Greetings, Indeed. Like I posted some time back. I did. I cited the words above. Did you miss my post? You think no-one has ever read Genesis 1? Only you have? Indeed. As several of us here have pointed out. What two sides are wrong? Apologists claim the Bible means a spherical earth. Sceptics claim they refer to a flat earth. You say they refer to a flat earth. How can both sides be wrong? Please explain. Iasion
What the F? Are you totally insane? The term "going around in circles" refers to taking a path which is a CIRCLE and repeating it. It is not POSSIBLE to "go around in balls". It does not even make sense. Yes. They describe the earth as a FLAT CIRCLE. Very easy to understand. Apologists just deny the plain facts. Iasion
Wow. You really believe in a shape-shiting Satan? You really believe in the Garden of Eden story? Mate - these are fairy tales. All you are doing is repeating faithful beliefs you picked up in church. I hope one day you have enough gumption to question these legends. Good luck. Iasion
No scholar supports this crackpottery. Moses, David and Solomon are clearly myths. The OT was first put into writing in the 8th and 7th centuries or so. Some books are as late as 2nd C. BCE (e.g. Daniel.) Iasion
What evidence do you have to dismiss the existence King David? Can you provide evidence to back up your dating method?
Springs in the ocean are quite common off of coasts, and even fairly deep ones are usually well known to local fishermen and so forth - have been for thousands of years, apparently. Humans have lived near the ocean, fished out of the ocean, crossed the ocean and explored the ocean, for a very long time - tens of thousands of years. Many very sophisticated observations of ocean topography, currents, and weather were made by those ancient peoples. btw: Fire and brimstone are specific substances, not found in the deep interior of the earth as far as anyone knows.
...and springs feed rivers, which means they thought the ocean was the accumulation of springs. In this passage, Job was just reiterating what he thought of God's injustice, the reference to natural phenomenon is incidental.
Um, exactly WHAT? What IS your point davewhite? When we say "go round in circles", we use the word "circle", not "ball", because using the word "ball" would make no sense at all. Are you trying to say the bible writers used the word "circle" because using the word "ball" would make no sense ? That is completely false. It WOULD make PERFECT sense to use the word "ball" to describe the earth. The fact the bible writers used the word "circle" and used phrases implying a flat earth clearly shows they thought the earth was flat. Iasion
Two things argue against King David being historical : 1. History 2. Archeology There is no history or archeology supporting King David (there are quite a few forgeries though), The Bytdwd inscription does not clearly say "House (meaning dynasty) of David", but rather it may say more like "Chief's House". What history and archeology we have found does NOT match the bible stories. If YOU believe King David is historical, then YOU better provide some evidence for his existance. There is none. Any modern biblical scholar or reference work, such as : * the Jerome commentary * Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" * earlyjewishwritings.com etc. Among modern scholars, it is commonly accepted that David and Solomon did not exist. Faithful believers are the last to know. Iasion
Tell me, davewhite - Do you believe in Zeus shape-shifting into a swan or a fly ? Do you believe in Apuleis shape-shifting into an ass ? Iasion
This is rubbish. Try typing in "King David + Archeology evidence" instead of the opposite into www.ask.com Reading a few books on how history works is a good start too. Right, read some books from the other side of the argument even if it doesn't sit well with you. Which scholars? True. As a believer what do you believe in?
Shape shifting would require a new configuration of particles after t=0. Such particles in massive amounts cannot time reverse, so sporadic transformation cannot happen.
One of the prettiest shape shifters I've seen (although fictional in nature) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(Space:_1999)
It might be possible for a supermaterial. One capable of intelligent/intentional design. Such metamaterials might be called ''smart materials.'' This stuff rearranges itself after a morphic change. The change can be physical, in this pseudo-sense, and cause the sucbject to physically morphicate. They could change into a new entity. Like as described in the American Warewolf in Paris shows a fictional character that changed in a ware wolf, then back again, displaying a smart material. Morphic change occurs though in cacoons, where a worm changes into a butterfly. This change is the closest thing to hit on it... Variably, you can have a heavy field (i think) supporting the conscious state. They determine the possibility of such a change.
