PDA

View Full Version : Gaano po katotoo ang nakasulat sa bibliya?



Pages : [1] 2

kropic101
24th Mar 2012, 15:33
gaano po talaga katotoo ang nakasulat sa Bibliya at kung bakit ito ang naging batayan ng halos lahat ng nagsipagtayo ng relihiyon sa mundo?

badoy
24th Mar 2012, 15:41
bible was canonized and translated into diferent languages. during translation; other said that there was a conspiracy anb bias interpretation in the bible text. pero di sya lalayo sa original script yun nga lang nag babago ang original words ang syempre nagbabago rin ang pag-intindi natin.

kropic101
24th Mar 2012, 15:55
bible was canonized and translated into diferent languages. during translation; other said that there was a conspiracy anb bias interpretation in the bible text. pero di sya lalayo sa original script yun nga lang nag babago ang original words ang syempre nagbabago rin ang pag-intindi natin.

so ibig mo po bang sabihin na may mga verse na iba ang pagkakasulat kung ang pagbabasehan ay yong original script which is written in Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek?

badoy
24th Mar 2012, 16:05
meron..exxample ko lang yung word na begotten. sa ibang bible di to ginagamit. word beget ay malalim ang ibig sabihin. sa iba kasi si jesus ay parang anak na niluwal ng ama. pero ang beget is pro-created, so in that way magkaiba na ng interpretation at application..pero i like beget..:)

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 17:31
there is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood like the story of noah. and not all cultures have flood myths. The babylonian flood myth from the epic of gilgamesh which is older than the bible is suspiciously similar in lots of details



The flood story from "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story in Genesis are very similar with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way. Either:
bullet Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or

bullet The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story in Genesis, or

bullet Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.

In both the Genesis and Gilgamesh stories:
bullet The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.

bullet The gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would have drowned all men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.

bullet God (or one of the gods) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.

bullet The gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).

bullet The ark would be sealed with pitch.

bullet The ark would have with many internal compartments

bullet It would have a single door

bullet It would have at least one window.

bullet The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.

bullet A great rain covered the land with water.

bullet The mountains were submerged under water.

bullet The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.

bullet The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.

bullet The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.

bullet The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.

bullet God (or the gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.

bullet The hero was blessed.

bullet The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

The were a number of details in which the two stories differed:
bullet Noah received his instructions directly from Jehovah; Ut-Napishtim received them indirectly during a dream.

bullet Noah's ark was 3 stories high and rectangular in shape. Two estimated dimensions are 547 x 91 ft. and 450 x 75 ft. The Babylonian ark was 6 stories high and square.

bullet Ut-Napishtim invited additional people on board: a pilot and some skilled workmen.

bullet Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat; Ut-Napishtim's at on Mt. Nisir; these locations are both in the Middle East, and are located few hundred miles apart.

bullet In the Bible, some of the water emerged from beneath the oceans. The rains from above lasted for 40 days and nights. A 40 day interval often symbolized a period of judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 In the Babylonian account, the water came only in the form of rain, and lasted only 6 days.

bullet Noah released a raven once and a dove twice; Ut-Napishtim released three birds: a dove, swallow and raven.
You can see links before reply

kropic101
24th Mar 2012, 18:04
there is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood like the story of noah. and not all cultures have flood myths. The babylonian flood myth from the epic of gilgamesh which is older than the bible is suspiciously similar in lots of details



You can see links before reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eh bakit pa po nakasulat kung hindi pala totoo?

nappyboy
24th Mar 2012, 18:13
bible was canonized and translated into diferent languages. during translation; other said that there was a conspiracy anb bias interpretation in the bible text. pero di sya lalayo sa original script yun nga lang nag babago ang original words ang syempre nagbabago rin ang pag-intindi natin.
so paano yan

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 18:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eh bakit pa po nakasulat kung hindi pala totoo?

religion is a form of social control. for the priesthood to gain power and obedience from the people.

imaigine primitive societies. ikaw bilang primitive farmer, papayag ka ba if may lumapit sa iyo na witch doctor na nagsabi na ako may konting ceremonyas na gagawin para malago ang plants mo, in return may porsyento ako sa ani mo? otherwise paano kakain ang mga witch doctors since hindi sila farmers or hunters if wala silang religion to cause the people to believe in them. of course over time, the witch doctors actually came to believe in their powers

badoy
24th Mar 2012, 19:37
meron akong nabasa at napanood na episode about archeological and geological evidence sa national geographic. pati yung tomb of jesus which many believes na iyon yun base sa bible. pati ang ark of noah sa mt. arayat that was discovered recently..

kropic101
24th Mar 2012, 19:59
meron akong nabasa at napanood na episode about archeological and geological evidence sa national geographic. pati yung tomb of jesus which many believes na iyon yun base sa bible. pati ang ark of noah sa mt. arayat that was discovered recently..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
talaga po?

puti1
24th Mar 2012, 21:30
gaano po talaga katotoo ang nakasulat sa Bibliya

gaano? 100% totoo ang naka sulat sa Bibliya if e base ko ang buhay ko, lahat naka sulat. halimbawa. mga trials na dumating sa buhay ko, at prayer ko na natupad. if mabasa natin sa revelation lahat andon naka sulat ang lahat na nag bago sa mundo, tulad ng tiknolohiya , mankind, flood, tidal wave, earthquake. kaya talagang totoo ang nkasulat sa bibliya. if sa simbahan naman, ay rlihiyon lang yun. iisa lang ang kanilang paniniwala na my Dios ang mundo at dapat syang sambahin, ng pagpapasalamat. Isa sa mga dahilan na lumalawak ang paniniwala sa Dios. Sa Bibliya naka sulat Mark 16:15 Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Anu ang bagong balita? ang mga ginawa ng Dios na Nandito pa sya sa lupa.Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. At ito pa gusto ng Dios itama ang mga maling paniniwala ng tao, dahil naka sulat: Exudos 34:13 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. You shall have no other gods before me. kaya hanggang ngayon patuloy na inaabot ng mga missionaries ang mga taong hindi pa nkakakilala sa Dios. "Salamat sa Dios". Bakit dumadami ang mga iba ibang simbahan? dahil para lang silang mg kakaklasi na pag katapos nilang pag graduate sa bibe school, ay nag sisipatayo sila ng kanikanilang simbahan, at bible school den. at tinawag nya na bla bla ang kayang simbahan para ma recognize, nya ang kanyang membro. at merong namang pinagalan ya ang kanyang simbahan sa ky bla bla it's because under sya sa organization ng simbahan na yon. kaya dumami.

ang tinutokoy ko dito ang bibliya lang mismo
ng Born Again Christian. King James version.
dahil marami ang biblya sa buong mundo.
anung bible ang tinutukoy mu?
"feedback"

jesss
24th Mar 2012, 21:38
sa tagal ng pasalin-salin ng bibliya noong una pang mga panahon ay di na yan 100% tama,may mga nadagdag na yan dyan o may mga nabawas na o kaya naman may mga nabago na ksi di na yan ang orihinal na bibliya

badoy
24th Mar 2012, 21:45
ang tinutokoy ko dito ang bibliya lang mismo ng Born Again Christian. King James version.dahil marami ang biblya sa buong mundo.anung bible ang tinutukoy mu?yup i like KJV although mahirap lang intindihin. less errors sya. di kagaya sa ibang bible design para sa relihiyon nila at bias pa.

kropic101
24th Mar 2012, 22:18
yup i like KJV although mahirap lang intindihin. less errors sya. di kagaya sa ibang bible design para sa relihiyon nila at bias pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ayon sa nabasa ko,korek me kung mali ako,word for word ang pagkakasalin ng KJV mula sa orignal script.....so mas reliable ba itong gamitin as far as bible teaching is concerned?

kropic101
24th Mar 2012, 22:25
ang tinutokoy ko dito ang bibliya lang mismo
ng Born Again Christian. King James version.
dahil marami ang biblya sa buong mundo.
anung bible ang tinutukoy mu?
"feedback"[/QUOTE]
---------------------------------
yung nakasulat po sa bibliya di ba iisa lang pinagmulan?marami lang nagsalin kaya nagkaroon ng maraming bersyon,,korek me kung mali ako..

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 22:30
pati ang ark of noah sa mt. arayat that was discovered recently

mt arayat is in pampanga, philippines

and if they really found noah's ark on mt ararat (not arayat) then that would be hard proof that judeo christianity is the real religion. They should make it a shrine and parade it before the reporters with TV cameras. But no, we don't have that.


In 2010, Noah's Ark Ministries International l (NAMI) released videos of their discovery of the wood structures.[18] Members of Noah's Ark Ministries International reported carbon dating suggests the wood is approximately 4,800 years old. It is unlikely that there was any human settlement at the site at altitude of 4,000 meters.[19] Randall Price, a partner with Noah's Ark Ministries International from early 2008 to the summer of 2008, stated that the discovery was probably the result of a hoax, perpetrated by ten Kurdish workers hired by the Turkish guide used by the Chinese, who planted large wood beams taken from an old structure near the Black Sea at the cave site.[20][21] In a response to Price, Noah’s Ark Ministries International stated that they had terminated co-operation with Price in early October 2008, and that he had never been in the location of the wooden structure they identified, and regretted his absence in their find. On their website they say they asked for the opinion of Mr. Muhsin Bulut, the Director of Cultural Ministries, Agri Province. The web site says that his response was that secretly transporting such an amount of timber to the strictly monitored area and planting a large wood structure at an altitude of 4,000 meters would have been impossible.[22] At the end of April 2010, it was reported that Turkey's culture minister ordered a probe into how NAMI brought its pieces of wood samples from Turkey to China.[23]
You can see links before reply




“To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake,” said Randall Price, director of Judaic Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

“This is not Noah’s Ark,” adds Bob Cornuke of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration Institute. “This is a fake. It’s a fraud and it’s of the highest caliber according to what I can assess from the evidence and talking to eyewitnesses and people from Turkey.”

WND reported yesterday that Chinese and Turkish explorers with Noah’s Ark Ministries International said they were “99.9 percent sure” they found the remnants of the legendary biblical vessel high up on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.

The 15-member team claims it recovered wooden specimens from a structure at an altitude of 13,000 feet and that carbon dating suggested it was 4,800 years old.

You can see links before reply

You can see links before reply


Regarding some of the photos published online, Cornuke told American Family Radio, “There are cobwebs up in the beams. You’re not going to have wood at 14,000 feet in a glacier to have cobwebs in it. It’s impossible to have that situation.”

...
If the latest proclaimed find of Noah’s Ark does indeed turn out to be false, it certainly would not be the first time phony claims have been floated.

Among the best-known scams is one from 1993, when California actor George Jammal deliberately duped CBS Television and the filmmakers of “The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark” into believing he saw and touched the vessel on Mount Ararat.

According to the Internet Movie Database, Jammal “made the hoax as blatant as possible, making up persons with names such as ‘the Armenian friend, Mr. Allis Buls Hitian’ or ‘my dear Polish companion Vladimir Sobitchsky,’ and cooking a piece of pine in sauce to present it as ‘a piece of the Ark’ – and yet his story was presented as the real thing and shown as the key testimony in the video; after some time, humiliating its makers, Jammal publicly revealed the details of his hoax.”
You can see links before reply

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 22:45
1. Building the Ark

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?


2. Gathering the Animals

Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.


4. Caring for the Animals

Special diets. Many animals, especially insects, require special diets. Koalas, for example, require eucalyptus leaves, and silkworms eat nothing but mulberry leaves. For thousands of plant species (perhaps even most plants), there is at least one animal that eats only that one kind of plant. How did Noah gather all those plants aboard, and where did he put them?

Other animals are strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, such as small mammals, insects, fish, or aquatic invertebrates. How did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?

Fresh foods. Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. [Foelix, 1996] Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?


6. Implications of a Flood

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]


You can see links before reply

kropic101
24th Mar 2012, 23:05
You can see links before reply
-------------------------------------------------------
kung pagbabasehan ang post mo,walang ngang nangyaring pagbaha..they should have removed that particular chapter in the bible....pero parang may nabasa ako sa bagong tipan patungkol sa bahang iyan na liban sa mga taong nakasakay ay wala ng naligtas..korek me kung mali ako..

nukie004
24th Mar 2012, 23:32
Truth is -----> DL muh e2 Bro You can see links before reply tas basahin muh ah qUng mnnwla ka Bible and Archaelogy

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 23:40
abraham is the husband of sarah and hagar is the handmaiden of sarah. there are indications na kinopya ito sa hinduism

the god brahma is husband to the river goddess saraswati. the ghaggar river is a tributary of the saraswati river in india

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 23:42
Truth is -----> DL muh e2 Bro You can see links before reply tas basahin muh ah qUng mnnwla ka Bible and Archaelogy

na debunk ko na yan sa ibang thread dito

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 23:55
The book of Joshua in the Bible presents several internally inconsistent scenarios which describe the entry of Israel into Canaan, and it also conflicts with Judges and other books of the Bible. The example of the books of Joshua and Judges can be used to illustrate that multiple versions of events are given in the Bible. Any interested reader could compare the account contained in the book of Joshua with that related in the book of Judges. This sort of 'research' is not hard to do. Take a concordance (a type of dictionary of the Bible listing the passages where a given word occurs). Look up each word and compare passages.


the account in the 11th chapter of Joshua , where we are told that Jebusites were among a listing of other peoples whom Joshua, "cut down until they had not a single survivor." (Joshua 11:8) "Their cities were destroyed," (Joshua 11:12) and the people living there were "put to the sword, destroying them all".
...
The only problem with this scenario is that it turns out that the great Israeli hero who had the honor of conquering Jerusalem and the Jebusites was David himself, after he had grown up and become King.

"David went to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites." (2 Samuel 5:6)

Now, depending on which version of events you (arbitrarily?) declare to be 'historical' either Joshua had already wiped out those Jebusites,

'leaving no one alive' (Joshua 11:14)

or, immediately after his death,

"the men of Judah made an assault on Jerusalem and captured it; they put its people (the Jebusites) to the sword, and set fire to the city." (Judges 1:8)

Or, then again,

"the men of Judah failed to drive out the Jebusites living in Jerusalem." (Joshua 15:63)

Or, then again, maybe the Benjamites attacked and failed. (Judges 1:21)

"The children of Israel dwelt among the Jebusites." (Judges 3:5)

In David's day, the Jebusites, were apparently alive and well enough to mock him, saying,

"you'll never get in here! Even the blind and the lame could keep you out!" (2 Samuel 5:6)


David did take the city, by sneaking under the walls via the water conduit to the center of town. The only problem with this scenario is that it was King Hezekiah who constructed the water conduit, centuries after David's death. (2 Kings 20:20) I


the Amorites were destroyed, and so were their cities and the people there. They were,

"put to the sword, destroying them all." (Joshua 11:12)

All their cities were 'plundered'. (Joshua 11:14)

"They destroyed everyone. They did not leave anyone alive." (Joshua 11:14) "Joshua conquered the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites." (Joshua 12:7) "Jericho fought against you, as did the Amorites, the Perrizites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, but I delivered them into your hands. They were driven out from before you." (Joshua 24:11)

Or, maybe not, for

"they did not drive out the Jebusites." (Judges 1:21) "The children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites." (Judges 3:5)

The Kingdom described in Joshua corresponds closely to that of the united Kingdom under Solomon. In the book of Judges the scenario is different. There is no singular and triumphant campaign of military conquest. The Israelites are confined to the less inhabited (and easily conquered) unfertile mountain ranges, with the Canaanites maintaining a firm grip on the fertile plains,

"because they had iron chariots." (Judges 1:19)

Thus we are presented with a different picture of God, a god who is easily foiled in conquest and war by those iron chariots. Conquest of the land is something that is going to take centuries to accomplish, with the justification given for this state of affairs, that God was testing the people by leaving the Canaanites in possession of the land.

"The purpose of the test was to see whether or not the Israelites would obey God's commandments."
(Judges 3:4)

You can see links before reply

pcruztemp
24th Mar 2012, 23:56
Historical contradictions in the Bible

Biblical manuscripts are notoriously unreliable when it comes to historical fact, and these disagreements and contradictions appear not only between various works, but, in an even more bizarre fashion within individual books. Saul reigned over Israel for two years, according to 1 Samuel 13:1. This figure seems improbably low so the two in the Hebrew text is usually changed to read 'twenty - two' in translation. However Saul reigned for forty years, if you believe what is written in the book of Acts 13:21. The Book of Samuel places Rachel's tomb in Benjamin at Zelzah in the north (1 Samuel 10:2) , as does Jeremiah 31:15. Genesis 35:19 and Matthew 2:16 place the tomb in Bethlehem, further south. Three sons were born to Absalom, we are told in 2 Samuel 14:27. However, a few chapters ahead Absalom said, 'I have no sons to carry on my name.' (2 Samuel 18:18) In a similar passage, we are informed that to her dying day, Michal, daughter of Saul was childless, for she mocked David for dancing in his underwear. (2 Samuel 6:23) However a few chapters later we are introduced to ‘the five sons of Michal.' (2 Samuel 21:8) Translators have usually changed the word 'Michal' in the Hebrew text to read 'Merob' in order to help clear this matter up.

Saul committed suicide in the 31st chapter of 1 Samuel. Saul's armor bearer refused to run him through with the sword, so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. Then his armor bearer fell on his own sword and died with him (1 Samuel 31:4). In the first chapter of 2nd Samuel Saul fell on his sword but he did not die. In this version a young Amalekite put him out of his misery by striking a death blow.

We are informed that Ishosheth the Hachomite was chief of the three of David's great heroes. (2 Samuel 23:8) The Chronicler disagrees stating that it was Jashobeam the Hachomite who was the chief of the three of David's great heroes. (1 Chronicles 11:11) The 23rd chapter of 2nd Samuel then goes on to list the thirty great heroes of David, and this passage is the subject of much confusion. There are more than thirty. Thus a correction is inserted, "there were thirty - seven in all" (2 Samuel 23:38) but the actual number of names mentioned is thirty - six.

'Chemosh' was not the god of the Ammonites as stated in Judges 11:24. Chemosh was the god of the Moabites. (Numbers 21:29, 1 Kings 11:7, 2 Kings 23:13) A contradictory theological reference to Chemosh is found in 1 Kings 3:27. It was standard theology to state there is one God, but in this passage Chemosh is also a god. The King of Moab offered a child as a whole offerings sacrifice to Chemosh, and the god responded by 'stirring up his wrath against Israel so they gave up the battle.' The Moabites are also painted in different colors, depending on the source. David (who was the grandson of a Moabite) had very friendly relations with the Moabites and even sent his father and mother to live with the King of Moab. (2 Samuel 22:3) According to Deuteronomy, David should never have been allowed into the assembly of Israel, much less reign as king, since no Moabite must ever be accepted forever. (Deuteronomy 23:3) David was in even more hot water, for the laws stated that no one who was a product of a mixed marriage with a non_Israelite could ever be accepted. (Exodus 34:11-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-5) You can compare the acceptance of Ruth , David's grandmother, and a Moabite, and the acceptance of David, a Moabite, as King, with the furious raging against mixed marriages in Ezra and Nehemiah. For reasons of political propaganda it would seem that an alternate tradition was invented to show that David really hated Moabites. David conquered Moab and then did some ethnic cleansing, forcing the Moabites to lie on the ground to be measured off for slaughter. (2 Samuel 8:2)

While Ezra and Nehemiah share in common a loathing for foreigners, the two books come from two different sources. Compare Ezra 2:1-64 and Nehemiah 7:7-66. The differences in these genealogical lists suggest conflicting source materials, although we are given to believe that they describe the same time period and events. Ezra 2:64 gives the total of the list as '42,360' but the actual total is 29,818. The total in Nehemiah comes closer to that of Ezra with different details (31,089). Compare amount of gold and garments in Ezra 2:69 and Nehemiah 7:70. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were not written by these men. Nehemiah lists the descendants of Joshua the High Priest down to six generations, suggesting that the manuscript was composed close to the time of Alexander the Great.

We are told that Ishbosheth was 40 years old when he reigned over Israel and he reigned two years. (2 Samuel 2:10) This could not be the case for he did not fight at Gilboa because he was to young. David ordered that those who stayed with the baggage were to receive an equal share of the spoils of war with those who went out to battle, and from that time onward he made it a law over Israel as it remained up to the writers time. (1 Samuel 30:25) David was not yet King over Judah, not to mention Israel, and in no position to make a law over Israel. As well, the phrase "as it is to this day" shows that the manuscript was compiled at a later date from earlier (and, as we are seeing, conflicting) source materials.

Now in the law it states that the Israelites must not despise an Edomite, for they were blood brothers. (Deuteronomy 23:7) It would seem that David was a law breaker. David made a great name for himself by the slaughter of eighteen thousand Edomites in the valley of Salt and he stationed garrisons throughout Edom. (2 Samuel 8:13) Or, then again, it was Abishai son of Zeruiah who killed those eighteen thousand Edomites in the valley of Salt; and he stationed garrisons throughout Edom. (1 Chronicles 18:13) However, before we condemn David as a law breaker, we should keep in mind that the Levitical law was unknown in David's day, and unknown in the day of whoever wrote the Samuel accounts, but it was known to the chronicler, since Chronicles is a late work. We are told that David's sons were priests. (2 Samuel 8:18) This indicates that the Levitical laws were unknown in their present form at that time, for David was from the tribe of Judah and the Levitical regulations only allowed levites from the tribe of Levi to serve as priests, and anyone else who approached would be put to death. Thus, the chronicler edits this reference to David (1 Chronicles 18:17) by stating that David's sons were ‘high officials in service to the king' (rather than priests, which, along with David's massacres of Edomites, would have placed David in serious violation of the law code - it was Abishai).
You can see links before reply

pcruztemp
25th Mar 2012, 00:09
This is an excerpt from the story of the late 23rd, early 22nd BCE ruler, Sargon the Akkad (also known as Sargon the Great):

My mother gave birth to me in secret at Asupiranu, the city of Saffron. She hid me in a basket woven from rushes and sealed with tar. My mother abandoned me on the bank of the Euphrates, the Euphrates carried my basket away. Akki, the royal gardener, lifted me out of the water; Akki reared me as his own. Akki trained me to care for the gardens of the Great King. Ishtar, my divine patron, cared for me. Then I became a Great King. I ruled the Sumerian peoples for fifty-five years.

Sargon was one of the greatest rulers of the Akkadian people, and it has been theorized that this story was written as a justification for his rule.

The similarities between Sargon’s story and the story in Exodus 2:1-2:10 are pretty glaring, so glaring, in fact, that it would be correct to assume they are not a coincidence. Parallels of this sort can be found throughout the opening books of the Hebrew Bible and go to show that nothing is really new.

Sargon’s story, the story of the unknowing future hero/savior can be found throughout the literary and cultural canon. King Arthur, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker; they are all inheritors of this ancient literary convention.

You can see links before reply


Now, I’m just going to say it: Joshua is a weird-ass book. It reads like the Deuteronomist was having a major fist pumping moment and decided that it would be totally badass to conclude his people’s long cosmology with a massive military campaign in which they returned to the Promised Land and then knocked down walls and killed all the Canaanites.

The most suspect thing about the Book of Joshua is that it tells the same story as Judges. They both tell the story of the beginning of Israelite civilization in Canaan. In Joshua, it describes them finally returning from their long wanderings in the desert and promptly destroying all the Canaanite cities and everyone in them before starting their civilization.

Judges, however, describes a loose, tribal society developing in the central hill country of Canaan. It describes that society engaging in warfare with surrounding Canaanite groups, and sometimes with each other (the tribe of Benjamin wasn’t very popular). On multiple occasions, the Canaanite peoples and cities the Israelites were at war with in Judges were the very same ones that Joshua identified as having been destroyed by the Israelites.

The way Judges is situated after Joshua, I think the Deuteronomist was trying to make it seem as though the events in Judges occurred after those in Joshua. At a close reading, however, it becomes clear that they are telling two versions of the same story. Joshua works well as a contrived ending to the Exodus story, but in light of the Judges material (which I will say more about tomorrow), it doesn’t make sense as anything but fiction.

There is also the issue of archaeological evidence. Though archaeologists have found Iron Age destruction levels at some of the sites identified in Joshua, most of the sites identified in that book show no signs of having been destroyed at that time (~13th century BCE). Many of those cities have much later destruction levels, or show clear signs of having been re-built soon after the destruction.

In light of the textual contradictions and the lack of a consistent archaeological record, I think it’s safe to say that—though perhaps in the eyes of the Deuteronomist, it was a fitting end to the Exodus story—Joshua is just as fictional as Exodus.
You can see links before reply

pcruztemp
25th Mar 2012, 00:16
The Book of Numbers states that, following their escape, the Israelites came under attack from the "Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev," as they were "coming along the road to Atharim." But although excavations showed that a city of Arad existed in the early Bronze Age from roughly 3500 to 2200 B.C., and that an Iron Age fort arose on the site beginning in roughly 1150 B.C., it was deserted during the years in between. The Pentateuch says the Hebrews did battle with Sihon, king of the Amorites, at a city called Heshbon, but excavations have revealed that Heshbon did not exist during this period either. Nor did Edom, against whose king the Old Testament says the ancient Jews also made war.

Supposedly, David had used his power base in Judah as a springboard from which to conquer the north. But archaeological surveys of the southern hill country show that Judah in the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C. was too poor and backward and sparsely populated to support such a military expedition. Moreover, there was no evidence of wealth or booty flowing back to the southern power base once the conquest of the north had taken place. Jerusalem seems to have been hardly more than a rural village when Solomon was reportedly transforming it into a glittering capital. And although archaeologists had long credited Solomon with the construction of major palaces in the northern cities of Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo (better known as the site of Armageddon), recent analysis of pottery shards found on the sites, plus refined carbon-14 dating techniques, indicate that the palaces postdate Solomon's reign by a century or more.
You can see links before reply

sevenshadows
25th Mar 2012, 00:41
Well I guess a good question is where are the dinosaurs in the Holy Bible?

When God created the world in seven days, He missed out the animals not seen by man.

I think we can safely say the Holy Bible is not for scientific use. ;)

zellman
25th Mar 2012, 02:14
Yan ang poste ng walang muwang sa Dios..
1.paanu kamo nabuhay ang mga hayop sa daong? Paanu naisakay at naipagkasya? THAT MEANS THERES A LIVING GOD NA KAYANG GAWING POSIBLE ANG IMPOSIBLE, At SIMPLE LANG PARA SA KANYA NA WAG PAPASUKIN ANG TUBIG SA DAONG DAHIL HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL..

2.nasaan ang dinosaur nun nilikha ang mundo ng 7days? Napakatangang tanong neto.. Dae ko tawa.. :D pareho ba ang ikot ng panahon ng mars sa earth? Eh pluto sa jupiter? Malinaw ang sabi sa bible 7 DAYS GOD CREATED THE EARTH! 7 DAYS MALINAW NA MALINAW, 7 DAYS AND NOT 7 "EARTH" DAYS dahil kung pag uusapan ang panahon sa universe maraming panahon, ang araw matagal ng nanjan bagu pa nalikha ang lupa so common sense na ang isang araw ng Dios millions of years na sa tao haha bubu man..walang alam sa bible..

clifford6ngr
25th Mar 2012, 03:07
Yan ang poste ng walang muwang sa Dios..
1.paanu kamo nabuhay ang mga hayop sa daong? Paanu naisakay at naipagkasya? THAT MEANS THERES A LIVING GOD NA KAYANG GAWING POSIBLE ANG IMPOSIBLE, At SIMPLE LANG PARA SA KANYA NA WAG PAPASUKIN ANG TUBIG SA DAONG DAHIL HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL..

2.nasaan ang dinosaur nun nilikha ang mundo ng 7days? Napakatangang tanong neto.. Dae ko tawa.. :D pareho ba ang ikot ng panahon ng mars sa earth? Eh pluto sa jupiter? Malinaw ang sabi sa bible 7 DAYS GOD CREATED THE EARTH! 7 DAYS MALINAW NA MALINAW, 7 DAYS AND NOT 7 "EARTH" DAYS dahil kung pag uusapan ang panahon sa universe maraming panahon, ang araw matagal ng nanjan bagu pa nalikha ang lupa so common sense na ang isang araw ng Dios millions of years na sa tao haha bubu man..walang alam sa bible..

dre..lasing ka pa ata eh..cool ka lang kasi..kaya d kayo magising sa katotohanan dahil ganyan ang approach nyo sa ibang tao..dinadaan nyo sa pangmamaliit ang scientific views..gusto nyo kasi kayo lang lage ang tama.

1. I really wonder why ipaglaban nyo ng patayan ang bagay na hindi nyo naman nasaksihan.. you are not even sure na sila lang ang buhay sa great flood na yon..
2. Kung tanga at bobo yong taong nagtanong neto ano na lang ang tawag sa inyo? lumang palusot na yan na i-convert nyo ang isang araw sa biblia into million years.. may word bang million sa biblia? interpretation nyo lang yan sa panahon ngayon para madepensahan ang nalamang mali.
Ibig sabihin hindi ka rin mkapaniwala na 6/7 earth days lang ginawa ng god ang universe?

zellman
25th Mar 2012, 07:20
1.Ahaha natural sila noe at kamag anak lang nya ang nabuhay w/animals dahil nilipol nga ng Dios ang mga tao eh, lumubog maging mga bundok nung time na yun kahit mga swimer di makakatagal ng ilang buwan palutang lutang sa tubig yun..

2.naniniwala akong nacreate ang universe ng 6days pero NOT earth days yun dre..dahil mas marami pang naunang ginawa sa universe kesa sa earth, nun nagkarun ng liwanag means araw na ang ginwa nun so comon sense wala pang earth dahil mas nauna ang araw sa earth, panu mangyayaring earth days un? At isa pa, di ka ba naniniwala sa bagay na di mo nakikita? Para mu na rin sinabing di ka naniniwala sa sarili mong utak? Oyeah..xD

pcruztemp
25th Mar 2012, 08:41
the koala. it only eats eucalyptus leaves and can't swim, it only walks slowly

now how did it travel to australia from ararat and what did it eat on the way?

ang tarsier, how did it travel from ararat to Philippines?

pcruztemp
25th Mar 2012, 08:47
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.



Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.



Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

kropic101
25th Mar 2012, 08:49
the koala. it only eats eucalyptus leaves and can't swim, it only walks slowly

now how did it travel to australia from ararat and what did it eat on the way?

ang tarsier, how did it travel from ararat to Philippines?

---------------------------------------------------------------
ewan po,pero di ba tao ang nagbigay ng pangalan sa mga hayop?korek me po kung mali ako..

pcruztemp
25th Mar 2012, 20:04
---------------------------------------------------------------
ewan po,pero di ba tao ang nagbigay ng pangalan sa mga hayop?korek me po kung mali ako..


so what if humans named animals? any primitive tribe can do that

zellman
26th Mar 2012, 00:49
Tama ka po, si adan ang nagpangalan sa mga hayop wala po ako tutol dun, pero ang tanong, lahat ba napangalanan? Bakit madami pang isda ang di kilala? Di naman po makakatagal si adan sa ilalim ng dagat para pangalanan ang mga isda, katunayan pti mga insekto marami pang unknown.. Ang dinosaur hindi si adan ang nagpangalan nun, search nyo si mr.richard owen..

2.koala eat eucalyptus tama ehehe..panu nakasurvive? Just like what i said God can do anything, mag uutos ba Siya ng ganun kay noe kung mamamatay lang din pala ung mga hayop?

zellman
26th Mar 2012, 00:52
Di pa ba sapat ang paliwanag na yun para maniwala kayo na may Dios? Koala survived at that moment kahit sabihin na nating walang eucalyptus its a miracle from Him right?

Mist3rClay
26th Mar 2012, 02:22
Di pa ba sapat ang paliwanag na yun para maniwala kayo na may Dios? Koala survived at that moment kahit sabihin na nating walang eucalyptus its a miracle from Him right?

eh panu ung mga taong namamatay sa gutom ngayon?yung mga wala makain na kababayan natin...tinulungan nya ba?pinapabayaan nya nga lang eh,asan ang miracle na sinasabe mu dudong?

pcruztemp
26th Mar 2012, 07:22
The famous Green River formation covers tens of thousands of square miles. In places, it contains about 20 million varves, each varve consisting of a thin layer of fine light sediment and an even thinner layer of finer dark sediment. According to the conventional geologic interpretation, the layers are sediments laid down in a complex of ancient freshwater lakes. The coarser light sediments were laid down during the summer, when streams poured run-off water into the lake. The fine dark sediments were laid down in the winter, when there was less run-off. (The process can be observed in modern freshwater lakes.) If this interpretation is correct, the varves of the Green River formation must have formed over a period of 20 million years.

Creationists insist that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that the geologic strata were laid down by the Flood. Whitcomb and Morris (p. 427) therefore attempt to attribute the Green River varves to “a complex of shallow turbidity currents ...” Turbidity currents, flows of mud-laden water, generally occur in the ocean, resulting from underwater landslides. If the Green River shales were laid down during the Flood, there must have been 40 million turbidity currents, alternately light and dark, over about 300 days. A simple calculation (which creationists have avoided for 20 years) shows that the layers must have formed at the rate of about three layers every two seconds. A sequence of 40 million turbidity currents covering tens of thousands of square miles every two-thirds of a second seems a bit unlikely.


For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.


An object's hydrodynamic drag is directly proportional to its cross sectional area and its drag coefficient. Therefore when objects with the same density and the same drag coefficient move through a fluid, they are sorted according to size. (Mining engineers exploit this phenomena in some ore separation processes.) This means that all small trilobites should be found higher in the fossil record than large ones. That is not what we find, however, so the hydraulic sorting argument is immediately falsified.

You can see links before reply

pcruztemp
26th Mar 2012, 07:23
is that the extremely similar Epic of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian legend predates Noah’s story by at least one thousand years in the written form and at least five hundred years for the setting. The similarities between the two tales are so remarkable that we cannot write them off in good conscience as mere coincidences. In the earlier flood legend, Utnapishtim receives instructions and exact dimensions on how to construct a large ship to avoid an imminent flood (as does Noah in Genesis 6:14-16), takes animals and his family aboard to preserve life on earth (as does Noah in Genesis 6:19-7:1), lands the ship on a mountain after the flood has stopped (as does Noah in Genesis 8:4), releases a dove and a raven from the ship in order to aid his search for dry land (as does Noah in Genesis 8:6-11), and burns a sacrifice after the flood for the gods who find its odor pleasing (as does Noah in Genesis 8:20-21). Because several additional minor parallels exist, I would encourage everyone to read Tablet XI of the short epic in its entirety in order to appreciate fully the similarities between the two legends. Since the Gilgamesh tale is the earlier version of the two, we can only surmise that the authors of Genesis copied the Epic of Gilgamesh or inadvertently patterned the story of Noah’s ark on an even more ancient flood legend that we have yet to discover.
You can see links before reply

shockproof
26th Mar 2012, 09:12
nasa tao kung gusto nya maniwala ika nga.kahit naman sabihin kong totoo may mga taong skeptic.kaya sila na bahala.malalaki na yan para magdiscover.

dhanzboy
26th Mar 2012, 19:00
Yan ang poste ng walang muwang sa Dios..
1.paanu kamo nabuhay ang mga hayop sa daong? Paanu naisakay at naipagkasya? THAT MEANS THERES A LIVING GOD NA KAYANG GAWING POSIBLE ANG IMPOSIBLE, At SIMPLE LANG PARA SA KANYA NA WAG PAPASUKIN ANG TUBIG SA DAONG DAHIL HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL..

2.nasaan ang dinosaur nun nilikha ang mundo ng 7days? Napakatangang tanong neto.. Dae ko tawa.. :D pareho ba ang ikot ng panahon ng mars sa earth? Eh pluto sa jupiter? Malinaw ang sabi sa bible 7 DAYS GOD CREATED THE EARTH! 7 DAYS MALINAW NA MALINAW, 7 DAYS AND NOT 7 "EARTH" DAYS dahil kung pag uusapan ang panahon sa universe maraming panahon, ang araw matagal ng nanjan bagu pa nalikha ang lupa so common sense na ang isang araw ng Dios millions of years na sa tao haha bubu man..walang alam sa bible..

galing ng analogy mo dre, lakas tama ng amats mo he he he....

nagbigay pa sya ng great flood kung pipigilan din naman nya ang tubig sa ibang lugar.... saka ano ba ang purpose ng god nung ginawa nya ang great flood? diba para lipulin ang mga tao at magtira lang ng mga pinili nya.....

kung ang sinasabi mo naman na ang isang araw para sa diyos ay million of years, pano naman si moses at mga tao na nagpaikot ikot sa disyerto ng 40 years? eh di gaano katagal yun kung susundin natin yang analogy mo? ibig bang sabihin nun si moses at ang mga taong kasama nya sa disyerto ay nabuhay ng mahigit 40 billion years? talagang natatawa ako sayo dre he he he.....


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

zellman
26th Mar 2012, 20:07
Ahahay sinu kaya di makaintindi ng analogy? Ang pinag uusapan ung 7 days of creation ng universe, panu napunta sa 40yrs sa disyerto? Pakikonek naman dre wakokok..xD

zellman
26th Mar 2012, 20:12
At anu ang kasalanan ng Dios sa pagkamatay ng tao sa gutom? Yan ang hirap eh tao ang gagawa ng mali pag may nangyare isisisi sa Dios tsk tsk.. Ang kamatayan ba nangangahulugang kapahamakan ng tao? Pinagpahinga na nga para di mahirapan eh diba? Haha..

Since Kanina pa kayo tanung ng tanong, ako naman magtatanong pwede?

1.if there is no God paanu nagawa ang universe? O kahit ang mundo nalang?

2.paanu nagawa ang tao?

Wag sana iligaw ang tanong ko.. :D

dhanzboy
26th Mar 2012, 20:34
Ahahay sinu kaya di makaintindi ng analogy? Ang pinag uusapan ung 7 days of creation ng universe, panu napunta sa 40yrs sa disyerto? Pakikonek naman dre wakokok..xD


Yan ang poste ng walang muwang sa Dios..
1.paanu kamo nabuhay ang mga hayop sa daong? Paanu naisakay at naipagkasya? THAT MEANS THERES A LIVING GOD NA KAYANG GAWING POSIBLE ANG IMPOSIBLE, At SIMPLE LANG PARA SA KANYA NA WAG PAPASUKIN ANG TUBIG SA DAONG DAHIL HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL..

2.nasaan ang dinosaur nun nilikha ang mundo ng 7days? Napakatangang tanong neto.. Dae ko tawa.. :D pareho ba ang ikot ng panahon ng mars sa earth? Eh pluto sa jupiter? Malinaw ang sabi sa bible 7 DAYS GOD CREATED THE EARTH! 7 DAYS MALINAW NA MALINAW, 7 DAYS AND NOT 7 "EARTH" DAYS dahil kung pag uusapan ang panahon sa universe maraming panahon, ang araw matagal ng nanjan bagu pa nalikha ang lupa so common sense na ang isang araw ng Dios millions of years na sa tao haha bubu man..walang alam sa bible..


ikaw mismo ang may sabi na ang isang araw ng diyos millions of years na sa tao. so kung para sayo ang isang araw ay millionof years, pano na ang 40 years ni moses sa disyerto? billion of years ba? nagtatanong lang kasi malabo para sa akin ang pagkakasabi mo tungkol sa 7 days. I assume na nagbabase ka sa bible nyan dre........... kaya nagtanong ako kung yang one day is equals to million years mo eh nag aapply pa rin ba sa mga taon na binabanggit sa bible.

pakilinaw nga dre.................. di ko magets kasi eh, isang hamak na magbobote lamang ako at di nakapagtapos ng elementarya na hindi marunong mag computer at mag internet..... he he he......:praise::praise::praise::praise:

pcruztemp
26th Mar 2012, 20:45
Since Kanina pa kayo tanung ng tanong, ako naman magtatanong pwede?

1.if there is no God paanu nagawa ang universe? O kahit ang mundo nalang?

2.paanu nagawa ang tao?

Wag sana iligaw ang tanong ko.. :D

don't lie. you know exactly what answers science has for those 2 questions

eurekahz
26th Mar 2012, 23:29
mean anticris2 k.,d k naniniwala my dios eh

mcjal
26th Mar 2012, 23:38
At anu ang kasalanan ng Dios sa pagkamatay ng tao sa gutom? Yan ang hirap eh tao ang gagawa ng mali pag may nangyare isisisi sa Dios tsk tsk.. Ang kamatayan ba nangangahulugang kapahamakan ng tao? Pinagpahinga na nga para di mahirapan eh diba? Haha..

Since Kanina pa kayo tanung ng tanong, ako naman magtatanong pwede?

1.if there is no God paanu nagawa ang universe? O kahit ang mundo nalang?

2.paanu nagawa ang tao?

Wag sana iligaw ang tanong ko.. :Ddon't lie. you know exactly what answers science has for those 2 questions

so how was his questions "EXACTLY" answered by science? as far as i know, science has not provided an "EXACT" answer to those questions yet.

Mist3rClay
27th Mar 2012, 01:59
At anu ang kasalanan ng Dios sa pagkamatay ng tao sa gutom? Yan ang hirap eh tao ang gagawa ng mali pag may nangyare isisisi sa Dios tsk tsk.. Ang kamatayan ba nangangahulugang kapahamakan ng tao? Pinagpahinga na nga para di mahirapan eh diba? Haha..

Since Kanina pa kayo tanung ng tanong, ako naman magtatanong pwede?

1.if there is no God paanu nagawa ang universe? O kahit ang mundo nalang?

2.paanu nagawa ang tao?

Wag sana iligaw ang tanong ko.. :D

Baket ang magutom ba ay pagkakamali?kasalanan bang isilang ka na mahirap,walang mapakain sayo magulang mo?asan ang miracle?so pag nkasurvive ang tao sa gutom,sa aksidente?miracle na yun?...eh panu ung iba na di nakaligtas?namimili ba ang dyos kung sino ang gusto nya isave?unfair naman ata yun?...ang point ko lang bat nya hinahayaan ang ibang tao na magutom?eh diba dyos nga sya kaya niang gumawa ng himala sa tao,...so anung purpose ng tao dun?sa sinabi mu na "pinapahinga na para di mahirapan"?anu yun sinilang sya para magkaganun lang ang buhay nya?ang mahirapan tapos babawian ng buhay?ika nga ni NORA AUNOR,WALANG HIMALA!!!...hehe

Mist3rClay
27th Mar 2012, 02:12
mean anticris2 k.,d k naniniwala my dios eh

Di nga naniniwala sa dyos eh bat naman magiging antichrist?
Kapag sinabing antichrist meaning is against kay kristo

di lang naniniwala sa dy0s antichrist agad?di muna ba pdeng atheist muna?hahaha

sevenshadows
27th Mar 2012, 02:22
Yan ang poste ng walang muwang sa Dios..
1.paanu kamo nabuhay ang mga hayop sa daong? Paanu naisakay at naipagkasya? THAT MEANS THERES A LIVING GOD NA KAYANG GAWING POSIBLE ANG IMPOSIBLE, At SIMPLE LANG PARA SA KANYA NA WAG PAPASUKIN ANG TUBIG SA DAONG DAHIL HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL..


First of all, easy lang po, puso niyo. Hehe. :p

I am not challenging the existence of a God. What I said was the bible is not good for scientific studies.



2.nasaan ang dinosaur nun nilikha ang mundo ng 7days? Napakatangang tanong neto.. Dae ko tawa.. :D pareho ba ang ikot ng panahon ng mars sa earth? Eh pluto sa jupiter? Malinaw ang sabi sa bible 7 DAYS GOD CREATED THE EARTH! 7 DAYS MALINAW NA MALINAW, 7 DAYS AND NOT 7 "EARTH" DAYS dahil kung pag uusapan ang panahon sa universe maraming panahon, ang araw matagal ng nanjan bagu pa nalikha ang lupa so common sense na ang isang araw ng Dios millions of years na sa tao haha bubu man..walang alam sa bible..

Well, it is just too bad, this is earth. And the followers of the Holy Torah(Jews) and Old Testament(half of the Holy Bible) are earthlings.

pcruztemp
27th Mar 2012, 09:30
so how was his questions "EXACTLY" answered by science? as far as i know, science has not provided an "EXACT" answer to those questions yet.

your use of the word exactly is "evolving", to use a term loosely, from my use of it

jtribaco
27th Mar 2012, 15:55
No exact answer yet from the science :) Let Science, Be Science

besthyper3
27th Mar 2012, 16:19
Di totoo un walang tunay s bible

pcruztemp
27th Mar 2012, 18:49
Di totoo un walang tunay s bible

technically correct

like the movie forrest gump. it is fiction woven around truths and historical facts. para mas makaloko, or mas convincing


we have an example of 2 religions doing that.

You can see links before reply

You can see links before reply

the cyrus cylinder was written by babylonians and it says that the babylonian god marduk ordered cyrus to invade babylon and depose their corrupt rulers

the book of ezra naman, written by the israelites says yahweh was the one who ordered cyrus to invade.


problem is, cyrus did not believe in marduk or yahweh, he was a zoroastrian.


spin doctor or propaganda ang isang modern term

pcruztemp
28th Mar 2012, 01:19
Jesus wasn’t the only messianic prophet in the ancient world — but he’s the only one most people remember. This National Geographic documentary presents some of the rivals of Jesus and Judaism like Mithras, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Simon Bar Kochba, and Isis.

You can see links before reply


You can see links before reply

also available on youtube

mcjal
28th Mar 2012, 02:05
Di totoo un walang tunay s bible

as in "wala" talaga? now or never? :think: natutuwa talaga ako kapagkaganito na ang sinasabi. hehehe. putting too much faith in themselves, they really are all-knowing. :p

may nag-"second the motion" din. hehehe. these guys just don't know the "limitations" of their statements. hehe

meron pa pala mas matalino dito sa symb than those scientists out there. hehehe.

on thread: so far, "some" notes agree with science. others are still "subject of study" until now. ;) science is a continuous learning, not an end-result in itself. :salute:

jtribaco
28th Mar 2012, 07:18
^ :) agree... Science never conclude anything or be certain

zellman
28th Mar 2012, 08:33
Hindi naman lahat ng taon na tinutukoy sa bible ay dapat ibase sa taon ng Dios eh gets nba mr.DANS?

1.asan na sagot ko? Nganganga nalang ba kau sa tanung ko? Kapag di na kayang sagutin escape goat nalang?

2.paanu magiging unfair ang Dios? Nagpapaulan Siya sa mga naniniwala at di naniniwala sa kanya, nagpapasikat Siya ng araw sa mahirap at mayaman.. Aminin man natin kailangan din ng mahirap sa mundo, kung lahat ay mayaman walang kakalkal sa poso negro ni Don pepot dahil mas mayaman pala pagtatrabahuhin nya..

pcruztemp
28th Mar 2012, 11:16
take a look at Joshua 8:26-28:

For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua. And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.

Joseph Callaway, professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, excavated the ruins of Ai between 1964 and 1976 and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the Bible version completely:

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis mine).

There is also no archaeological evidence that the Exodus from Egypt ever happened. Numbers chapter 1 gives an idea of the huge number of Israelites that apparently wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. However, the Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren spent 10 years excavating the site, and "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the Biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988).

Millions of people camped in the desert for decades would have left a huge footprint, but not a single piece of evidence has been found.
You can see links before reply

pcruztemp
28th Mar 2012, 11:25
In his History of the Jews, the Jewish scholar and theologian Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), wrote that the Greek philosopher Aristotle had said: "...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." (Book I:22.)

Clearchus of Soli wrote, "The Jews descend from the philosophers of India. The philosophers are called in India Calanians and in Syria Jews. The name of their capital is very difficult to pronounce. It is called 'Jerusalem.'"

"Megasthenes, who was sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, about three hundred years before Christ, and whose accounts from new inquiries are every day acquiring additional credit, says that the Jews 'were an Indian tribe or sect called Kalani...'" (Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)

Martin Haug, Ph.D., wrote in The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religions of the Parsis, "The Magi are said to have called their religion Kesh-î-Ibrahim.They traced their religious books to Abraham, who was believed to have brought them from heaven." (p. 16.)

There are certain striking similarities between the Hindu god Brahma and his consort Saraisvati, and the Jewish Abraham and Sarai, that are more than mere coincidences. Although in all of India there is only one temple dedicated to Brahma, this cult is the third largest Hindu sect.

In Hindu mythology, Sarai-Svati is Brahm's sister. The bible gives two stories of Abraham. In this first version, Abraham told Pharaoh that he was lying when he introduced Sarai as his sister. In the second version, he also told the king of Gerar that Sarai was really his sister. However, when the king scolded him for lying, Abraham said that Sarai was in reality both his wife and his sister! "...and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12.)

But the anomalies don't end here. In India, a tributary of the river Saraisvati is Ghaggar. Another tributary of the same river is Hakra. According to Jewish traditions, Hagar was Sarai's maidservant; the Moslems say she was an Egyptian princess. Notice the similarities of Ghaggar, Hakra and Hagar.

In ancient India, the Aryan cult was called "Brahm-Aryan." The Aryans worshiped multiple gods. Abraham turned away from polytheism. By so doing, he could have become "A-Brahm" (No longer a Brahman.) The Aryans called the Asuras "Ah-Brahm." Therefore, we can logically assume that the fathers of the Indus civilization were probably prototypical Jews.
You can see links before reply

pcruztemp
29th Mar 2012, 00:18
look at jewish communities all around the world. They take great pains to preserve their cultural identity

if the bible is true and all the people of the world originated from the sons of noah and the babel event, then looking at all the peoples in different parts of the earth like mesoamerica, amerindians, chinese, aboriginals in australia, african tribes, etc, thern there is a problem. how do you explain the lack of jewishness both in their culture/language as well as their looks.

if noah/adam was white and noah's wife/eve was african, then it would be possible that one of their children would be mana sa tatay and the other would be mana sa nanay and they would then form the african and the white race. But there are more than 2 races in the world not just white and black. meron din yellow (asians) and red (amerindians)

Mist3rClay
29th Mar 2012, 04:06
Hindi naman lahat ng taon na tinutukoy sa bible ay dapat ibase sa taon ng Dios eh gets nba mr.DANS?

1.asan na sagot ko? Nganganga nalang ba kau sa tanung ko? Kapag di na kayang sagutin escape goat nalang?

2.paanu magiging unfair ang Dios? Nagpapaulan Siya sa mga naniniwala at di naniniwala sa kanya, nagpapasikat Siya ng araw sa mahirap at mayaman.. Aminin man natin kailangan din ng mahirap sa mundo, kung lahat ay mayaman walang kakalkal sa poso negro ni Don pepot dahil mas mayaman pala pagtatrabahuhin nya..

So masuwerte ka kung pinanganak ka na mayaman,malas mo kung pinanganak ka na mahirap?parang ang layo naman ng sagot mu sa post ko...

pcruztemp
29th Mar 2012, 07:12
Life events shared by Yeshua (Jesus) and mythical heroes:

According to author Robert Price, specialists in mythology such as Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, and others have developed a concept called the "Mythic Hero Archetype" -- a type of larger-than-life man found in many Indo-European and Semitic cultures. They have analyzed stories and myths of Aeneas, Arthur, Buddha, David, Gilgamesh, Heracles, Lohengrin, Moses, Odysseus, Oedipus, Perseus, Romulus, Siegfried, etc. and have identified twenty-two recurring elements in these myths. Typically, the life story of any one hero contains many, but not all, of the twenty-two components. 1

Author Alan Dundes has compared this archetype with events in the life of Jesus, as recorded in the Christian Scriptures. 2 He found that Jesus' life contained almost all of the twenty two elements. Element #3 is missing, and #12 is a weak match. But the remaining twenty events are relatively precise matches:

His mother is a royal virgin. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke state that Jesus' mother is a virgin. (e.g. Matthew 1:23). The genealogies in the two gospels indicate that Joseph is of royal descent; Mary would partake of royalty by being married to Joseph. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-16).
His father is a king. Jesus is regarded to be the Son of God, and God is often referred to as King of Kings.
His father and mother are related. There is no match here. Nothing is known about the genealogy of Mary, so this cannot be confirmed. If the early Christians believed that Joseph and Mary were related, then this information did not make it into the Gospels.
His conception was unusual. Both the Gospels of Luke and of Matthew state that Jesus was conceived by Mary "from the Holy Spirit" without having engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. (Matthew 1:20),
He was said to be the son of God. This is seen throughout the Christian Scriptures. Considering only the first chapter of the Gospel of John, there are seven references to Jesus as the Son of God:
bullet as "The Word" being with God.
bullet as the "only begotten of the Father."
bullet as the "only begotten Son"
bullet as "the Lamb of God." (2 times)
bullet as the "Son of God." (2 times)
There was an attempt to kill the hero while he was a child. In Matthew 2:16, Herod ordered that "all the Children who were in Bethlehem" and its vicinity were to be murdered. (KJV) 3 The NIV says that the slaughter was to be restricted to only male infants.
He was spirited away. Matthew 2:13-14 relates how an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to flee to Egypt with his family.
He was reared by foster parents in a country far away. Matthew 2:15 states that Jesus was raised in Egypt until Herod died, and it was safe for the family to return to Nazareth. Most hero myths involve a foster family. In the case of Yeshua, Joseph was not Jesus' father; Joseph was a type of foster father.
Little or no information is known about his childhood. The Christian Scriptures give almost no details about the life of Jesus, from the time that he was circumcised at the age of eight days (Luke 2:21) until his baptism at about the age of 30. The only exception is Luke 2:46-49 where, at the age of 12, he was described as having been taken to Jerusalem at the time of Passover. He is described as debating theological matters with the priests. Presenting the hero as a child prodigy does not appear in the Mythic Hero Archetype being considered here. However, Robert Price states that "it is a frequent mytheme in other hero tales not considered by Raglan..." 1
He goes to a future kingdom. Jesus went to Jerusalem just before his last Passover, where he was declared king by the public. John 12:12-13 says that "a great multitude took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: 'Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! The King of Israel!' " (NKJ)
He is victorious over the king. The passage in John 18:36-37 describes how Jesus demonstrated superior debating skill when interviewed by Pilate. More importantly, Jesus' resurrection which was mentioned in all four Gospels and many additional locations in the Christian Scriptures is the ultimate victory over the king who was responsible for ordering the crucifixion. Pilate ordered Jesus death and Jesus was triumphant. Pilate was not a king; he was a procurator -- a type of governor. But he still had enormous power.
He marries a princess. There is no match here -- only the suggestion of a tie-in. There is no record of Jesus having been married. However, some theologians have suggested that the miracle story in which he converts water into wine may have taken place at his own wedding. The Gospels talk extensively about women being in Jesus' retinue during his ministry. In the culture of Palestine during the 1st century CE, these female followers would have had to be married to Jesus and/or the disciples, or they were prostitutes. One assumes the former, because one would otherwise expect the Pharisees to repeatedly and viciously criticize Jesus for moral laxity if he was followed by a crowd of hookers. It has been argued that Jesus was probably married. Jewish society strongly pressured men to marry while young; if Jesus remained single, then one would have expected the Pharisees to criticize him for remaining a bachelor. Luke 8:3 indicates that one of the women who followed Jesus was at least close to King Herod.
He becomes king. John 18:36-37 describes how the people of Jerusalem proclaimed him the King of Israel. Pilate jokingly recognizes that the public considered Jesus as a king in Mark 15:12 and John 19:15. In Mark 15:18, the Roman soldiers jokingly referred to him as king of the Jews. A plaque was placed above his head during the execution. It called him "The King of the Jews." (e.g. Mark 15:26).
He reigns uneventfully, for a while. He does not reign in the sense of having temporal power. However, Mark 12:27 to 13: describes how he holds court in the Jerusalem temple.
He prescribes laws. In Mark 12 and 13, "...He issues teachings, parables, and prophecies, which are taken with legal force by his followers." 1
He loses favor with the gods or his subjects. The Gospels record how the public turns against Jesus and demands that he be crucified. (e.g. John 19:15).
He is driven from the throne and city. In Luke 23:26-32, he is led out of the city by Roman soldiers.
He has a mysterious death. During Jesus' crucifixion, he died after an unexpectedly short time. (John 19:31-33). More mysterious than that were the events at the time of his death. Luke 23:44-45 describes how the sun stopped shining and the curtain in the temple was torn in two. Matthew 27:51-53 describes major earthquakes sufficiently strong to split rocks. Matthew also discusses the resurrection of many people from their graves, who subsequently entered the city and appeared to many people.
He dies at the top of a hill: He was executed on the hill of Golgotha, on top of Mount Calvary.
If he has any children, they do not succeed him. There is nothing in the Christian Scriptures to indicate that Jesus had children. It was Jesus brother, James, who succeeded him as leader of the disciples, and the head of the Jewish Christian group in Jerusalem. (Some faith groups regard James as Jesus' step-brother, cousin or friend).
His body was not buried: Rather that being buried in an earthen grave, his body was temporarily laid out in a rock cave. At some unknown time between late Friday afternoon, when he was laid in the tomb, and the following Sunday morning, the Gospels all say that Jesus was resurrected. Price comments that this "would seem to be within legitimate variant-distance of the ideal legend type." 1
One or more holy sepulchers are built: The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was built over the place where many Christians believe that Jesus was executed.

Robert Price concludes that "The Gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last....As Dundes is careful to point out, it doesn't prove there was no historical Jesus for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionized, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype...Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures, including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."
You can see links before reply


Correspondences between events in Jesus' and Krishna's life:

Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Yeshua's and Krishna's life. He found what he believed were 346 elements in common within Christiana and Hindu writings. 1 That appears to be overwhelming evidence that incidents in Jesus' life were copied from Krishna's. However, many of Graves' points of similarity are a real stretch.

He did report some amazing coincidences:
bullet #6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
bullet 7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
bullet 8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
bullet 13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
bullet 18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
bullet 21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
bullet 27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
bullet 30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
bullet 41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
bullet 56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
bullet 58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
bullet 60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
bullet 64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
bullet 66: Both were "without sin."
bullet 72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
bullet 76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
bullet 83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
bullet 86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
bullet 101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
bullet 109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
bullet 115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
bullet 121 to 127: Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
bullet 128 to 131: Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.
You can see links before reply

zellman
30th Mar 2012, 00:14
Mabuhay ka lang sa mundo bilang tao at hindi hayop ay maswerte na, wala sa mayaman at mahirap yan, lahat tayo pinanganak na pantay pantay, pareparehong walang saplot, pantay lang ang tingin ng Dios mayaman o mahirap, kung pinanganak kang mahirap anu gagawin mu? Kung gusto mu umasenso magsikap ka..gets nba?

mcjal
30th Mar 2012, 00:28
Mabuhay ka lang sa mundo bilang tao at hindi hayop ay maswerte na, wala sa mayaman at mahirap yan, lahat tayo pinanganak na pantay pantay, pareparehong walang saplot, pantay lang ang tingin ng Dios mayaman o mahirap, kung pinanganak kang mahirap anu gagawin mu? Kung gusto mu umasenso magsikap ka..gets nba?

tanong ko lng: (OT to but hirit ko lng, 1 question lng naman.)

napapamana ba ang kahirapan o kayamanan? kung tayo'y ipinanganak na mahirap sino ba dapat natin "iquestion", Diyos o magulang natin?

ganito ang sitwasyon:
nong ang lolo mo ay ipinanganak at siya's nagsumikap at naging mayaman, posibleng ang tatay mo ng siya's pinanganak ay mayaman din. kung hindi nagloko ang tatay mo at nagsumikap din, posibleng mamana mo ang "yaman" therefore maaring pagkapanganak sa iyo ay mayaman ka.

zellman
30th Mar 2012, 08:28
Tama c mcjal, wag nyu isisi sa Dios ang kahirapan..

Bee happy
30th Mar 2012, 10:24
Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

jesss
30th Mar 2012, 13:46
Mabuhay ka lang sa mundo bilang tao at hindi hayop ay maswerte na, wala sa mayaman at mahirap yan, lahat tayo pinanganak na pantay pantay, pareparehong walang saplot, pantay lang ang tingin ng Dios mayaman o mahirap, kung pinanganak kang mahirap anu gagawin mu? Kung gusto mu umasenso magsikap ka..gets nba?

tama:thumbsup: mahirap man o mayaman,may katungkulan man o wala sa mata ng diyos tayo ay pantay-pantay

jroblasrl
30th Mar 2012, 14:36
sa aking palagay ang mga nakasulat sa bible ay isang guide lamang na kailangan maintindihan kung ano ang nais iparating ng may lalang..at hindi mismo ng mga titik nito dahil ito po ay sadyang matalinhaga...

zhinexin01
30th Mar 2012, 16:02
Totoo ito in terms of LIfe & Teaching of Christ. :)
if you want to know about His life, you can read it.
Guide lang to for our everyday living. ipinapaalm lang nto na we have a living God.

9Ten8ti
30th Mar 2012, 16:10
sa aking palagay ang mga nakasulat sa bible ay isang guide lamang na kailangan maintindihan kung ano ang nais iparating ng may lalang..at hindi mismo ng mga titik nito dahil ito po ay sadyang matalinhaga...

Agree.

9Ten8ti
30th Mar 2012, 16:25
Gandang topic ang mahirap at mayaman ano? sana may gagawa ng thread nito. para kasi sakin parang mag-asawa yang dalawa, parang magnet may + -

ronell10
30th Mar 2012, 18:55
i dont believe in bible :)

:lol: @ 7days = 7millions years sa earth, kung powerful si god, why ganun katagal ang pagcreate? or maybe, tama ang science about the beginning of life?

:lol: @ mayaman and mahirap, sabagay, sa bible uso din ang slavery :)

at super :lol: at this:


Yan ang poste ng walang muwang sa Dios..
1.paanu kamo nabuhay ang mga hayop sa daong? Paanu naisakay at naipagkasya? THAT MEANS THERES A LIVING GOD NA KAYANG GAWING POSIBLE ANG IMPOSIBLE, At SIMPLE LANG PARA SA KANYA NA WAG PAPASUKIN ANG TUBIG SA DAONG DAHIL HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL..


asan ang sense na pagkasyahin pa ang mga nilalang sa daong? kung powerful sya, pwede nyang ipaglaho ang mga nilalang na yun sa isang kisapmata at muling ibalik kapag tapos na ang "great flood" :lol:

most powerful, created everything yet pinagsisikan pa ang mga nilalang sa daong :D

napasubo
31st Mar 2012, 16:18
malamang totoo ang nakasulat,dahil kung hindi totoo,bakit pa gagawing saligan at batayan ng halos lahat ng nagsipagtayo ng RELIHIYON sa MUNDO,,ginawa pa ngang negosyo ang BIBLIYA,laway lang ang puhunan yumaman na,....

moja1977
31st Mar 2012, 16:42
99.9% ng nakasulat sa bibliya ay totoo manood ka ng discovery channel maraming palabas dun yun mga nahuhukay ng mga archeologist na ang basehan nila ay yun bible.

brendant
31st Mar 2012, 17:42
kung pinaglaho nya ang mga iyon? asan ka kaya ngaun?
at ang isang araw sa diyos ay isang libong taon sa atin, at hindi 1million.....try read 2 pedro 3:8-9,at isa pa d xa mabagal may kinalaman sa kanyang pangako.....nagmamadali lang talaga ang mga tao...kc nga 1k year sa atin at 1 day lang sa kanya...,,clarify q lang.....

brendant
31st Mar 2012, 17:44
you mean lahat ng nilalang....kasama na ang tao don....

9Ten8ti
31st Mar 2012, 18:47
to all the atheist paki-analyze naman ito;

this message is regarding to jesus christ

Isaiah 11:10-12

Good News Translation (GNT)
The Exiled People Will Return
10 A day is coming when the new king from the royal line of David will be a SYMBOL TO THE NATIONS. They will gather in his royal city and give him honor.11 When that day comes, the Lord will once again use his power and bring back home those of his people who are left in Assyria and Egypt, in the lands of Pathros, Ethiopia,[a] Elam, Babylonia, and Hamath, and in the coastlands and on the islands of the sea.12 The Lord will raise a signal flag to show the nations that he is gathering together again the scattered people of Israel and Judah and bringing them back from the four corners of the earth.


ano bang nangyayari ngayon hindi ba symbol sya all over the world?

kapagka may court hearing pinapanumpa sa ibabaw ng bible,di ba si jesus rin iyon?

ano bang nangyayari at natupad ang hula na maging symbol sya all over the world, coincidence lang ba?

hindi nga lang christians and muslims lahat ng tao sa mundo pero majority eh;)

Seeking
31st Mar 2012, 19:07
@9Ten8ti pakibasa nlang po ito You can see links before reply

Mist3rClay
31st Mar 2012, 19:23
Mabuhay ka lang sa mundo bilang tao at hindi hayop ay maswerte na, wala sa mayaman at mahirap yan, lahat tayo pinanganak na pantay pantay, pareparehong walang saplot, pantay lang ang tingin ng Dios mayaman o mahirap, kung pinanganak kang mahirap anu gagawin mu? Kung gusto mu umasenso magsikap ka..gets nba?

lumayo na ho yung sagot mo eh...sabe mo kase


Di pa ba sapat ang paliwanag na yun para maniwala kayo na may Dios? Koala survived at that moment kahit sabihin na nating walang eucalyptus its a miracle from Him right?

ang tanung ko lang po eh asan ang miracle sa mga taong naghihirap?katulad ng sinabi mo na yung koala kahit walang eucalyptus eh makakasurvive through miracle ng dyos...

so nagtanung ulet ako kung makasurvive ang tao sa gutom it means miracle na yun ng dyos?eh panu yung ibang namatay sa gutom na di nakasurvive?limited lang ba yung miracles?o pili lang yung isasave nya?

bigay pa ko ng isang example
sa mga nasalanta ng bagyo yung pamilya mo ang nakasurvive pero yung kapitbahay nyo hindi nagsurvive?bat hinayaan lang ng dyos yung kapitbahay nyo?

thunderock
31st Mar 2012, 19:47
totoo po ang bible through faith

9Ten8ti
31st Mar 2012, 20:26
@9Ten8ti pakibasa nlang po ito You can see links before reply

nang dahil dito nagconclude kana agad?

sigurado kana ba na totoo lahat ng paliwanag sa thread na yan?

natry mo naba magresearch ng ibang link para maging patas ang laban?

ito pakobasa dito;
You can see links before reply


may e-share lang ako para macorrect ang paniniwala ng ilan;
ang dios kasi hindi nagmimilagro yan. ang lahat ng kanyang gustong gawin o ginagawa pa ay through natural processes. ang kanyang mga salita na mababasa natin sa bible ay sulat ng mga sinaunang tao na nakakita o naniniwala sa kanya.

hindi basta-basta ginawa ng mga skolars ang bible pinag-aaralan nila ito ng masinsinan dahil hindi lang 66books ang pagpipilian kung alin ba doon ang isama.napakaraming books pero nag come-up sila sa 66books pagkatapos ng masusing pag-aaral.

huwag natin e-question kung sino o anong klaseng tao ang sumulat at yung nagbuo ng bible dahil ang dios ay hindi nagtatangi. nagbibigay sya ng blessings both mabuting tao or masama.

sana bago tayo maging atheist ay pinag-aaralan muna ng todo ang bible. saka na tayo sana susuko kung wala na talaga ayaw talaga matanggap ng puso't isipan natin.atleast nagtry tayo;)

rudzxxx
31st Mar 2012, 20:59
meron akong nabasa at napanood na episode about archeological and geological evidence sa national geographic. pati yung tomb of jesus which many believes na iyon yun base sa bible. pati ang ark of noah sa mt. arayat that was discovered recently..

Saan mo naman yan nabasa ? referrence.

badoy
31st Mar 2012, 21:10
search mo na lang sa google

pcruztemp
1st Apr 2012, 07:37
sana bago tayo maging atheist ay pinag-aaralan muna ng todo ang bible. saka na tayo sana susuko kung wala na talaga ayaw talaga matanggap ng puso't isipan natin.atleast nagtry tayo;)


i highly recommend reading the ENTIRE bible



reading the Bible was the gateway to atheism for many of us. But only because we read it critically and with an open mind.
You can see links before reply


I may have been the only in the youth group that did take it seriously and I read the Bible cover-to-cover and I think that anyone who is thinking about maybe being an atheist... if you read the Bible or the Koran or the Torah cover-to-cover I believe you will emerge from that as an atheist. I mean, you can read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, you can read "God Is Not Great" by Hitchens... but the Bible itself, will turn you atheist faster than anything.

Question: Why would reading the Bible make you an atheist?

Penn Jillette: I think because what we get told about the Bible is a lot of picking and choosing, when you see, you know, Lot's daughter gang raped and beaten, and the Lord being okay with that; when you actually read about Abraham being willing to kill his son, when you actually read that; when you read the insanity of the talking snake; when you read the hostility towards homosexuals, towards women, the celebration of slavery; when you read in context, that "thou shalt not kill" means only in your own tribe—I mean, there's no hint that it means humanity in general; that there's no sense of a shared humanity, it's all tribal; when you see a God that is jealous and insecure; when you see that there's contradictions that show that it was clearly written hundreds of years after the supposed fact and full of contradictions. I think that anybody... you know, it's like reading The Constitution of the United States of America. It's been... it's in English. You know, you don't need someone to hold your hand. Just pick it up and read it. Just read what the First Amendment says and then read what the Bible says. Going back to the source material is always the best.
You can see links before reply


I found myself quite bored during my off duty hours and during one of my many calls to home my father suggested bible reading to fill the lonely hours.

So I did. I began reading it from Genesis 1:1 and dredged my way thru it. It was pure hell getting thru all the this one begat that one. But I persevered.

I prayed before each reading session for God to enlighten me and help me to understand. But the stories kept getting more and more ludicrous. Talking snakes and donkeys, men magicly parting seas, God showing folks his 'hind-parts'.....

The things this God did were down right criminal. Downright insane.

Thus began my skepticism.
You can see links before reply

Jake Luna
1st Apr 2012, 07:41
itanong mo sa lolo mo dre..
:lol:

akiraminai
1st Apr 2012, 07:45
interested din ako sa Biblia at naniniwala ako totoo ito:) kung interesado kau sa biblia at may gustong tanungin pm nyo lang po ako:)

zellman
2nd Apr 2012, 08:56
Kung nabasa nyo nga ang entire bible means youve read the apocalipsis, sa apocalipsis maraming mga symbols at hindi literal ang mga symbols dun dahil may mga nakatagong meaning yun, kaya kung magbabasa ka ng apocalipsis wag mo bigyan ng PANSARILI MONG KAHULUGAN dahil pwde ngang it would drag you into something like what you called atheist

rommel2304
2nd Apr 2012, 09:28
TS oo naman sacred ang bawat lahat ng letra at mga words sa bible tingin ko po totoo :)

- at kung hindi naman totoo basta ang alam ko may gumawa ng langit at lupa at naglikha sa ating lahat :) kaya nagpapasalamat ako sa kanya dahil pinahiram nya sa akin tong buhay na ito :)

pcruztemp
2nd Apr 2012, 12:33
does the noah flood story agree with the evidence? no it does not. here's one new story

You can see links before reply
You can see links before reply
2.7 billion old fossil raindrop impressions, on volcanic ash no less. both the raindrops and the ash cannot be explained by a flood

Tekpen05
2nd Apr 2012, 20:06
basta ang alam ko texts in the bible should not be interpreted literally kasi hindi naman s'ya history book na nagkukwento ng actual events. so it's ridiculous to ask for visible proofs. ang importante napapabuti sa pagbabasa ng bible. pero dahil din sa highly literary ang texts sa bible, marami ang namimislead at nabubuo ang mga misconceptions.

9Ten8ti
2nd Apr 2012, 21:14
basta ang alam ko texts in the bible should not be interpreted literally kasi hindi naman s'ya history book na nagkukwento ng actual events. so it's ridiculous to ask for visible proofs. ang importante napapabuti sa pagbabasa ng bible. pero dahil din sa highly literary ang texts sa bible, marami ang namimislead at nabubuo ang mga misconceptions.

aba talagang agree ako sayo;):)

pcruztemp
3rd Apr 2012, 08:27
ang problem sa "should not be interpreted literally" is who decides what is the correct interpretation?

"thou shalt not kill" in the 10 commandments has at least 2 interpretations. all killing is bawal or killing in some instances is justified like a just war or a religious crusade or killing to save a life (like an abortion doctor), etc etc. some even interpret this to include animals

9Ten8ti
3rd Apr 2012, 08:48
ang problem sa "should not be interpreted literally" is who decides what is the correct interpretation?

"thou shalt not kill" in the 10 commandments has at least 2 interpretations. all killing is bawal or killing in some instances is justified like a just war or a religious crusade or killing to save a life (like an abortion doctor), etc etc. some even interpret this to include animals

do not be troubled about who will decide the correct interpretations,
the word JUST will lead us to good judgment.

ang pagawa ng masama(according to human understanding) upang maituwid ang isang maling paniniwala/gawa ay naaayon sa kalooban ng dios. yun ang tinatawag na JUST ACTIONS;)

wargod1996
3rd Apr 2012, 11:41
lumayo na ho yung sagot mo eh...sabe mo kase



ang tanung ko lang po eh asan ang miracle sa mga taong naghihirap?katulad ng sinabi mo na yung koala kahit walang eucalyptus eh makakasurvive through miracle ng dyos...

so nagtanung ulet ako kung makasurvive ang tao sa gutom it means miracle na yun ng dyos?eh panu yung ibang namatay sa gutom na di nakasurvive?limited lang ba yung miracles?o pili lang yung isasave nya?

bigay pa ko ng isang example
sa mga nasalanta ng bagyo yung pamilya mo ang nakasurvive pero yung kapitbahay nyo hindi nagsurvive?bat hinayaan lang ng dyos yung kapitbahay nyo?

hindi lahat ng tao maliligtas ng diyos. minsan kaylangan magbigay ng diyos ng isang aral sa mga tao. aral na dapat matutunan at hindi aral na dapat baliwalain

zellman
3rd Apr 2012, 23:05
Dios lang ang nakakaalam, bakit namatay ang mga bata? Dahil maaring kapag lumaki na ang mga yon ay mapasama pa, bakit namatay ang walang makain? Pinagpahinga na ng Dios ang wala talagang makain para matapos na ang paghihirap..ngayon kung pagpahingahin man ng Dios ng maaga ang isang tao may ibig sabihin yun.. KILABUTAN KA NGA, DI KA NANINIWALA SA DIOS PERO PINAPAHINTULUTAN NIYA PA DIN NA MABUHAY KA..

clifford6ngr
4th Apr 2012, 07:03
Dios lang ang nakakaalam, bakit namatay ang mga bata? Dahil maaring kapag lumaki na ang mga yon ay mapasama pa, bakit namatay ang walang makain? Pinagpahinga na ng Dios ang wala talagang makain para matapos na ang paghihirap..ngayon kung pagpahingahin man ng Dios ng maaga ang isang tao may ibig sabihin yun.. KILABUTAN KA NGA, DI KA NANINIWALA SA DIOS PERO PINAPAHINTULUTAN NIYA PA DIN NA MABUHAY KA..

Nakakatakot nga yan sir...May freewill ba talaga ang tao according to the bible o alam ng dios ang lahat?

Kasi kung alam na pala ng dios ang bawat gagawin ng tao, bat po kami kikilabutan eh siya mismo ang nagdecide na ganito ang pipiliin naming choice? Kasi if god cannot be wrong alam nyang we are making our choice for him..

or di kaya'y may freewill tayo at hindi nya alam ang choice natin..

Ano sa tingin nyo?

pcruztemp
4th Apr 2012, 08:10
1. What time of day was Jesus crucified?

At the third hour: "And it was the third hour when they crucified him." (Mark 15:25)
At least three hours later, because at "about the sixth hour" John says that Jesus was still with Pilate before the Jewish crowd. (John 19:14) Also, Matthew (27:45) and Luke (23:44) have Jesus already on the cross at the sixth hour, so they, too, contradict John's account.

Some theologians claim that John is giving the hour in "Roman time," but the Romans reckoned time from sunrise, as did the Jews. So the "sixth hour" would mean the same for both. Also, there is no evidence in the gospel of John to support any theory that the author was counting the hours any differently from normal Jewish custom. The gospel of John was not written in Rome, nor for a Roman audience. For info on the Roman system of reckoning time, see J. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, p.1. Also L. and R. Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome.


The genealogies of Joseph given by Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

According to Matthew, Joseph was descended from David's son Solomon through 27 generations (David to Joseph inclusive). (Matthew 1:1-16)
But according to Luke, Joseph was descended from David's son Nathan through 42 generations (David to Joseph, inclusive). (Luke 3:23-31)

Most of the names in these two genealogies are different, and they do not even agree on who Joseph's father was. Matthew tells us that Joseph's father was called Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke tells us that his father was Heli (Luke 3:23).

There are Christians who claim that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, and Matthew's is that of Joseph, but there is nothing in Luke that remotely suggests that interpretation, and both Matthew's and Luke's lists specifically mention Joseph as the end point.


6. How are we saved?

Salvation is by faith, apart from works. (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16)
Salvation is by good works, apart from faith. (James 2:17, 20, 26)
Salvation comes from confessing and repenting of one's sins. (1 John 1:9; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19)


9. Where did the disciples first meet the resurrected Jesus?

In Matthew, the disciples are reported as meeting Jesus in Galilee, per his previous instructions. "Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17)
In Luke, they remain in Jerusalem to meet him per Jesus's previous instructions. "And they [the two travelers to Emmaus] arose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, 'The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.' Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them." (Luke 24:33-36)

The contradiction cannot be avoided by claiming that there were two meetings, one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem. Luke's account is clearly intended to describe the disciples' first encounter with the resurrected Jesus, and the disciples themselves are "startled and frightened" to see him. (Luke 24:37) After this meeting, the disciples follow Jesus out to Bethany, where he departed from them and "was carried up into heaven." (Luke 24:52) So there is no time when a meeting in Galilee can be squeezed into this timeframe.
You can see links before reply

ronell10
4th Apr 2012, 11:59
Dios lang ang nakakaalam, bakit namatay ang mga bata? Dahil maaring kapag lumaki na ang mga yon ay mapasama pa,


sure? e bakit maraming kriminal pa din? pabata pa nga sila e, menor de edad



bakit namatay ang walang makain? Pinagpahinga na ng Dios ang wala talagang makain para matapos na ang paghihirap..


sure? bakit dami pa din nagugutom?




ngayon kung pagpahingahin man ng Dios ng maaga ang isang tao may ibig sabihin yun.. KILABUTAN KA NGA, DI KA NANINIWALA SA DIOS PERO PINAPAHINTULUTAN NIYA PA DIN NA MABUHAY KA..

sinong god ba yan? kilabutan ka baka maling god ang sinasamba mo :lol:

Mist3rClay
4th Apr 2012, 13:19
Dios lang ang nakakaalam, bakit namatay ang mga bata? Dahil maaring kapag lumaki na ang mga yon ay mapasama pa, bakit namatay ang walang makain? Pinagpahinga na ng Dios ang wala talagang makain para matapos na ang paghihirap..ngayon kung pagpahingahin man ng Dios ng maaga ang isang tao may ibig sabihin yun.. KILABUTAN KA NGA, DI KA NANINIWALA SA DIOS PERO PINAPAHINTULUTAN NIYA PA DIN NA MABUHAY KA..

Bakit pa nabuhay kung babawian di ng buhay ng dyos diba?unfair naman ata?samantalang yung iba dyan gumagawa ng masama bat di nalang kaya sila yung bawian ng buhay ng dyos?

Eh di patayin nalang sana ng dyos lahat ng tao na nagugutom diba para wala ng problema,para hindi na sila mahirapan.hahaha

wargod1996
4th Apr 2012, 13:56
Bakit pa nabuhay kung babawian di ng buhay ng dyos diba?unfair naman ata?samantalang yung iba dyan gumagawa ng masama bat di nalang kaya sila yung bawian ng buhay ng dyos?

Eh di patayin nalang sana ng dyos lahat ng tao na nagugutom diba para wala ng problema,para hindi na sila mahirapan.hahaha

auz sagot moh ah. quality.!!!

sila ay instrumento ng tama at kamalian. nasa tao pa din ang gawa, awa lang ang nasa diyos.