1 hour ago: Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, ...."
Keyword: AS
***
2Peter
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Keyword: AS
***
These passages indicate the concept that our idea of time is not to be confused with God, who is not restricted by our laws of time and space.
For any religious sect to claim to know the length of one of God's days is, in my opinion, sacrilege.
***
"I have come to an understanding that the Bible is not a science book..."
The science is within; it is not at the fundamental story level. The stories are to be used for their correspondences.
The Holy Bible is called Holy for a reason. It's not literature; it's scripture. It is written in such a way as to 'hide' certain truths 'in plain sight'.
This is a Kabbalistic text written for the spiritual initiate. With no knowledge of the Kabbala, there is no way to understand the Bible beyond its fundamental story level.
It is also originally written in the sacred Hebrew aleph-bet. Without an understanding of the origin and formation of these letters and their corresponding numeric system (Gematria), there is no way to comprehend the Bible beyond its fundamental story level.
Hence, it is from ignorance that people do not see the science within it, but as with life, just because one cannot see, does not mean it isn't there. It is through learning the Kabbala and the formation of the Hebrew aleph-bet that one develops 'eyes that see'.
2 hours ago: " Does Science prove anything? Yes, science proves by rigid methodology and reproducible results that there is not at present a better answer to the posed question."
Congratulations, you've swallowed the tag-line of science hook, line and sinker. Fundamentalism, anyone?
2 hours ago: Nietzxche is dead. ::g:: He is also wrong.
Fact: For over 150 years, Gray's Anatomy has been touted as the premier scientific medical journal on the human anatomy.
Fact: From Gray's Anatomy: page 174, Unit 2: Principles of Support and Movement, figure 7.8, the cranial bones are defined; the Sphenoid Bone is described with its "upper and lower" and "greater and lesser" wings.
"The sphenoid bone is called the keystone of the cranial floor because it articulates with all cranial bones, holding them together."
The sphenoid bone is bat-shaped, and looking at the anterior view, it appears to have two pairs of wings. The pituitary is housed within the sphenoid structure and is suspended above the cube-shaped bone – just as the winged creatures are placed over the square altar as described in the Biblical depiction of the Ark of the Covenant.
In both Exodus and 1 Kings are described two winged creatures that were placed above the covenant box – ‘Each had two wings. Two of their outstretched wings touched each other in the middle of the room and the other two wings touched the walls’
With reference to the many winged creatures featured in the decoration of both the Tent and the Temple – when you see the formations of the cranial bones there are the shapes of the bat (the sphenoid) and the butterfly (the cranial fossai), in the nervous system formations at the base of the brain, and in the ventricle systems.
Fact: Both the Holy Bible and Gray's Anatomy are describing the exact same structure. The difference being the language ... oh, and the fact that the Torah provided this information thousands and thousands of years ago.
Fact: The Holy Bible contains all the sciences.
The only thing I know for certain, is that Holy Scriptures are scientifically true and reliable.
14 hours ago: Barry Raelian states "Religious creation is based on belief ..."
Certainly you know very little about holy doctrine, as its all about the sciences.
If I am to 'believe' in anything, I choose to believe in that which has been divinely inspired and tested over and again for thousands and thousands of years as being true and reliable, rather than that which changes on the whim of modern 'science' that prides itself on stating theory as fact until proven otherwise or until such time as it has gained more information to prove itself ... well, it's never going to admit to being wrong, so it proves itself ... as able to 'modify' that which was previously touted as 'the best information we had at the time'.
Except it's not the best information, it's just the easiest, and it is easiest because it is as incomplete as it is inaccurate.
In an age of 'knowledge' about quantum fluctuation, quantum foam, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, quantum et al, wormholes, multiple dimensions and multiverses, science still teaches the big bang theory! Something coming from nothing. Nevermind that it defies logic; nevermind that it defies what we know of the universe. First there was nothing, then suddenly there was a big bang from which every element was suddenly produced.
uh-huh.
And they say creationists teach 'magic'? They accuse creationists of relying on a 'belief' system? Pot/kettle, people.
If you ignore the organized religions and stick to the doctrine upon which they are based, creationism teaches "In the beginning, there was a void ..." and we know that a void is a vacuum; not 'nothing', but only the absence of matter - i.e., the absence of physical manifestation. It does not mean the absence of everything.
14 hours ago: 2
There is nothing that modern science has "discovered" or "theorized" which hasn't already been accurately explained in one form of holy doctrine or another. You just have to "seek" this information to find it ... it's not in the story level. The stories are there as correspondences.
People of science tend to pride themselves on their intellectual prowess as they hold such "fairy tales" in disdain, all because they are too impatient to learn in such a way as to actually comprehend the correspondences of scripture.
The science is there ... and has been for millennia; but it only reveals its wisdom to those who develop eyes that see and ears that hear. This means to develop all aspects of the mind, not just the intellectual level.
Does creationism indicate bad education? Quite the contrary; when studied properly, it is the best education available.
1 day ago: From my observation, science proves holy doctrine to be true, provided you consider the medical science of human anatomy to be 'scientific fact'.
Here's just one brief example: Medical science has relied on the accuracy of the "Gray's Anatomy" [GA] book for over a hundred and fifty years.
There is a familiar story about the Arc of the Covenant. It gives great detail as to the layout of the tabernacle, the Temple of Solomon, the dimensions of the Ark and its function as the container for the 'holy of holies'.
This is the story level.
Most people don't understand how to read the Bible beyond the fundamental story, which is why there is so much ignorance about it. There are four specific levels of Biblical interpretation [to learn more Google "PaRDeS"].
Many people are familiar with the story of the Ark of the Covenant (thank you, Indiana Jones), but do not understand how it applies to us, here and now, thousands of years after being exposed to the masses.
While these stories are to be taken literally, it is imperative to know when and how to interpret them for their correspondences.
In order to properly comprehend these doctrine one must consider the context. It's all very complicated, the unraveling of which is, in itself, an act of strengthening the brain and therefore the mind. Little wonder so few people attempt this endeavor.
The story of the Ark of the Covenant gives a very detailed description of the interior of the human skull. The Ark of the Covenant itself is the boxlike cubed structure of bone in which is found what GA refers to as the pineal gland.
But this gland was first documented in holy scripture:
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
This is just one small example, but there are many such examples of science "proving" that which existed in holy doctrine thousands of years prior.
TEDCred score: +22.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?
Keyword: AS
***
2Peter
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Keyword: AS
***
These passages indicate the concept that our idea of time is not to be confused with God, who is not restricted by our laws of time and space.
For any religious sect to claim to know the length of one of God's days is, in my opinion, sacrilege.
***
"I have come to an understanding that the Bible is not a science book..."
The science is within; it is not at the fundamental story level. The stories are to be used for their correspondences.
The Holy Bible is called Holy for a reason. It's not literature; it's scripture. It is written in such a way as to 'hide' certain truths 'in plain sight'.
This is a Kabbalistic text written for the spiritual initiate. With no knowledge of the Kabbala, there is no way to understand the Bible beyond its fundamental story level.
It is also originally written in the sacred Hebrew aleph-bet. Without an understanding of the origin and formation of these letters and their corresponding numeric system (Gematria), there is no way to comprehend the Bible beyond its fundamental story level.
Hence, it is from ignorance that people do not see the science within it, but as with life, just because one cannot see, does not mean it isn't there. It is through learning the Kabbala and the formation of the Hebrew aleph-bet that one develops 'eyes that see'.
A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
Congratulations, you've swallowed the tag-line of science hook, line and sinker. Fundamentalism, anyone?
A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
No? What about "change is constant"?
A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
Fact: For over 150 years, Gray's Anatomy has been touted as the premier scientific medical journal on the human anatomy.
Fact: From Gray's Anatomy: page 174, Unit 2: Principles of Support and Movement, figure 7.8, the cranial bones are defined; the Sphenoid Bone is described with its "upper and lower" and "greater and lesser" wings.
"The sphenoid bone is called the keystone of the cranial floor because it articulates with all cranial bones, holding them together."
The sphenoid bone is bat-shaped, and looking at the anterior view, it appears to have two pairs of wings. The pituitary is housed within the sphenoid structure and is suspended above the cube-shaped bone – just as the winged creatures are placed over the square altar as described in the Biblical depiction of the Ark of the Covenant.
In both Exodus and 1 Kings are described two winged creatures that were placed above the covenant box – ‘Each had two wings. Two of their outstretched wings touched each other in the middle of the room and the other two wings touched the walls’
With reference to the many winged creatures featured in the decoration of both the Tent and the Temple – when you see the formations of the cranial bones there are the shapes of the bat (the sphenoid) and the butterfly (the cranial fossai), in the nervous system formations at the base of the brain, and in the ventricle systems.
Fact: Both the Holy Bible and Gray's Anatomy are describing the exact same structure. The difference being the language ... oh, and the fact that the Torah provided this information thousands and thousands of years ago.
Fact: The Holy Bible contains all the sciences.
The only thing I know for certain, is that Holy Scriptures are scientifically true and reliable.
A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
Now you're equating science with technology and comparing said technology against horoscopes and the Bible?
There's some logic.
Who's to say the horoscope or the Bible hasn't saved as many lives as you credit to technology? You have no way of knowing.
A comment on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?
Certainly you know very little about holy doctrine, as its all about the sciences.
If I am to 'believe' in anything, I choose to believe in that which has been divinely inspired and tested over and again for thousands and thousands of years as being true and reliable, rather than that which changes on the whim of modern 'science' that prides itself on stating theory as fact until proven otherwise or until such time as it has gained more information to prove itself ... well, it's never going to admit to being wrong, so it proves itself ... as able to 'modify' that which was previously touted as 'the best information we had at the time'.
Except it's not the best information, it's just the easiest, and it is easiest because it is as incomplete as it is inaccurate.
In an age of 'knowledge' about quantum fluctuation, quantum foam, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, quantum et al, wormholes, multiple dimensions and multiverses, science still teaches the big bang theory! Something coming from nothing. Nevermind that it defies logic; nevermind that it defies what we know of the universe. First there was nothing, then suddenly there was a big bang from which every element was suddenly produced.
uh-huh.
And they say creationists teach 'magic'? They accuse creationists of relying on a 'belief' system? Pot/kettle, people.
If you ignore the organized religions and stick to the doctrine upon which they are based, creationism teaches "In the beginning, there was a void ..." and we know that a void is a vacuum; not 'nothing', but only the absence of matter - i.e., the absence of physical manifestation. It does not mean the absence of everything.
A comment on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?
There is nothing that modern science has "discovered" or "theorized" which hasn't already been accurately explained in one form of holy doctrine or another. You just have to "seek" this information to find it ... it's not in the story level. The stories are there as correspondences.
People of science tend to pride themselves on their intellectual prowess as they hold such "fairy tales" in disdain, all because they are too impatient to learn in such a way as to actually comprehend the correspondences of scripture.
The science is there ... and has been for millennia; but it only reveals its wisdom to those who develop eyes that see and ears that hear. This means to develop all aspects of the mind, not just the intellectual level.
Does creationism indicate bad education? Quite the contrary; when studied properly, it is the best education available.
A comment on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
Here's just one brief example: Medical science has relied on the accuracy of the "Gray's Anatomy" [GA] book for over a hundred and fifty years.
There is a familiar story about the Arc of the Covenant. It gives great detail as to the layout of the tabernacle, the Temple of Solomon, the dimensions of the Ark and its function as the container for the 'holy of holies'.
This is the story level.
Most people don't understand how to read the Bible beyond the fundamental story, which is why there is so much ignorance about it. There are four specific levels of Biblical interpretation [to learn more Google "PaRDeS"].
Many people are familiar with the story of the Ark of the Covenant (thank you, Indiana Jones), but do not understand how it applies to us, here and now, thousands of years after being exposed to the masses.
While these stories are to be taken literally, it is imperative to know when and how to interpret them for their correspondences.
In order to properly comprehend these doctrine one must consider the context. It's all very complicated, the unraveling of which is, in itself, an act of strengthening the brain and therefore the mind. Little wonder so few people attempt this endeavor.
The story of the Ark of the Covenant gives a very detailed description of the interior of the human skull. The Ark of the Covenant itself is the boxlike cubed structure of bone in which is found what GA refers to as the pineal gland.
But this gland was first documented in holy scripture:
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
This is just one small example, but there are many such examples of science "proving" that which existed in holy doctrine thousands of years prior.