Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was specifically stated that all the tribes and language groups on the earth would have to hear the gospel - which means its still in the future.
Quote:
In solemn truth, I tell you that this generation shall not pass away until all these things happen.
(Matthew 24:34)
Your argument is with Jesus, not me. Jesus is the one who provided us with the above quote and it seems unambiguous, does it not? Jesus even added "In solemn truth" for the sake of emphasis.
Was Jesus lying? Was this some deliberate attempt by Jesus to baffle us with a prediction which fails to materialize within the designated time frame? Another one of those "tests of faith" which is the all purpose response to apparent invalidation?
God is not a liar. People assume with their own arrogance.
The god of the Bible certainly is. He's also a malevolent, hateful, maniacal, genocidal criminal. If we are to believe Genesis, since Yahweh is a tri-omni god, he knew that Eve would eat the apple, yet he still placed the tree in a place where they would eat of it. If the Genesis story is true (and I don't believe for one minute it is) then God is solely responsible for the fall of man. Then, he provides an innocent life to pay for the sins of others, though he has the power to simply forgive, especially since he is responsible in the first place. This story is too dastardly to be believed.
Your argument is with Jesus, not me. Jesus is the one who provided us with the above quote and it seems unambiguous, does it not? Jesus even added "In solemn truth" for the sake of emphasis.
Was Jesus lying? Was this some deliberate attempt by Jesus to baffle us with a prediction which fails to materialize within the designated time frame? Another one of those "tests of faith" which is the all purpose response to apparent invalidation?
He was referring to the end of the Jewish state and the temple in Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the end of that generation.
The god of the Bible certainly is. He's also a malevolent, hateful, maniacal, genocidal criminal. If we are to believe Genesis, since Yahweh is a tri-omni god, he knew that Eve would eat the apple, yet he still placed the tree in a place where they would eat of it. If the Genesis story is true (and I don't believe for one minute it is) then God is solely responsible for the fall of man. Then, he provides an innocent life to pay for the sins of others, though he has the power to simply forgive, especially since he is responsible in the first place. This story is too dastardly to be believed.
The Jehovah god simply does not have the power to forgive man without blood atonement: such was the power and divinity that man was originally given. By creating Adam and Eve with a conscious and spirit, he bestowed on them god-like equalities, which made any transgression of their's extraordinarily serious in the entire Universe (seen and unseen). He also had to give them free will in order to choose Holiness like their Father. Adam or Eve could have first eaten of the Tree of Life, which is what believers receive when they accept Christ's sacrifice, guaranteeing Adam and Eve life eternal. Instead, Adam and Even specifically were disobedient by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. By doing that, they handed over their dominion of the earth and of their offspring to Satan and forced their own death through aging.
If you don't believe the story of Genesis is true for one minute, then why bother even posting here? Because you really have an inner desire to know truth and live in paradise eternally whether you admit it or not. There is hope.
He was referring to the end of the Jewish state and the temple in Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the end of that generation.
No, he was promising his own return. Jesus explains it in Mathew 30-31:
Quote:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
It is readily understandable that Christians would wish this embarrassing passage would vanish so that they would not have to keep creating imaginative ways to explain how it doesn't really mean what it quite obviously does mean. Everything that Jesus did and said must be taken with the context that he was the guy with the "World Is Coming To An End" sign.
You simply have no idea what you are spouting and have the math and concept totally backwards. I have degrees in nuclear engineering, environmental modeling, and chemical engineering.
C14 is formed by a gamma energy interaction with N14 in the atmostphere, where N14 converts to C14 after one of the cosmic rays is converted to a neutron.
cosmic ray → 1n
1n + 14N → 14C + 1p
Increasing the cosmic ray intensity in a field of N14 increases the presence of C14. A shield of water dissipates cosmic ray penetration, vastly decreasing the rate of C14 formation.
C14 levels are now as high as they ever have been, and even more so in the aftermath of a water canopy.
I read further and found that, yes, C 14 is produced in the atmosphere - though it gets into organic material in the way I said. And yes, that means that it can be affected by conditions in the atmosphere.
However, it seems to me that same questions still apply to C14 dating. And i have to question whether you really do understand it or you would not have misunderstood that the rate of decay is nothing to do with the proportion of C14 left behind, which is what gives the date. Your argument seems to be that the canopy would decrease comic ray penetration thus decreasing the amount of C14 present and thus would give a lower C14 count - which would give the impression of being older.
But that is not how dating is done. It is done by calculating how much the C14 has decayed leaving a proportion of undecayed C14 behind. While I can understand that arguing that rate of decay may have changed, thus misleading us about the date, the rate of C14 decay in dead organic matter is nothing to do with the creation of C14 in the the atmosphere. And of course, your canopy does not give a feasible reason why the rate of C14 decay should have changed - only how there might be less produced in the atmosphere.
Over to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
