Pathway Machine

Fascinating. For some reason, which I could never quite understand, it seems extremely difficult for some people, especially skeptics, to understand that Jesus and Michael are the same. Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael. 1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22; John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5; Colossians 1:15-17; 1 John 2:13; Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus' existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ. 2. Jesus' position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah's creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22; John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important tasks on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus. 3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So, there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt. 4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7. 5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same. Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod." The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing. John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369. Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985 Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40" Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39.

I'd prefer you not, I don't want to make trouble for anyone, I just think it's funny. It only means to me that maybe my work here at sciencforums is perhaps too easy. If I were looking for a challenge of my beliefs I wouldn't find it in that sort of response.

So the scientific method prediction made here is that you can impose any meaning on the Bible you want. Go ahead then. Show us. (tstr)

Kula Shaker

I know that. It was a comment, well more of a joke, on the cowardice of anonymity in political silencing and scientific hypocrisy. For example here and here. It may be anonyomous but it's pretty easy to guess who it is. [ponds fist on desk] It's PSYOPs damnit. They're everywhere. Somebody is after you!

What scientific methods have I rejected and why shouldn't the scientific methods be rejected or criticized any less than the religious ones I've rejected?

Say something about religion. On a science forum. That isn't stupid or derogatory or just a blatant example of petty ideological sociopolitical frustration of a quasi-theocratic culture. You know . . . something interesting, intelligent and not predictable. Something that doesn't expose occidental education as propaganda for the willfully ignorant. Something that doesn't involve you standing for nothing because you'll fall for anything and then . . . blame the guy who doesn't do that . . . Do that.

I wonder, can you spot somebody's joke? You know . . . they say that downvoting is anonymous.

No sense of humor.

You attack anyone who has ideas that are effective in demonstrating with absolute certainty your inability to defend your own ideology. Somebody is the unanimous collective who also happens to be a long ago inactive registered member. You don't have the guts to say who downvotes because your afraid that your ideas can't be downvoted by the majority adhering to that ideology. Like every other forum I've been on you have no other way because you have no argument. Your PSYOP is the symbol of your this. BUT. Now I've got to play nice. Everyone here knew my fate from the beginning and that it has nothing to do with any of the things you claim above.

The refuge of the ignorant isn't insults, it's silencing dissent. None of you have an intelligent response to the problem of the Bible. So, what are ya' gonna' do? You need to get @sombody to do the work for you. Liars and idiots.

The Bible is about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. That's the short answer. The long answer is that the tree of the knowledge of good and bad represented, to Adam and Eve, Jehovah God's sovereignty. That is, his right, as our creator, to decide for us what was good and what was bad until we, like children, matured to the point where we could do that for ourselves within the parameters of that sovereignty. Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. The knowledge in this case is experience. Good and bad had been defined by Jehovah and at that point it was very simple. Fill the earth and subdue it, that was good. Don't touch or eat the fruit of the tree, that was bad. The knowledge Adam and Eve had acquired was the decision to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. That's why they suddenly considered nudity to be bad. (Genesis 2:25; 3:6-11) The footnote to Genesis 2:17 in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible explains it really well: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, Genesis 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God's sovereignty, a sin of pride." God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. (Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:15-17; John 8:23; 17:5) The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. So, the holy spirit is God's active force, invisible to us. The first thing that Michael, through Jehovah's holy spirit, created, was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. (Job 38:4-7) Then the physical heavens, or universe, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon and finally everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve. The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22) It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence. By the time man was created the angels had likely already reached their potential. On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." Not that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done. When we would have accomplished this, we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's Day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period of creation, continues to this day. So, the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. (Psalm 95:11; Isaiah 40:28; John 5:17; Romans 8:22; Hebrews 4:1-5) Once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad on his own before he had matured enough to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Apparently because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction. So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it. But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So, he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done. That is why immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows. 1. Select a group of people. 2. Form a nation for those people. 3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature; their lack of the aforementioned maturity. 4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So, Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ. From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. Belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. The blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession. Sacred life. A sort of gesture of justice. (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.

WARNING ...Participation in topics I start can seriously affect you’re grades... WARNING

What liars you are. Science, it must be, is a lie. Makes perfect sense. Lies by squabbling little mice people.

I've already explained that dim. Fun.

I'm also not an idiot. It doesn't matter, though, really, does it. Every notification that I get that somebody has 'REACTED' to my post results into what? The interesting thing is that this started only after I had upvoted one member so that their reputation went from negative to positive. How would your brilliant analytical mind devine that @Somebody has existed in the manner that I have described?

Okay. If that's the way you're going to play it. It's been a while since I've played but I'm excited to get back in the game.

That's not true and you know it. What a cowardly bunch of hypocrites! Now. I'm intrigued. I have waged war on a lot of forums that are, shall we say, no longer among the living, but I've never encountered anything like this and I'm wondering what would be some new clever way to respond. Any ideas from the cowards and stupid people?

Somebody joined the forum in 2018. Their last activity was 2018. Though they've only made two posts they downvote every post I make. Small minded science people are so predictable and stupid. Who's sock is somebody? This is for @Somebody

Okay. Use your science. If you were God how would you solve these problems? No. That doesn't work. It's nice if you set out to explain something you can't explain, in other words it appeals to the atheistic confirmation bias, but actually it doesn't work. Pim, for example. I think we've discussed this before. I know. Cool, huh? It usually takes me about 2 minutes to determine whether or not someone knows what they are talking about. I'll show you. Let's start the timer again. Ding. Times up. Reading the Bible a few times does not a student make. What you're saying doesn't mean anything to me. It isn't an argument. You don't want an argument because you don't need one. I've known people, who became unbelievers and who I wish I knew as much as they did about the Bible. It isn't about knowledge. If you had more knowledge than three reads would allow that wouldn't make you a believer, that would only improve your argument. How do you know I'm not an atheist? By knowing what I'm talking about or by the need for a defensive position you take when I post about the Bible? That's ideology. You don't have to justify your disbelief to anyone. Not me, not God, not yourself. You don't want to believe the Bible. That's all you need. And that bothered you, didn't it. Why did that bother you? If it were different, if you were a student in a science class what would you have thought? Screw science? Or teach me! It would depend on whether or not you wanted to learn science, wouldn't it? So, okay, what is your motivation for reading the Bible in the first place? And, oddly enough, I could answer this as well by reading your comments, what was your motivation for learning science? There it is again. That atheist confirmation bias. Oh, no! I'm melting. You've killed God?! You did Nietzsche? Almost. Like Darwin? Not even close. Like his bulldog! That's the one. I would hope so, they are mine. Jehovah, the God of the Bible, made the cosmos. He calls it his cosmos, literally, his arrangement, his adornment. He decides if and how you proceed. And for the record. He isn't omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. If you argue that point you need to know the Bible. See? It's like omnivores. That doesn't mean possessing the ability to eat the space time continuum or chemical and biological weapons. That science created to destroy. For money and fame. No. It means eating meat and plant. @Somebody The more you downvote me the more I want to post.

Many critics of the Bible mistakenly claim that it confuses bats with birds, primarily due to a misinterpretation of Leviticus 11:13-20. The Hebrew word used here, ohph, is often incorrectly translated as "birds" or "fowl." Historically, the English term "fowl" encompassed not only birds but also all winged, flying creatures, including insects and bats. Thus, while "fowl" is an accurate translation, its contemporary usage, which is more limited to birds only, leads to misunderstandings. Here are the key Hebrew terms involved: Ataleph: Specifically means "bat." Ohph: Refers to any flying creature, including birds, bats, and insects. Tsippohr: Generally means "birds." Ayit: Specifically denotes "birds of prey." Additionally, the term sherets comes from a root meaning "to swarm or teem." In noun form, it describes small creatures that appear in large numbers, as seen in biblical contexts like the swarming of waters on the fifth creative day (Genesis 1:20), aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10), winged creatures including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31; Deuteronomy 14:19), and various land creatures like rodents, lizards, and chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31), as well as creatures that move on their "belly" or have many legs (Leviticus 11:41-44).Today, the English word "fowl" mainly refers to large or edible birds, but the Hebrew term ohph, derived from the verb "to fly," is much broader, akin to how "cattle" in old English referred to all movable property. This misunderstanding is not about scientific taxonomy but rather about language and translation nuances.

NOW YOU"RE GETTIN' IT! But, actually I have studied it in school. That's laughable isn't it. That was years ago. The evolution they taught then wasn't true. Elementary. Which is why I don't want prayer and religion taught in school. The church has $#@&%+ that up enough, please don't teach it in the school. It doesn't matter. I've studied religion and the Bible. You haven't. Saying the Bible or evolution isn't true isn't science it's religion. Then you are the same as me with the Bible. You talk about science and leave the talk about the Bible to people like me. But even if you learned the Bible in some college what you would have been taught there isn't the Bible, it would be tradition and theology. For example, you would think it Christian doctrine that the soul is immortal, from the tradition of Socrates, but the Bible says otherwise at Ezekiel 18:4 and Matthew 10:28. Well, like I showed you, with the soul. I don't care that Noah's ark isn't compatible with current science. Who do you think I'm going to believe? Science or the Bible? Oh, how ignorant I am, you smugly laugh. Oh, how religious you are I reply. Pitting science against or teaching the Bible with science is silly. Just look at the examples I've given. The soul, the celestial metaphors in Revelation, Noah's Ark. And by the way, even from an academic perspective, the Bible for the most part, doesn't disagree with most of evolution. It is the study of that Iron Age literature. Simple. The JWs aren't scientists. No, it doesn't. But it isn't science. Believing in science, believing in evolution, believing in the Bible isn't science, it's belief. Adherence to the Buddha's four noble truths makes sense. Very practical, But it isn't science. You don't say, scientifically conclude, that the supernatural doesn't or can't possibly exist, but you don't have to be a scientist to know that it can't test it. If someone thinks gods can't exist and are silly it's only because they are silly and don't know what they are talking about but you don't have to be a scientist to see that. It's nothing to do with science. Science comes from the Latin word meaning knowledge. Now, one doesn't have to dogmatically adhere to a strict etymological application, but the sentiment is reasonable. If something is known it isn't science. Science and faith are always wrong. Science because once it becomes knowledge it's obsolete as science and faith because you can't positively, that is, certainly know it. That is the evidence that these atheist vs theist or science vs. religion discussions are never about what they might seem to be about. It's about ideology. The science of ideas. Correct. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Credentials, credible, from the Latin credit which means faith. Unbelieving ideologues tend to deny their own faith because they lump faith into all of the things they "think" can't be. Things they "know" little about. I don't have a problem and I don't have fury. There's nothing wrong with any of this. It's perfectly natural. Don't be so defensive that you think my saying it, often with an odd sense of humor that for some reason comes off as rage, is, uh . . . is . . . what were we talking about? Oh. Is angry. [slams fist on desk though can't remember why]. Again. See if I don't.

Yeah, lets do that, because what you ideologues don't seem to understand is that my approach is more scientific than yours. Agreeing with science doesn't make it science. That makes it propaganda and ideology. Saying something that you think is in line with science isn't science, even if it is in line with science. Science isn't a belief system it's a method of investigation. It's doing the leg work. So, yeah let's double down on that. Wipe out both the pathologically narrow minded idiot religion of evolution and atheism with one stone. That's fine if you think that way, but you understand that it isn't science? My beliefs aren't science. Neither are yours if they are just beliefs. When I was first taught evolution in school, long before I became a believer, I rejected it because it sounded even more ridiculous than religion. Macroevolution to me, was more ridiculous than God and Noah's ark. To the science minded health officials who sent Ignaz Semmelweis to his death in a mental institution the germ theory sounded like a non-issue because they believed in the miasmatic school of medicine from the dark ages. Scientists didn't believe mechanical flight was possible. Even some time after the Wright brothers had pulled it off. You don't get it. That's the danger of science. When it becomes religion. When it becomes belief. When it becomes ideology.

Noah's ark was designed to carry Noah and his family along with animals through the global deluge of 2370 - 2369 BCE. The ark (Hebrew tevah, Greek kibotos) was rectangular, a chest, actually, having square corners and a flat bottom. It was designed simply to float, without the need for steering, and to be watertight. This shape not only would make capsizing very improbable but also allowed for one third more space. The roof had a 4% pitch, with a 1 cubit elevation - 25 cubits from wall to ridge, which allowed water to flow off. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The ancient cubit was 17.5 inches (44.5 cm), although some think it was nearer to 56 or 61 cm, which means the ark measured 437' 6" x 72' 11" x 43' 9" (133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m), which is less than half the length of the Queen Elizabeth II. The proportion of length to width being 6 to 1 is also used by modern naval architects. It had approximately 1,400,000 cubic feet (40,000 cubic meters) in gross volume, with a displacement comparable to the 883 ft (269 m) Titanic. It was strengthened internally by the addition of two floors. With three decks, it would have a total of approximately 96,000 square feet (8,900 square meters) of space.' For light and ventilation, there was an opening of a cubit in height near the roof which extended around the four sides, providing 1,500 square feet (140 square meters). The wood used was from a resinous tree, probably cypress or similar. Cypress was favored by shipbuilders such as the Phoenicians and Alexander the Great, even to the present day. Noah was instructed not only to caulk the seams but to cover the ark inside and outside with tar.' Bitumen and Pitch Bitumen is a black or brownish asphalt. There are three Hebrew words which describe first its degree of hardness: zepheth is pitch, the liquid form, and chemar is bitumen, its solid state. Kopher, tar, describes its usage, an application overlaying woodwork. The ark in which Moses, as a baby, floated down the Nile was covered with both bitumen and pitch, rendering it watertight (Exodus 2:3), and the builders of Babylon used bitumen for not only its waterproofing but its adhesiveness as mortar in kiln-dried bricks. (Genesis 11:3) Cargo Noah's ark had, without a doubt, a most interesting passenger list: Noah, his wife, three sons, and their wives, as well as two of every sort of animal, seven of each of the animals considered to be clean. Also, food for over a year. Many people grossly overestimate the number of animals involved here because they don't understand that the Bible means every "kind," a term which differs a great deal from the biological term. There wasn't a need, for example, for Noah to include every breed of dog or cat, just two or seven (if clean) of each. It has been estimated that 43 kinds of mammals, 74 kinds of birds, and 10 kinds of reptiles could have produced the variety of species known today. A more liberal estimate is 72 kinds of quadrupeds and less than 200 kinds of bird kinds would have sufficed. There are about 1,300,000 species of animals, but 60% of those are insects. Of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, and 10,000 are birds - many of which could have survived outside the ark. Of the 5,000 mammals, which would include whales and porpoises who would have stayed outside the ark, 290 are larger than a sheep, and 1,360 are smaller than rats. Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all the animals and their food.

A correction. I meant to say "that was taken from a discussion with an English atheist who used to post there." You guys have fun, now, huh. With your "science" stuff. I don't think you are interested in anything I've got to say and I've got work to do.