him. Alexander did not want to leave a potential enemy at his rear, but he did not want to spend years in a siege of Tyre, as Nebuchadnezzar had done.
12 How did he solve this military problem? He built a land bridge, or mole, across to the island, so that his soldiers could march across and attack the island city. Notice, though, what he used to build the mole. The Encyclopedia Americana reports: “With the debris of the mainland portion of the city, which he had demolished, he built a huge mole in 332 to join the island to the mainland.” After a relatively short siege, the island city was destroyed. Moreover, Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Even the ‘stones and woodwork and dust’ of Old Tyre were ‘placed in the very midst of the water.’
13 A 19th-century traveler commented on what was left of ancient Tyre in his day, saying: “Of the original Tyre known to Solomon and the prophets of Israel, not a vestige remains except in its rock-cut sepulchres on the mountain sides, and in foundation walls . . . Even the island, which Alexander the Great, in his siege of the city, converted into a cape by filling up the water between it and the mainland, contains no distinguishable relics of an earlier period than that of the Crusades. The modern town, all of which is comparatively new, occupies the northern half of what was once the island, while nearly all the remainder of the surface is covered with undistinguishable ruins.”3
Babylon’s Turn
14 Back in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah, the prophet who warned the Jews of their coming subjugation by Babylon, also foretold something astounding: the total annihilation of Babylon itself. He foretold this in graphic detail: “Here I am arousing against them the Medes . . . And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chaldeans, must become as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation.”—Isaiah 13:17-20.
15 The prophet Jeremiah also foretold the fall of Babylon, which would take place many years later. And he included an interesting detail: “There is a devastation upon her waters, and they must be dried up. . . . The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight. They have kept sitting in the strong places. Their mightiness has run dry.”—Jeremiah 50:38; 51:30.
16 In 539 B.C.E., the time of Babylon’s rule as the preeminent world power came to an end when the vigorous Persian ruler Cyrus, accompanied by the army of Media, marched against the city. What Cyrus found, however, was formidable. Babylon was surrounded by huge walls and seemed impregnable. The great river Euphrates, too, ran through the city and made an important contribution to its defenses.
17 The Greek historian Herodotus describes how Cyrus handled the problem: “He placed a portion of his army at the point where the river enters the city, and another body at the back of the place where it issues forth, with orders to march into the town by the bed of the stream, as soon as the water became shallow enough . . . He turned the Euphrates by a canal into the basin [an artificial lake dug by a previous ruler of Babylon], which was then a marsh, on which the river sank to such an extent that the natural bed of the stream became fordable. Hereupon the Persians who had been left for the purpose at Babylon by the river-side, entered the stream, which had now sunk so as to reach about midway up a man’s thigh, and thus got into the town.”4
18 In this way the city fell, as Jeremiah and Isaiah had warned. But notice the detailed fulfillment of prophecy. There was literally ‘a devastation upon her waters, and they were dried up.’ It was the lowering of the waters of the Euphrates that enabled Cyrus to gain access to the city. Did ‘the mighty men of Babylon cease to fight,’ as Jeremiah had warned? The Bible—as well as the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon—records that the Babylonians were actually feasting when the Persian assault occurred.5 The Nabonidus Chronicle, an official cuneiform inscription, says that Cyrus’ troops entered Babylon “without battle,” likely meaning without a major pitched battle.6 Evidently, Babylon’s mighty men did not do much to protect her.
19 What about the forecast that Babylon would “never be inhabited” again? That was not fulfilled immediately in 539 B.C.E. But unerringly the prophecy came true. After her fall, Babylon was the center of a number of rebellions, until 478 B.C.E. when she was destroyed by Xerxes. At the end of the fourth century, Alexander the Great planned to restore her, but he died before the work had progressed very far. From then on, the city just declined. There were still people living there in the first century of our Common Era, but today all that is left of ancient Babylon is a heap of ruins in Iraq. Even if her ruins should be partially restored, Babylon would be just a tourist showpiece, not a living, vibrant city. Her desolate site bears witness to the final fulfillment of the inspired prophecies against her.
The March of World Powers
20 In the sixth century B.C.E., during the Jewish exile in Babylon, another prophet, Daniel, was inspired to record some remarkable visions foretelling the future course of world events. In one, Daniel describes a number of symbolic animals that displace one another on the world scene. An angel explains that these animals foreshadow the march of world powers from that time onward. Speaking of the final two beasts, he says: “The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power.”—Daniel 8:20-22.
21 This prophetic foreview was fulfilled exactly. The Babylonian Empire was overthrown by Medo-Persia, which, 200 years later, gave way to the Greek world power. The Greek Empire was spearheaded by Alexander the Great, “the great horn.” However, after Alexander’s death, his generals fought among themselves for power, and eventually the far-flung empire broke into four smaller empires, “four kingdoms.”
22 In Daniel chapter 7, a somewhat similar vision also looked far into the future. The Babylonian world power was pictured by a lion, the Persian by a bear, and the Greek by a leopard with four wings on its back and four heads. Then, Daniel sees another wild beast, “fearsome and terrible and unusually strong . . . , and it had ten horns.” (Daniel 7:2-7) This fourth wild beast prefigured the powerful Roman Empire, which began to develop about three centuries after Daniel recorded this prophecy.
23 The angel prophesied regarding Rome: “As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth, that will be different from all the other kingdoms; and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it.” (Daniel 7:23) H. G. Wells, in his book A Pocket History of the World, says: “This new Roman power which arose to dominate the western world in the second and first centuries B.C. was in several respects a different thing from any of the great empires that had hitherto prevailed in the civilised world.”7 It started as a republic and continued as a monarchy. Unlike previous empires, it was not the creation of any one conqueror but grew relentlessly over the centuries. It lasted much, much longer and controlled far more territory than any previous empire.
24 What, though, about the ten horns of this huge beast? The angel said: “And as for the ten horns, out of that kingdom there are ten kings that will rise up; and still another one will rise up after them, and he himself will be different from the first ones, and three kings he will humiliate.” (Daniel 7:24) How did this work out?
25 Well, when the Roman Empire started to deteriorate in the fifth century C.E., it was not immediately replaced by another world power. Rather, it disintegrated into a number of kingdoms, “ten kings.” Finally, the British Empire defeated the three rival empires of Spain, France, and the Netherlands to become the major world power. Thus did the newcomer ‘horn’ humiliate “three kings.”
Daniel’s Prophecies—After the Fact?
26 The Bible indicates that the book of Daniel was written during the sixth century B.C.E. However, the fulfillments of its prophecies are so exact that critics claim it must have been written about 165 B.C.E., when a number of the prophecies had already been fulfilled.8 Despite the fact that the only real reason for making this claim is that Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled, this late date for the writing of Daniel is presented as an established fact in many reference works.
27 Against such a theory, though, we must weigh the following facts. First, the book was alluded to in Jewish works produced during the second century B.C.E., such as the first book of Maccabees. Also, it was included in the Greek Septuagint version, the translation of which began in the third century B.C.E.9 Third, fragments of copies of Daniel were among the more frequently found works in the Dead Sea Scrolls—and these fragments are believed to date to about 100 B.C.E.10 Clearly, soon after Daniel was supposedly written, it was already widely known and respected: strong evidence that it was produced long before critics say it was.
28 Further, Daniel contains historical details that would have been unknown to a second-century writer. Outstanding is the case of Belshazzar, the ruler of Babylon who was killed when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. The major non-Biblical sources of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon are Herodotus (fifth century), Xenophon (fifth and fourth centuries), and Berossus (third century). None of these knew about Belshazzar.11 How unlikely that a second-century writer would have had information that had been unavailable to these earlier authors! The record concerning Belshazzar in Daniel chapter 5 is a strong argument that Daniel wrote his book before these other writers wrote theirs.
29 Finally, there are a number of prophecies in Daniel that were fulfilled long after 165 B.C.E. One of these was the prophecy about the Roman Empire, mentioned earlier. Another is a remarkable prophecy foretelling the arrival of Jesus, the Messiah.
The Coming of the Anointed One
30 This prophecy is recorded in Daniel, chapter 9, and reads as follows: “Seventy weeks [of years, or four hundred and ninety years] are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city.” (Daniel 9:24, The Amplified Bible) What was to happen during these 490 years? We read: “From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until [the coming of] the anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks [of years], and sixty-two weeks [of years].” (Daniel 9:25, AB) So this is a prophecy about the time of the coming of “the anointed one,” the Messiah. How was it fulfilled?
31 The command to restore and to build Jerusalem ‘went forth’ in “the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king” of Persia, that is, in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-9) By the end of 49 years (7 weeks of years), much of Jerusalem’s glory had been restored. And then, counting the full 483 years (7 plus 62 weeks of years) from 455 B.C.E., we arrive at 29 C.E. This was, in fact, “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” the year when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer. (Luke 3:1) At that time, Jesus was publicly identified as God’s Son and began his ministry of preaching the good news to the Jewish nation. (Matthew 3:13-17; 4:23) He became the “anointed one,” or Messiah.
32 The prophecy adds: “And after the sixty-two weeks [of years] shall the anointed one be cut off.” It also says: “And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease.” (Daniel 9:26, 27, AB) In harmony with this, Jesus went exclusively to “the many,” the fleshly Jews. On occasion, he also preached to the Samaritans, who believed some of the Scriptures but had formed a sect separate from mainstream Judaism. Then, “in the midst of the week,” after three and a half years of preaching, he gave up his life as a sacrifice and was thus “cut off.” This spelled the end of the Mosaic Law with its sacrifices and gift offerings. (Galatians 3:13, 24, 25) Hence, by his death, Jesus caused “the sacrifice and offering to cease.”
33 Nevertheless, for another three and a half years the newborn Christian congregation witnessed solely to Jews and, later, to the related Samaritans. In 36 C.E., however, at the end of the 70 weeks of years, the apostle Peter was guided to preach to a Gentile, Cornelius. (Acts 10:1-48) Now, the “covenant with the many” was no longer limited to the Jews. Salvation was preached also to the uncircumcised Gentiles.
34 Because the Jewish nation rejected Jesus and conspired to have him executed, Jehovah did not protect them when the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Thus, Daniel’s further words were fulfilled: “And the people of the other prince who shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and even to the end there shall be war.” (Daniel 9:26b, AB) This second “prince” was Titus, the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
Prophecy That Was Inspired
35 In this way, Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 weeks was fulfilled in a remarkably exact manner. Indeed, many of the prophecies recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures were fulfilled during the first century, and a number of these had to do with Jesus. The place of Jesus’ birth, his zeal for God’s house, his preaching activity, his betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, the manner of his death, the fact that lots were cast for his garments—all these details were prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. Their fulfillment proved without a doubt that Jesus was the Messiah, and it demonstrated again that the prophecies were inspired.—Micah 5:2; Luke 2:1-7; Zechariah 11:12; 12:10; Matthew 26:15; 27:35; Psalm 22:18; 34:20; John 19:33-37.
36 In fact, all the Bible’s prophecies that were due to be fulfilled have come true. Things have happened exactly in the way the Bible said they would. This is strong evidence that the Bible is God’s Word. There must have been more than human wisdom behind those prophetic utterances for them to have been so accurate.
37 But there are other predictions in the Bible that were not fulfilled in those times. Why? Because they were due to be fulfilled in our own day, and even in our future. The reliability of those ancient prophecies makes us confident that these other predictions will without fail come true. As we will see in the next chapter, this is indeed the case.

oge4real: I will not engage in this debate until I meet someone who can read the original language in which the manuscript of the Bible was written.

We just quote the Bible to suit our arguments, forgetting that some meanings may have been lost in translation.

I can fairly read hebrew and where are you going to get the ORIGINAL manuscript?

ghazzal:
You are right. The question is will God in/with his knowledge see our environment (which we both agree he created) the way man sees it.
another Question is ...is that part of the Bible Gods word or mans interpretation of Gods word

The bible was not written by God. It was written by men with inspiration from God. That means God showed men things and they tried to describe it with limited language and perspective as best as they could. That is why John could not even describe some of the creatures he saw in the book of revelation. Man is limited in language and perspective. Especially with today's languages like English that are so wishy washy. For example English will say "I love you". That phrase is so ambiguous. But the greek will say "I eros you" or "I philos you" or "I agape you" and you will get the exact import and context and message. That is why we have teachers who have to study and try and help put things in their original perspective.

ghazzal:

ask sango worshipers if sango answers prayer. pls give a more concrete reason

There you go again, God is nothing to be compared to a god. The crux is that whatever idol people worship works for them..but it won't be soon when you discover the limits of the idols. Only the true God is the unlimited god, but a man must be redeemed of his sins and accept to take the way to Him before he can have access to the Father. For practical examples, visit any bible-based church and see for yourself.

ghazzal:
yes. old testament is not relevant here. smh

Jehovah directed ancient Israel to use warfare to take possession of the land that he himself designated as their inheritance and to execute people whose depraved practices and defiance of the true God caused Jehovah to view them as being no longer fit to live. (Deut. 7:1, 2, 5; 9:5; Lev. 18:24, 25) Nevertheless, mercy was shown to Rahab and to the Gibeonites because they demonstrated faith in Jehovah. (Josh. 2:9-13; 9:24-27) In the Law covenant God laid down rules for warfare that he would approve, stipulating exemptions and the manner in which this warfare was to be carried out. Such were truly holy wars of Jehovah. That is not true of the carnal warfare of any nation today.

With the establishing of the Christian congregation, a new situation came into existence. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. Christ’s followers were to make disciples of people of all nations; so worshipers of the true God would in time be found in all those nations. However, what is the motive of those nations when they go to war? Is it to carry out the will of the Creator of all the earth or is it to further some nationalistic interest? If true Christians in one nation were to go to war against another nation, they would be fighting against fellow believers, against people who prayed for help to the same God that they did. Appropriately, Christ directed his followers to lay down the sword. (Matt. 26:52) He himself, glorified in the heavens, would henceforth carry out the execution of those who showed defiance of the true God and His will.—2 Thess. 1:6-8; Rev. 19:11-21.

oge4real: I will not engage in this debate until I meet someone who can read the original language in which the manuscript of the Bible was written.

We just quote the Bible to suit our arguments, forgetting that some meanings may have been lost in translation.

."..gap theory" i think

thelastPope:

The bible was not written by God. It was written by men with inspiration from God. That means God showed men things and they tried to describe it with limited language and perspective as best as they could. That is why John could not even describe some of the creatures he saw in the book of revelation. Man is limited in language and perspective. Especially with today's languages like English that are so wishy washy. For example English will say "I love you". That phrase is so ambiguous. But the greek will say "I eros you" or "I philos you" or "I agape you" and you will get the exact import and context and message. That is why we have teachers who have to study and try and help put things in their original perspective.

i thougth they wrote exactly what God requires of them. and not in their own words or understanding

Kay 17:

In other words, with assistance from the earliest manuscripts, you have no idea of within what time frame God created everything. So why assume it conformed with present scientific views?? Isn't that dishonest?!

I do not know what or where you are driving at. The question was about how compatible science was with the bible. And I made it clear that true science , based on facts supports the bible. I started by quoting someone's (or a reply to that arguement)arguement that science says the earth is billions of years old while in the bible, he saw it was thousands of years old. Then I refered back to the BIBLE since it is self explanatory, and it says "IN THE BEGINNING, God created the heaven and earth." and later describes the events of "6 creative days" all which affects the earth that was already created in the beginning. And I explained that the days weren't literal but the root word translated day could mean a "period of time" or "season" and I said many translations use different words why some explained those words as used in the context as footnotes or in the Appendix....

And I plainly noted that how long this periods were, aren't actually stated in the Bible account of Genesis. And availaible evidence prooves and coincides with the Genesis account in terms of emergence of life and different kinds.

So, what are we saying here, Sir?

@talkingbird, ur posts are too lenghty. it takes time to read. did u copy from somewhere?