I think I pointed that out, too. There are many dating methods. They each have known limitations. I'm not sure what point you are making in the second paragraph.
Second paragraph was just lighthearted. It is simply a fact. Commonsense is also needed. Science must always be limited by the knowledge of the time. Bur science progresses. Religion has no limits. Whatever you want you can have. You don't need any logic or proof of anything. Only faith to believe the impossible.
The modern Trinity doctrine is not mentioned in the NT .. or in the Old for that matter. You are making stuff up and pretending it is true. 1) No serious Biblical Scholar believes that the "Like US" in the Bible was God referring to himself 2) The people who wrote Genesis had no idea about the modern Trinity Doctrine 3) Genesis was written in 600 BC but some literary style/tradition dates back to 900 BC. The Israelite's believed in many Gods .. a Divine Pantheon headed by El (Enlil). They only worshiped one (or were supposed to worship) but believed in many.
The Jews were in Babylon when scribes started writing the OT. Zoroastrianism was the religion. 'Ahura Mazda is depicted in the Zoroastrian scriptures as a kind of trinity: "Praise to thee, Ahura Mazda, threefold before other creations." From Ahura Mazda came a duality: the twin spirits of Spenta Mainyu (the Holy or Bountiful Spirit) and Angra Mainyu (the Destructive or Opposing Spirit). The twin spirits are popularly thought of as good and evil, but rather they are two principles that represent all the opposites of life'. Sound familiar?
Zoroastrianism was also strict monotheism. Prior to the Persians freeing the Jews from the Babylonian captivity the Israelite religion was not strict monotheism... They believed in a divine pantheon with El at the top. Biblical scholars now almost universally agree that the God of Abraham was "El"/ Enlil. It was under Persia that the Jewish religion became strict monotheistic .. modeled after zoroastrianism. The Jews - as almost every culture of the day - attributed success or failure in war to the Gods. They then believed that the God of the Persians (or at least the religious practice of the Persians) had pleased God. Cyrus the Great (King of Persia) is referred to numerous times in the Bible he is referred to as "Anointed by God" Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him and strip the loins of kings, to force gateways before him that their gates be closed no more: I will go before you levelling the heights. I will shatter the bronze gateways, smash the iron bars. I will give you the hidden treasures, the secret hoards, that you may know that I am the Lord. (Isaiah 45:1-3) This is an interesting dichotomy - The chosen people of YHWH are no longer "chosen" by YHWH The rampant xenophobic depiction of the God of Moses has changed.
My post was to point out that the idea of 'trinities' was not a new one when Christianity was formed. I agree with your post. It's interesting that the second writer of Isaiah claims the 'the Lord (Jahweh) said to his anointed' whereas the Cyrus Cylinder has Cyrus saying it was Marduk speaking to him.
Yes .. that is quite interesting. The one who the Jews claim "anointed of God" was anointed by Marduk
Science also states that the earth is in fact millions of years old. That's only infallible if you believe that the methods used to prove it are. The fact is that you can go back and forth about these things all day but science can't prove or disprove a great many things in religious texts like the Bible, same as religious folks can't prove it to you that what they believe in is true. I think it's good to keep an open mind, no matter what side you tend to side with.
They do have methods that prove the earth is not millions of years old .. but billions. Sure the techniques have a degree of error of +/- a few percent .. This means that a dating of say 300 million years ago ... could be 290 million years or could be 310 million years. What it does not mean is that the earth could be 6000 years old such that the date is off by 294 million years. That is just not how it works. We have ice core data that goes back hundreds of thousands of years. Dates via counting layers - are correlated to other dating methods. We have coral data that goes back 100,000 thousand years .. they can tell you what the temp of the earth was at certain time through coral analysis. I side with logic and reason and no one said science can prove everything. I am specifically referring to what science "CAN" prove .. like the fact that there was no global flood that killed all land creatures from 2100-2300 BC (the date of the flood from the Bible). 1) we have continuous civilizations in Africa, Egypt, China, Europe, Sumeria, North America through this time period. If some flood wiped out one of these civilizations we would be able to see some catastrophic event. Prior to this event we would find art, culture, language, genetics of the people prior to that event. Now if after the flood the area was resettled ... the new people would have different art, culture, language genetics and so on. This is not what we find.. we find continuous civilization throughout this time period. The folks who wrote Genesis did not mean for the stories to be taken literally. Genesis was written in 600 BC but has literary tradition that goes back to 900 BC. There are stories from the near east that parallel Genesis - directly in some cases - that are much older. 2) If there was a global flood that covered the planet, in the midwest .. and similar inland regions throughout the world, you should be able to dig down and easily find the flood layer .. it is not rocket science .. you look for certain sediments and sea creatures .. you know .. shells ! Its not there .. because the flood did not happen. 3) Please give me your estimate of how much time it would have taken for Noah - and 3 sons - to collect 2 Polar bears from the Arctic.
I didn't mean to start a religion vs. science debate, but you do need to believe in something to follow it. That applies to both religion and science.
One belief is based on logic and reason ... the other is based on "faith" and in many cases denial of logic and reason
I agree, but sometimes things that seem logical and reasonable to one person are not to another. For example, I know some folks that went through some pretty intense personal experiences that caused them to have faith in religion. I would contend that there may not be logic in reason in their beliefs, but they would disagree with me. Unless I experienced the same things that they did, it's hard to see it from their point of view.
I understand the difference between ethno centrism and cultural relativism "Behavioral adaptation as a solution to survival problems" - this learning from a class I once took in Anthropology has stuck. I do not have a problem with someone having a religious belief. I do have a problem with someone trying to force that religious belief on others through physical violence (Law). That is where the Golden Rule comes in. If you do not want others forcing their religious beliefs on you through physical violence (Law) then, do no do this to others.
Yeah don't infringe upon the liberty and well-being of others. I'm with you there for sure. I'll listen to any reasonable person, but when they become unreasonable I don't want anything to do with them. I'm no scientist but I read a lot. I like to keep an open mind, and rarely will tell somebody that they're wrong.
Al No need to be a scientist to be smart .. As a Scientist - the hardcore kind ..Chem/Microbio and involved in scientific research for decades, I can tell you that Scientists often think because they are good at hard science that they know something about soft science, politics and human behavior. The opposite is true. Scientists are often the most ignorant in relation to human behavior - common sense in relation to human behavior - and political issues.
I do wonder how far they'll go with AI I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist so I have to admit I'm a little considered about it
Actually it is only theorized that the universe had a beginning. Logic may tell us that it had to have a beginning but science doesn't tell us that. Remember Dr. Einstein theorizes that there is no space alone nor time alone. The two are one. He calls it space-time. You have a naive concept of science.
I am not overly familiar with Isaiah the way am with other parts of the Bible but .. given the time period and the substance of Isaiah ( at least in part Isaiah is blaming the Israelite's bad fortune on turning away from God .. and that bad fortune was due to the Babylonian King .. your claim is a pretty safe bet). I know for a fact that Cyrus of Persia is also mentioned.
Isaiah 45 talks about Cyrus freeing Israel .. He was listed as one of the 13 "messiahs".. But Jeremiah talks about good figs and bad figs.. the bad fogs having been left behind in Jerusalam.
While it is widely accepted that the book of Isaiah is rooted in a historic prophet called Isaiah, who lived in the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BCE, it is also widely accepted that this prophet did not write the entire book of Isaiah.
The King of Babylon is only referred to in part of Isaiah. The first part concerns the Hebrews and the Assyrian Empire which existed until around 600BC when it was conquered by a conglomeration of Babylonians, Medes, Persians and Chaldeans. The Assyrians took many of the Northern tribes captive - but not all - in two ventures. They left the Southern 2 tribes virtually alone - but under tribute, financial and material. The 'Babylonians' defeated the Assyrians around 600BCE and they also left the Southern Kingdom alone UNTIL the Hebrews signed a 'defence' pact with Egypt. The Babylonians had earlier defeated the Egyptians and saw this pact as a threat. So they took many of the Southerners into captivity. They left many workers behind to keep the agriculture going as this was also to the Babylonians benefit. 'Isaiah' was written over a long period of time by different writers. I don't think there's much prophecy. Any astute man could assess the situation and see the result. The Northern kingdoms actions were obviously going to cause reaction by the Assyrians. And they did. And likewise the Southern kingdom and the Babylonians.
Not my words but 100% true... “Science is constantly being proved over time. If we take something like any fiction, or any holy book, or any other fiction, and destroyed it. In a 1,000 years time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in 1,000 years they’d all be back because all the same tests would be the same result.”
Not quite sure what you want to know? Elijah was a prophet to the Northern Kingdom around 100 years before Isaiah, who was a prophet to the Southern Kingdom. People often forget the 2 different Kingdoms. After they split both went their different ways and had different beliefs. The Northern Kingdom worshipped El at their temple in Shiloh, while the Southern Kingdom worshipped Jahweh in Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. While neither, as Giftdone has said, were never really monotheistic, their Temples were dedicated to different 'gods'. Elijah's problem was that the northern kings quickly fell into idolatory and worshipped 'Baal' - a Canaanite god - while the southern kings stayed with Jahweh for about 100 years before falling into the same trap. The Bible's explanation is that they both, at different times, deserted their god and were punished. In reality, it was their own actions that caused their downfall. Incidentally, the name 'Baal' is used in different senses in the Hebrew OT. Someone who gets angry quickly (Proverbs) or some who is a lord of wisdom (Ecclesiastes).
