Nimrod & Religion

[Sam]

What caused the sun to form? Where did the sun get its energy?? The sun hasn't always existed, so it got its energy from something that had energy. That something that has energy, is greater than the sun, because it gave the sun its energy.

The sun formed from the coalescence of dust and hydrogen present in a proto-nebula os some sort, it formation was (most probably) a direct result of shockwaves from nearby supernovae and then of gravity and other attractive forces acting between the atoms/particles and star-essimals. The sun didn't "get" energy! It extracts it from it's constituent parts (if you will) through the process of nuclear fusion where-by hyrdrogen is converted to helium and thus energy is released.

"Most probably"? Are you 100% sure?

I'm not 100% sure that the suns formation was induced by shockwaves from local supernovae, No. But I see that all available evidence points that way and it is in agreement with the defined laws of physics ... so I am nearly 100 % sure that the Suns formation went along those lines.

[TRUTH1986]

"Of course the Sun isn't God. God is a creation of Man."

You're 100% correct, man created God. The Creator and God are not the same.

So you believe in a sentient, all powerful creator ... but do not think of it as a God?

No, the pagans gave us "God". I will explain later in a new thread. I would post a scripture, but Darwinian told me no scriptures.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@TRUTH1986


The claim that ALL religions sprang from sun worship is not supported by evidence.Religion predated cities and the sun does not feature in many religions as a central or major figure. EG in Egyptian religion,mythology,RA (Aten) was only one of many gods,except for a short period under one pharaoh, Amenophis 1V (Akhnaten) New Kingdom,eighteenth dynasty,1353-1337 BCE.

Nimrod? From the Book Of Genesis, part of the Torah,the myths of a bronze age tribal people who worshipped a petty mountain god,called "El" (a generic name for "a god"),one of thousands.He did not become YHWH (I Am Who Am) Lord of the universel until after the alleged Exodus.(another myth;didn't happen)

Revealed texts are not accepted here as evidence. Such an arguments is perhaps the most common logical fallacy used by believers.It's called "argument from authority" IE arguing that a thing is true BECAUSE of its source.In your case,the bible.


Wiki

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority




NIMROD

Wiki:

Mention of Nimrod in the Bible is rather limited. According to the "documentary hypothesis" of the Bible's origin, the Jahwist writer(s) make the earliest mention of Nimrod.[1] He is described as the son of Cush, grandson of Ham, great-grandson of Noah; and as "a mighty one on the earth" and "a mighty hunter before the Lord". He also appears in the First Book of Chronicles and in the Book of Micah.

Nimrod is said to be the founder and king of the first empire after the Flood, and his realm is connected with the Mesopotamian towns Babylon (Babel), Uruk, Akkad and Calneh. He is mentioned in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), where he is said to have founded many cities. Owing to an ambiguity in the original Hebrew text, it is unclear whether it is he or Asshur who additionally founded Nineveh, Resen, Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and both of these interpretations are reflected in the various English versions.(Genesis 10:8–10)

[TRUTH1986]

The Bible is True. To the people who say "The Bible has errors, the bible contradicts itself", I have a question for you, have you read the actual writings of all the prophets that are in the Bible? If YOU haven't read them, you can't speak against the prophets. The Most High's people went in to bondage a 2nd time(DEUT 28:68) and are currently in bondage/captivity. The Most High put Isreal under the gentiles. The Gentiles translated the original text of the prophets, but they went overboard. The Gentiles added and took away from the original writings of the prophets, they inscribed their Gods, they pose as Isreal, by making false images(Google "Cesare Borgia"), they did many evil things. The Bible prophecies on the things that they would do, and its amazing how history & facts support the Bible.

Throughout time, Man has added to and took away from the Most High's word. You can only get the TRUE understanding of the Bible from the Holy Spirit. If you don't have the Holy Spirit in you, you will not see.

[Matt85]

has to be poe.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The Bible is True

NO,it is not. I do not believe in gods. A nonexistent being can reveal nothing. I disbelieve because have never seen any proof. A sincere declaration of belief without evidence does not make something true. I'm willing to change my beliefs should I see proof.


The reason people claim the bible is full of contradictions is because that is true. (see links below)

I have a question for you, have you read the actual writings of all the prophets that are in the Bible?

WHICH bible.? Do you refer to the Torah?,written in Hebrew,or in later Greek translations,copied continously for centuries until being translated into your language. Which version of those translations do you mean? EG King James ,Jerusalem Bible, the Good News Bible? What canon do you accept? EG do you accept The Book Of Jubilees?(accepted by Ethiopian Orthodox Christians)

To answer your question; Yes I've read the entire Jerusalem bible.

There is no such thing as pre cognition, fortune telling ---or prophecy.By that I mean I have never seen any evidence of such a thing.

I do realise I'm wasting my time as you are just another dogmatic apologist,arguing from blind faith and personal certitude. You have shown you do not understand or want to understand the meaning "evidence",and are not willing to consider the possibility that you might be in error. That makes you a fool. I don't suffer fools. I have nothing more to say to you.


-------------------------00000000000000000000000000000000000000-------------------


BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS:

The links below are a good place to start.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...tions.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well, acording to the Most High, The Heaven and Earth was created before the Sun, but before the Heaven and Earth it was The Creator. Everything revolves around The Creator, not the sun. People have been worshipping the sun since the time of Nimrod, they have created lies to glorify/worship the sun. They have worship created things rather than the Creator.

This "Most High" bloke (and everyone who believes the same) is a wingnut then because the Earth is no more the centre of the universe than anything else is (apart from, presumably, the point in space where the big bang expansion started). Moreover the evidence supports an Earth that is slightly younger than the Sun as indeed are all the solar planets.

What caused the sun to form? Where did the sun get its energy?? The sun hasn't always existed, so it got its energy from something that had energy. That something that has energy, is greater than the sun, because it gave the sun its energy.

The following is a fairly good model that fits the observed evidence:

To deal specifically with our local star, Sol, and it’s associated orbiting bodies ... the Solar system originally formed as a disc, spinning on a roughly flat plane (imperfect because of density variation). This disc consisted of unbound matter, in other words, the only thing that kept it together was gravity. As the disc spun, certain rotational speed levels were segregated by gravity into rough bands and those bands partly defined by the gravitational forces acting upon them, partly by magnetic interference (just like Saturn's rings).

The nature of gravity is that the steady appearance of defined bands of higher mass will lead to other bands of higher mass forming nearby, deflected from being accreted into the sun or another planet by the attraction of the forming protoplanet but not actually absorbed into it. This is an equilibrium point. Mathematically it is somewhat more likely that such accretion will happen in a slightly lower energy orbit than/for the protoplanet as/than for protomoons so the majority form that way.

If the protoplanets had protomoons then, as the protomoons formed, they did so in orbits either slightly inside or outside that of the protoplanet they would eventually orbit (remember they were still orbiting the sun only). If a protomoon formed in an outside orbit then the planets higher speed would allow it to 'catch up' on an orbital path and, by means of gravity, snag it. If such an action caused the protomoon to slow significantly then it would fall into the planet to get added to its mass. If it was snagged on the other side (inside the protoplanets orbit) then it would have fallen into a stable planetary orbit.

Because, in this example, the protomoon started at higher energy the only way this could have happened was for it to fall 'behind' the orbit of the planet to be picked up by its gravitational wake. If that happened then its motion would be in the other direction to that of the orbital direction around the sun.

Protomoons that formed at lower energy than their protoplanets would almost certainly orbit in the same direction as the planet they were orbiting, the chance of it happening the other way round would have been very slim.

I wrote that some years ago ... if you intend to reply please deal specifically with the things mentioned in the article and not stupid quotes from your non-validatable bible.

The Bible is True.

The bible is an historic source, it is not history therefore it is not *TRUE*

Kyu

[TRUTH1986]

"The bible is an historic source, it is not history therefore it is not *TRUE*"

There's a lot of history in it. Did you know that the bible prophesied on the "North American Indians"(Tribe of Gad) coming over to America? The bible also prophesied on the europeans taking over the "indians". I'll pm scriptures, if u want me too.

Like I said earlier, If you haven't read the actual writings of the prophets, you can't say that the prophets contradict each other. The Gentiles have hid the original writings, so I highly doubt you read the actual writings of the prophets.

[Tiberius]

Don't PM scriptures, quote them here.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Did you know that the bible prophesied on the "North American Indians"(Tribe of Gad) coming over to America? The bible also prophesied on the europeans taking over the "indians". I'll pm scriptures, if u want me too.

No thanks (DO NOT PM me) and NO the bible did not prophesy that ... prove it here if you want.

Like I said earlier, If you haven't read the actual writings of the prophets, you can't say that the prophets contradict each other. The Gentiles have hid the original writings, so I highly doubt you read the actual writings of the prophets.

I am much wider read than you would like to believe and, trust me on this, I can easily take you on on the subject of prophecy.

Kyu