According to how I translate it, a person’s body dies, but its soul either goes to heaven or hell.
So the word die would only mean the body.
It is your interpetation but I do not see it your way.
Monavis
One has to remember this was said after the fact and one has only the writers and translaters to believe.
And there is no way the Bible can tell as fact when the sun was formed any more than one can say other faiths( or belief systems) have a different spin on this, and they believe it was formed differently, so you are not too convinceing anyone.
Monavis
OK, first of all, you think that the bible predicting that the Jewish messiah would be Jewish is a big deal? Hate to break it to you, but that’s not that impressive. Your standards for prophecies are pretty low if that’s all it takes to convince you of something.
And I looked at the prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, and I don’t think that prophecy is referring to Jesus. Matthew twists that actual text of Micah to make it seem like it is referring to Jesus, but if you read the actual prophecy it is clearly not referring to him. Matthew says the prophecy is “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.” But read the text of Micah 5:2: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah… Matthew omits key words and alters the order of others to make this about Jesus. But the meaning of Micah is clear, he is referring to someone coming not from the town of Bethlehem, but from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah (Bethlehem Ephrathah is a person named in I Chronicles 4.) If there is still any doubt about this referring to Jesus, just read a little farther in the “prophecy” and it says that the person who is going to be born from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah will, among other things, defeat the Assyrians. Jesus never defeated the Assyrians, so it is clearly not referring to him.
As for the 30 pieces of silver, the passage in Zechariah 11 is clearly not a prophecy: I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!” So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 3Then the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD. How is this a prophecy about Jesus? How is this even a prophecy? It’s not. It’s a story. Only a person desperate to find “prophecies” could look at two totally unrelated stories, find that they both contain the same number, and declare that therefore it is a fulfilled prophecy.
If you’re like most that are following the thread, it’s because you have a large wager on when** Finn ** is going to convert.
Although very subtle, you seem to be hinting that I had something to do with the rabbit trail. As I recall, we got there this way: 1) we were discussing belief systems\brainwashing, 2)evolution came up 3) I postulated that there are three glaring problems with macroevolution ie, no one has ever demonstrated it has taken place in the past and it’s not observed in the present, there are no transitional structures in the fossil record, and the law of entropy stands against it (in this I was really referring to the nature of things not to improve over time but to decay over time) 4)someone brought up entropy regarding thermodynamics and the sun 5) going with that, I postulated that considering the massive amount of time that evolution needs, that the sun would have burned out by now 6) you sprang from your hiding place with a calculator and some guesstimates based on the size of the sun now, guesses about how long it has been in existence already, and a further guess about its future based on it being burned down to nothing. Your calculations didn’t have adjustments for the various stages that stars experience (Red giant, white dwarf, black dwarf, etc) and that fact that stars are never completely burned up. To me, it was an academic discussion and a rabbit trail that was only entered because the Darwinists wouldn’t (couldn’t?) answer my simple questions on their own nickel. And numbers don’t prove anything if all the information isn’t entered into the equation - unless the supernatural events surrounding creation are factored in, the result will only be academic and will have nothing to do with reality. It’s like Bertrand Russell once said, “Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true” (Mathematics and the Metaphysicians,1917). I’ve always said that I don’t feel an obligation to disprove every false belief, but to offer the Truth and let people make their own choice. If Darwinism is your belief, go make of it what you will - it’s really not my concern other than to point out some obvious problems. Besides, ultimately it boils down to a faith issue, no matter how much proof might be presented to undermine Darwinism, people are going to stodgily believe in it anyway because they refuse to accept the alternative: a Creator God and the personal responsibility that His existence might demand of them.
Further, if you wanted to put your calculator to some good use, why not calculate the odds of 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah coming true by chance? (Hint: it will be a bigger number than you produced with the sun calculations)
This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
Yes, and you provided your own number fact (variously 700,000 or 600,000,000 tons of hydrogen per second) in support of your argument. And when you did so, you implied the math will bear you out. So, what is the one thing you didn’t count on? …
I based my math on your fact. At best, using your argument, the sun had 0.000046 (note the corrected math) times more hydrogen 3.8 billion years ago when science says life and evolution began. This is hardly “a much bigger (and hotter) sun” that you claimed would disprove evolution.
If the different phases of stellar evolution were necessary to prove your point, then you should have said so. But you didn’t because they are not relevant. Red giants, white dwarfs, and black dwarfs (?) are all in the future for our sun.
Why can’t you just admit that your “proof” of the impossibility of evolution is just plain wrong?
I understand. You constructed your own rabbit trail with numbers that don’t mean anything. And now you are embarrassed by having done so.
Ah. Irony.
Ah. More irony.
I’d be happy to help you with the calculations if you could lay out how such a thing might even be possible. But obviously, you cannot. The lesson here is that you try harder to separate your witnessing from the realm of reasoned debate.
When you say…
…you are being disingenuous about who failed and why. You failed because your arguments were without merit.
Crucial word missing: “The lesson here is that you [should] try harder to separate your witnessing from the realm of reasoned debate.”
and you were given links demonstrating that there is evidence it happened in the past and is happening now. You never actually said what macroevolution means to you, IIRC.
Again, you were given links to these, and examples of animals today that certainly look transitional, though we don’t know where the species is going. Again, we have no idea of what you mean by transitional.
This is what I thought you meant. There is no such rule, and the example of a seed growing into a flower is a counterexample locally anyhow - and that is all that evolution needs.
You came up with this. I was quite surprised, since I was expecting you to respond with your point 3), which is the standard response. Nonetheless, you never demonstrated that evolution requires more time than is available. Both the fossil record and mathematical models of the rate of evolution show that it’s had plenty of time.
There was a mistake made about the life expectancy of the sun - and notice that us evilutionists pointed out the right numbers a lot faster than you did. The proper life to consider for this discussion is the time to the sun goes into its red giant phase which will wipe out life on earth. I think we got something like five billion years yet.
Sorry to bring up evolution again, but I wouldn’t want you to leave this thread with the impression that you have scored any points against evolution at all. You haven’t.
You should be careful of quoting famous atheists. I’d have to see the context of Russell’s quote, but the simple mathematics required to calculate the age of the sun I’m sure does not fall under the branch of mathematics he’s talking about.
You are aware that “virgin” is a mistranslation, right? Matthew botched it up, and made up the virgin birth story to fit a prophecy that was never made. There is also no real evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is absurd to think that the Romans would require people to wander all over Judea to be counted in their ancestral homes - no interstate highways back then, or motels.
The requirement that the Messiah come from Bethlehem certainly has to do with connecting him to David. Sorry, Jesus doesn’t qualify.
Actually, this is one that Matthew did not particularly botch up. Matthew was quoting the Septuagint, not the Hebrew bible. As such, he used the same word, parthenos/virgin that appears in that work. Whatever points he may have stretched, the “virgin” issue is not one that Matthew created.
(Of course, Bible man rejects, for his own theological reasons, several other works (e.g., 2 Maccabees) that appear in the Septuagint because they do not appear in the Hebrew bible, but he may be willing to accept the Septuagint’s parthenos/virgin over the Hebrew bible’s almah/young woman when he needs it to support his “300” (unidentified) prophecies.)
Already been through this - I rarely go to links that someone points to while claiming that they somehow prove something. Usually they are just a twisted mass of science jargon and more unscientific theories. If you can’t lay something on the table in specific quotes or concepts that state your beliefs - don’t expect someone else, especially me, to do it for you. Or are you hoping to find someone to sort through the mess and make sense out of it for you?
This is how the last rabbit trail started, you asked what I thought about entropy. Do you really need my opinions first before you can provide the evolutionist definition? The question is: what does evolution and its terms mean to you (they mean zero to me), it’s your belief system! Getting you to answer simple questions about your own beliefs is like trying to get an answer out of a Mormon about the star Koleb where God supposedly lives. But I’ll give you a hint to perhaps jump start your thinking process about your own belief system: some Darwinists believe in gradualism and some believe in puncuationalism.
Nonsense. Even simple aging supports the idea that life forms don’t get better with age, their systems decline as time goes by. And trying to use growth and adaptation to support this bankrupt theory might be good enough for you but is absolutely unscientific and places your beliefs in the realm of faith, not science.
Those who are really sorry were the women of Bethlehem in the time of Herod. His counselors were also apparently as misguided as Matthew about the meaning of the prophecy concerning the birthplace of the Messiah - and he had all the male children there killed. Further, that particular event was allso a fulfillment of prophecy (Jer31:15). As far as the translation of the word “virgin” goes, you should stick to making mistakes about your own belief system instead of making inane comments about things completely out of your capacity to interpret. Considering the bankruptcy of Darwinism, it’s very wise of you to try and remain silent about your particular brand of beliefs in it, but to then turn around and proclaim some expertise in interpreting Scripture negates it all.
It does, however, become a singularly unimpressive prophecy when “parthenos” is the relevant word, though, because it’s not prophesying that some woman will have a baby while still virgin, but that a girl at King Ahaz of Judah’s court (virgin according to the Septuagint) will conceive a boy baby, and before the kid is old enough to know right from wrong (in the context of Isaiah 7) the Kings of Israel and Aram who are threatening Ahaz’s realm will be in their graves. To say that prophecy was talking about Jesus means that Isaiah is prophesying that the particular two kings who Isaiah was referencing would not live another 700+ years.
Hey, I prophesy that neither Tomndebb, Voyager, Bible Man nor myself will be incarnate in our current bodies when the next millennium runs around, December 31, 3000 AD. And you can quote me on that! 
Since no one got to this one yet, I’ll step in.
Traditional Jewish belief is that the Pentatuch was dictated word-for-word from God.
The remainder of the prohets, however, were not - God gave the prophet the general idea, but the words and metaphors chosen are the prophet’s.
Zev Steinhardt
Thaank you. That helps.
You mean in the way that you have steadfastly refused to identify the “300 prophecies” that you claim have been fullfilled by the life of Jesus? (A claim that is not supported by the bible, which makes no claim of “300” anything). Or are you simply admitting that you have a double standard in which other people are supposed to research your claims while you cannot be bothered to research their claims?
Please tell us your qualifications to call anything unscientific. Include degrees and research experience. As for me, I’ve got a degree from MIT, a PhD, 15 years at Bell Labs, and lots of experience in research and in research publications. What do you have?
I seem to recall laying out how evolution works for you a while back. You didn’t respond. I also told you about elephant seals, which I’ve come within a few feet of, as being a “transitional” form in the common meaning. I’ll be happy to repeat how evolution works for you - it is really not that complicated, at the highest level.
If you knew anything about science, which you don’t. you’d realize that citations is the way science works. From reading talkorigins.org, and from a lot of participation (mostly reading what people who know more about evolution said) on talk.origins, I have great trust in that site. Not from faith, but from their work standing up, and by their willingness to link to those who disagree.
And I’m sorry you are unable to understand what is posted there. But that’s not my problem.
As I commented, your take on entropy made more sense than most. The Sun does have a finite life, whereas most creationist babble about the 2LOT is just nonesense. But entropy is not a term from evolution, it is a term from physics. It has precious little to do with biology, and only gets introduced into these discussions by creationists who are desperate to seize upon anything they can, even if they don’t have a clue about what it means.
I don’t have any beliefs about evolution - I’m familiar enough with the evidence to not need any. There is no real conflict between PuncEek and “gradualism” - even Dawkins says that. The first derivative of the change might be different, but this is indistinguishable on a generation by generation basis. There are no discontinuities.
BTW, if the terms of evolution mean zero to you, perhaps it would be a good idea not to use them, since it is clear you are right, and you have no idea about what they mean.
So, a baby is the very best a person is? It’s all downhill from there. In any case, the change is not during the life of a lifeform, it is between the parent and the child. Are you saying that no child can be better than its parent? I’m using no false modesty in saying that both my daughters look a lot better than me.
Got any non-Biblical references that the massacre ever happened? You’d think that at least one Jew would see fit to mention it. As for “virgin” I got taught by people who read the original Hebrew, and they tried their best to teach it to me. (Not very successfully.) None of them seemed to think the word meant virgin. Or was there a copying error that changed it to “maiden” from “virgin”?
Thanks for the clarification. Matthew always seemed to be so more addressed to Jews rather than Gentiles that I assumed the author could read the Hebrew. Of course, if he was inspired, he’d know the Septuagint was wrong.
Hey, I still hold the possibility that I’ll have myself flash frozen open. So, who knows? 
In Hebrew there is a specific word for virgin - that word is besulah. That’s not the word that Isaiah used - he used the word almah, which means “young woman.”
There is a masculine version of almah - elem, which appears in 1 Samuel 20:22. There is no masculine version of besulah since the concept of “male virginity” didn’t exist as we understand it today.
Zev Steinhardt
Thanks. It’s amazing how some people make claims about what’s in the text without understanding it, and without considering why people who do reject the claims.
BTW, my lack of Hebrew reading ability is purely my fault, not that of my teachers.
Hmm, first you tell me this:
Then you say this:
Funny.
Ohhh, darn it, wrong again BibleMan. If you read that “prophecy,” and continue reading the next couple of verses, that Matthew conveniently leaves out, you’ll see that Jeremiah is not referring to the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem (which, as has been pointed out, is very unlikely to have happened anyway,) in fact Jeremiah is not even referring to people being killed. Ramah was a city in northern Israel, which was populated mostly by descendants of Rachel (hence Rachel weeping for her children) and she is weeping because her children were carried into exile, which is why the next verses offer assurance that her children will return.
What might be helpful in the future, when you read in the New Testament that a “prophecy” was “fulfilled,” would be to actually find the place in the Old Testament where the “prophecy” was made, and put it in context. For example, you might want to go back in the Old Testament and read the prophecy that says the Messiah will be called a Nazarene, and you will discover that that “prophecy” actually appears nowhere in the Old Testament. At least not that I can find (I remain open to correction on this point however.)
I prefer to believe the testimony of Matthew that it was a fulfillment of prophecy (Matt2:16-18). He was an eyewitness to the events, a disciple of Christ, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You weren’t there, you know nothing of Christ, and you’re inspired with a different spirit - kind of a no brainer. And it certainly makes me look pretty discerning about not giving you a list of any other prophecies to trample into the mud. Be happy with the swill Tom feeds you. We’re done.