₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Do you observe the Sabbath laws stated in these verses? If so how?

I try to observe the Sabbath as stated in Exod. 20:8-11 and Isa. 58:13 by refraining from secular work on that day, and not speaking my own words, nor finding my own pleasure. I devote that day to communion with GOD.

OLAADEGBU:
Can you kindly furnish us with biblical verses that buttress your assertion?

Exod. 20:8-11
Luke 4:16
Acts 17:2
Heb. 4:9
Luke 23:56, 24:1
Acts 16:13
Acts 13:42,44
Isa 58:13

OLAADEGBU:
Are Christians required to observe the Sabbath day?

Yes.

There is nothing like the Christian Sabbath. There is only one Sabbath day, and it is Saturday. The Bible also never told Christians to disregard GOD's Sabbath.

Observations:

1. This articles assumes that religious people entertain the idea of GOD and the peculiarity of man in the midst of Creation simply because they want to "feel important." It also assumes that religious people need to be "humbled." This is a fallacious generalization. Man is important by nature, and doesn't need his feelings to validate that. I believe there are "important" people in the world today who do not "feel important." Not everybody wants to "feel important", and, certainly, identifying that the earth and the solar system was specially created for us amounts to "feeling important" no more than identifying that you're different from a bacterium does.

2. I really don't know what this article wants to impress us with by giving us a recap of how vast the Universe is and the countless number of stars in it. This knowledge was common to some ancient people.

I may make further observations as time goes on.

Please expatiate on this:

In the philosophical and theological stand point it both contradicted the scriptures and the idea of 'Precious earth of the God(s)/God' that the earth was just a follower in the system of worlds and not the leader, the chief focus or the herder of the orbs.

On the article on the ice cores drilled in Antartica: It was fraught with the usual "could have" and "may have" and all those shady words that Big Bang theorists like to use:

Ice cores may reveal whether Antarctica's western ice sheet melted fully the last time Earth's climate warmed to the temperatures the planet is predicted to reach in the next two centuries. If it did, it's likely to again, which would raise sea levels significantly enough to threaten many seaside cities.

"We have some evidence that may have happened, but we aren't sure," says Erich Osterberg, who studies ice cores as an assistant professor in the Department of Earth Science at
Dartmouth College.

Quick questions:

1. How did they determine the age of the ice?

2. How were they sure that the dust and air in the ice didn't enter there recently?

3. Could landslides and earthquakes not have happened 9000 years ago and buried those layers deep in the ground making them appear hundreds of thousands of years old?

Also, how do you explain blueshift?

On the Cosmic Microwave Background:

Because the universe itself has been found to be extremely clumpy (with great walls of galaxies, and great voids in between) then, if the cosmic microwave radiation came about as a result of the ‘big bang’, this background radiation should also be clumpy. In other words, the temperature of this radiation should be uneven—there should be hot spots and cold spots. However, this radiation has been found to be extremely uniform--the same everywhere.

How do you explain this?

Antiparticle:
The answer to this is extremely simple. If radiometric dating is inaccurate for dating the earth, then all carefully selected samples used for dating the earth won't result in dates that converge towards ~4.5 billion years. If radiometric dating is as inaccurate as you say, all the key samples used to date the earth won't give dates in the billions of years. I am ready to move on from the radiometric dating topic, I have sufficiently addressed it. I take it that you have a disagreement about the 13.8 billion-year age estimate of the universe as well? Also, please address my post about ice cores. Thx.

You are carefully trying to shift the goal post. What do you have to say about the fact that scientists assume that the rocks they examine were not contaminated?

We know that the deeper the you peer into the universe, the farther back into time you look. If the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, and we see as far back 13.2 billion(we've even seen farther back than this) years ago, we should see closer to the Big Bang or even the Big Bang itself. Has anybody seen the Big Bang or any evidence of it in space?

If we've seen farther than 13.2 billion years ago, then we should the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn't see fully formed planets and stars. However, we see planets and galaxies just like our own. How do you explain this?

How do you account for the fact the chemical make-up of rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes? Or how do you account for the fact that as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it?

How do you account for the fact that the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium "age" of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium "age" of197 million years, and a uranium-lead "age" of 3.908 billion years?

You have failed to address the main issue: how do you account for the fact that much of the daughter isotope in a rock could have been acquired and therefore could not have resulted from decay? Or that much of the parent have been acquired by process of contamination?

To make matters worse, how do you explain the fact the basalt that flowed from the top of the Canyon yielded a samarium-neodymium age of 916 million years and a uranium-lead age of 2.6 billion years? Which of the ages is correct?

How does radiometric dating take care of the fact that the rock under examination could have acquired more of either the parent isotope or the daughter isotope? This is just one of the flaws associated with radiometric dating.

I'm ready to move on too. You can drop any question you want me to answer.

In the Big Bang theory it is not the receding motion
of matter, but expanding space that is used to
explain the redshift with distance. Thus they argue that the wavelength of light is longer due to 'stretching' space. The problems;

1 This is not a Doppler effect. A Doppler effect is for motion of matter in space, not for the expansion of space itself. Thus the Big Bang theory is not founded on the Doppler effect but a theoretical concept of expanding space.

2 This then assumes that space exists (to be able to expand), yet in other areas of physics they claim there is no absolute space. e.g. The electromagnetic wave is claimed to not require a physical medium. This was necessary to accommodate Einstein's special relativity where there was no absolute reference frame for motion (space), instead all motion is relative to other matter.

raphieMontella:
doctoralien and antiparticle...please sorry for interfering....
But my Good news bible at home...has that *foot note*...
In truth..the gospel of mark has 3 different endings in the good news version...so what antiparticle is saying is not restricted to the NIV as you think it is..
Cheers..

How do explain the fact that the NIV mysteriously omits verse from Luke, John, Acts?

How do you explain other astronomical observations that directly challenge Big Bang's single explosion assertion, such as

a) Blue shift movement, meaning some celestial objects moving toward us, directly opposing the explosion's propelling force.

b) Some stars in the Milky Way appear older than the universe.

Let's start from the basics: who told you that a Big Bang occurred?

Antiparticle,

I must laugh at the way you criticize the Bible. You expect to see words like "Milky Way" and "galaxy" and "Andromeda" in the Bible? Jesus said that after the great tribulation, the stars shall fall(Matt. 24:29). This prophecy was fulfilled in the great meteoric shower of November 13, 1833. It was the most extensive display of falling stars on record. It was estimated that a single observer could see an average of 60 000 meteors per hour.

I take it that you have not taken your time to analyse the too many assumptions made while determining the age of rocks. That calls the whole process into serious question.

I never implied that radioactive dating and radioactivity were not related. However, they are not the same.

No. The assumptions are such that the whole process is not to be trusted. I will list the assumptions when you tell me how the earth was determined to be more than 6000 years old.

I never claimed they lie simply because their findings don't agree with the Bible: they lie because their findings contradict reason.

Physical Science is not pitted against the Bible. Many a skeptic make this fallacious assumption.

I await your concrete and solid proof that radiometric dating cannot be faulted.

Engineering involves mathematics, but engineering is not mathematics. You now get the radioactive decay-radiometric dating relationship?

LOL. You clearly don't know that many assumptions are made during radiometric dating. Said assumptions make the process totally unreliable.

The issue is that the NIV omits verses not only in Mark but even in Luke, John, Acts. Very strategic verses too. The NIV is too tampered-with to be considered a version of the Bible.

The Bible is true. I trust it. However, I don't trust adulterated versions of it.

The scientists created phones: does it mean they can't lie? This is argumentum ad verecundiam.

How do you explain the fact that the potassium-argon dating of a sample gives one age, while uranium-lead dating for the same sample gives a totally unrelated age?

Edited: It has to be pointed out that radioactive decay is not the same thing as radiometric dating.

The issue is not the gospel of Mark: the issue is the NIV. That the NIV omits many(important) verses of the Bible without explanation calls its validity into serious question.

You say that the older manuscripts this, older manuscripts that: Can it not also be that those manuscripts were edited, and those strategic verses removed? How do you explain the fact that the NIV avoids referring to Jesus as the Christ or Lord? Is something not smelling?

LOL. It's a pity that all the physical scientists you've met swallowed every thing "science" told them hook, line and sinker, without even verifying their trustworthiness. I'm not a physical scientist, anyway. That does not mean I don't have knowledge of Math and Physics.

Antiparticle:
Response to your Mark comment: The verses were not committed from KJV because that version was written based on newer manuscripts, when the older manuscript hadn't yet been found.

Comment about your post on radiometric dating: what is your level of scientific training? I need to know this in order to adequately address this topic. Thx.

NIV omits some verses of the Bible and then indicates in the footnote that "some manuscripts add that verse." However, how do you explain the fact that NIV omits Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3-4, without adding "some manuscripts add..." to the footnote? This is to name but a few.

I can say I'm a scientist. Bring whatever you have to support your arguments.

I read the Mark 16:9-20. The Jews never wanted the disciples to preach the resurrected Jesus, you know. This, coupled with the fact that the doubt concerning the credibility of the said text is found in the NIV, which unexplainedly omits many Bible verses, makes the case worthy of little or no consideration.

Yes. Radiometric dating is based on too many assumptions, which makes it not trustworthy.

The fact that history corroborates some of the stories recorded in the Bible gives it an amount of credence, you can agree with me.

I can say with certainty that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Radiometric dating, which is employed by scientists to determine the age of some artifacts, is greatly flawed. How do you account for the fact that over 500 000 years of age is assigned to a fossil which should contain no trace of radiocarbon whatsoever after 250 000 years of age?

I'm happy you used the word "considered." That many people in the old world considered the earth flat didn't make it true. Some people even consider biblical prophecies that have been clearly fulfilled, unfulfilled.

Antiparticle:
Perfect! Thanks for letting me ask the first question. Usually I'm put on the defensive when it comes to this topic.

My first question:
Do you consider the Bible to be literal truth? If so, why?

Yes. I consider the Bible to be truth literally. History corroborates some of the events and figures recorded in the Bible. Also, biblical prophecies have come to fulfillment with astonishing accuracy.

Antiparticle:
I should add that my responses may not always be immediate because I live in a far away time zone. So this conversation might linger over several days due to time gaps. Yet, I will do my best to respond and engage expeditiously.

The discussion can last for a year LOL. I definitely know we have things doing outside nairaland, and so I don't expect replies within 5 seconds.

Antiparticle:
It's no problem bro. I completely understand, we both have lives outside NL.

First off, can we both agree on some guidelines for our conversation?
Here are my proposed guidelines.
1. There will be no abusive language towards each other, but of course we can criticize or vehemently disagree with each other's views.
2. The objective of each party is not to convert the other, it is to engage in a conversation to evaluate what is true and what is not, and what is credible and what is not.
3. We will relate with each other based on both empathy and logic as much as we can (i.e. when it comes to evaluating the veracity of any claims by me or you).

Let me know if you find these three guidelines reasonable. If not, please propose yours and we will go ahead. Not following the guidelines gives either of us the prerogative to terminate the conversation at any time.

The terms are okay by me.

chocodaviva:
why wasting such a good research skill for blaspheming Jehovah's name ?
Return to Jehovah because his loyal love is for all
Am allegic to apostate #running # #either am living or dead i belong to jehovah#

If you belong to Jehovah, obey Jehovah and not man.

Ancient Israel continued to claim full ownership of Abraham and his blessings. Jesus told them that merely claiming to be Abraham's children will get them no where. Obedience to the Word of GOD is all that matters.

Pull your head out of Watchtower's maze of confusion and seek GOD in truth. Merely answering "Jehovah's Witness" and then referring to others as "apostate" will get you no where.

There is only one group of people that will go to Heaven: those who do the will of GOD(Matt. 7:21).

Antiparticle,

Good day bro. I must start by apologizing for not opening this thread up until now. This is due to some unforeseen circumstances. I hope you do pardon me.

Are we good to go?

You can drop any question you want me to answer.

johnydon22,

LOL. To help you understand why there would be no choice to sin in Heaven: do you have any choice right now but to breathe? If no, why?

Why don't you question nature as to why food has to go through the mouth and why the heart always has to beat? Doesn't that make us mindless drones who have no choice but to continue to eat through the mouth, and have a noise-making drum in our chests?

LOL. I think the answer to the sex question is "it is not needed there."

We will eat in Heaven.

To imply that we cannot explore the vast expanse of GOD's Creation in Heaven would be a heavy lie.

johnydon22,

The choice to be in Heaven, first of all, is made here on earth. By striving to enter Heaven, you know you're striving to enter a place where you can't sin. You're striving to enter a place where you cannot go against GOD's will. So nobody will feel forced to do anything in Heaven. No hypocrite will be there. You can't be there because you're afraid of hell. You'll be there because you want to obey GOD forever.

I desire to behold GOD's glory. Such glory that transcends the beauty of the Universe. It's a choice, anyway.

Hmm. It seems sex is important to you. If you miss Heaven, you won't get the sex either. You can only have sex here on earth. We'll eat in Heaven, anyway. Jesus promised not to taste of the fruit of the vine again until He does so with us in Heaven.

The Bible says there will be no sea in the new earth which GOD will make. Asking the question "is anything wrong with sex?" is just like asking "is anything wrong with the sea?"

GOD decided two of them won't be in Heaven.