Looks like a rip off of the Voynich manuscript?

Awesome! Seems very reminiscent of the Voynich manuscript.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript

If God doesn't give you any revelation of His existence then the scripture is broken and you would have an excuse when you stand before Him. I would be the first to say that this is unfair. However, we're all human beings and I know that people willfully reject God. Not only from my own personal experience, but the bible itself is littered with accounts of people who know better and fall into rebellion against God.

God has made the truth of these things so clear to me, and I believe He is faithful to do the same for you. If God sent Jesus to die on the cross for you and me, He is faithful to let us how we should respond to that.

I think it's clear that an infinite being suffering an infinite punishment is infinitely worse than a finite being suffering an infinite punishment. The finite being has a finite experience, eternally or not. Adding up everyone who ever lived, it is still only a finite experience of suffering, whereas the infinite being has an infinite experience of suffering. Qualitatively, an eternity of suffering of a number of finite beings does not equal even a moment of suffering of an infinite being. Whether you think that is debatable or or not, God the Father considered the sacrifice greater than the punishment, and that is what counts.

Jesus was doing what His Father wanted Him to do, which was to reconcile the human race to Himself, who are alienated from God and spiritually dead because of sin. As far as whether the sayings of Jesus are authentic, we have the manuscripts to prove that they were not made up over a period of centuries or even decades. We have around twenty five thousand manuscripts of the NT alone, which is about 24 thousand more manuscripts than any other ancient text. We have manuscript evidence even going back to the first century, and using all of the manuscripts there is a science called textual criticism that can reconstruct what was in the original manuscripts from that pool of evidence. The idea that the bible is patched together from centuries of retranslations and additions is demonstratably false.

Even if we didn't have any manuscripts, from the writings of the early church fathers alone we could reconstruct the entire bible except for 7 verses in the first 250 years. Even before that, we have the prophetic writings from the Old Testament which show that Jesus did exactly what He was prophesied to do. He did not speak anything different than what had been written thousands of years in advance. If you understand the bible as you a whole, you will see it is one story and it is all saying the same thing. The fact of its internal consistency, considering it was authored by 40 people over a period of 3000 years is another proof of its authenticity.

There are many reasons to believe Jesus is the Christ, but the biggest one is Gods personal revelation, which He is faithful to give to you. If you want to know whether Jesus is the Messiah, simply pray and ask. If He isn't, you've wasted a couple of minutes. If He is, you are avoiding an eternal consequence. God bless!

Interesting that he chose that analogy.

If someone said to me he's the 'Bruce Lee playing ping pong of archery', I would take it to mean it's all faked. (Bruce Lee never played ping pong with nunchaku, it's a well known fake).

I asked a friend of mine about it. He has represented his country in archery, so I trust his opinion on it.

Paraphrased:

Yeah, it's real.
No, it's not that impressive.

He didn't "rediscover" any of the techniques he claimed to. Most of them have been known for ages, and the change for modern archery was intentional and well known. the whole "studying ancient manuscripts" etc etc is bollocks

the catching arrows thing: difficult but not impossible. you use a very light bow, and it's actually not that hard

his accuracy is mildly impressive. not what I'd call amazing at the ranges he shows

he is fast, i'll give him that

I thought he was going to tell us he found specific information in the old manuscripts...

I disagree 100%, this was one of the BEST product placements ever in a video game! You're just not getting the subtle humor. To me, it was very obvious. First, take note of the fact that they were inarguably wanting to make this game feel a bit like a television series. This is made most evident by the way they ended and began each episode (not to mention the fact that they called them "episodes" to begin with), but also by the cinematics in battle, the independent camera controls that let you see what was behind Wake as he was running forward, the narration, the fact that all the manuscripts had to appear on screen with the author's voice reading it aloud- erm, I think I made my point there.

So what would a television series do, naturally, at a moment like this? Why, GO TO A COMMERCIAL BREAK, OF COURSE! That's why this TV was in the break room. Commercials? Break room? You get it now?

However, I wouldn't even agree that this did any noteworthy damage to the tension. Because, arguably, the most "scary" part was over. At this point, all you had to do was get by that chandelier ball thingy and you're outside with Barry Wheeler, comic relief! I thought it was brilliant.

The bible is very highly contested, even among Christians. Heck, the major denominations can't even agree with which books belong as part of the Bible. Compare the Old Testament (of any bible) to the Torah and tell me they're the same... They were 99% the same 2000 years ago, but while the Torah hasn't changed, the OT definitely has.

The bible isn't contested between any of the major denominations and I can't think of any denominations where it is contested. This simply isn't true. The only bone of contention is that the catholic bible contains a few more books, which were taken from the Septuagint.

Compare the books of the Old Testament to the books in the Hebrew bibles found in the dead sea scrolls. The manuscripts are pretty much exactly the same and they date to before Christ.

Here is just one hotly debated topic: The Q Source... or, how did the order of the writing of the Gospels affect each other?... and as it's obvious that some other writing inspired two of the gospels, and hence is the Word of God, how could it have gotten lost? (and keep in mind, again, these are Christians arguing over it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

Watch this series to get a better understanding of what has really happened over the years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70SYwkoH_yc

I am familiar with higher criticism, and there is no proof there was a Q source. How can you use it to try to discredit the bible when there is no evidence it existed? If you want to present evidence for it, I'll be happy to address it.

I am such a huge fan of your blatant intellectual dishonesty. I've seen you here enough to know that you aren't naive, so you're either dishonest or delusional. Seldom do I find someone that can switch back and forth as much as you do... Claiming that Empiricism is only ineffective in finding the truth when God isn't involved... but when he is involved, Empiricism is the only way TO the truth. Nice.

I'd accept your charge of intellectual dishonesty if it were true but that isn't what I said. I said that you couldn't actually be sure of anything you found out through empiricism without God confirming it. Meaning, God is the only one who can tell you what is true, empirically or otherwise.

And it really is a secret what God can do. I certainly haven't heard anyone predict lightning at a specific time and had it happen, and for every person that is "cured" through prayer, millions die despite their piety.

You haven't heard it because you're not looking for Him. If you were you would hear it. Everone dies; the important thing is where you go afterward.

Anyways, I'm yet again reminded of how futile it is to have any sort of discussion with you, so I'll end it here.

God bless.

Hmm... funny, a couple posts ago, you were arguing against Empiricism... and yet, you can't offer up anything that isn't Empiricist, or suffer from the same logical problems that Empiricism has.

I argued against empiricism being the only route to truth, but I didn't say that you couldn't find any truth through empirical means. You would however have no way to confirm it except through God.

"Truth" isn't a democracy... it doesn't matter how many people do or don't believe in a God. (Though I argue that in this country, the demonization of the non-religious scares people into continuing to go to church, despite their belief... though I say that through self experience, as it's hard to poll about that). The "truth" is that you'll never be able to use Science or Philosophy argue for or against the very abstract idea of whether there is a God or not.

I apologize if you were demonized. I love you and God loves you. It doesn't anger me that you're an atheist; I hope that you come to know who God is, and my heart aches for you, but it's your choice.

There are only two ways you can know truth: Either you are omnipotent or an omnipotent being reveals it to you.

One can, certainly, use logic to determine that the bible is self-contradictory, and biblical scholars (and believers) have determined that not a single book in the bible is the "original"... they've all been modified well after it had already been proclaimed to be the "Word of God". There is utterly no logic as to how a perfect being could have such a shoddy and terrible track record with his followers. It certainly doesn't make sense that he could create wars where his followers kill each other (see any and all European Wars.).

The bible is the most well attested book in ancient history. There is manuscript evidence goes back to the late 1st century, and the manuscripts agree with eachother 99.5 percent of the time. It hasn't been modified.

The bible never claims Christians will be perfect; it really says the opposite. Jesus predicts in Matthew 24 that Christians will fall into a massive apostasy and that there will be many wars, especially in the last days.

The truth is that all science and philosophy points to Christianity being bullshit. And you've already pointed out the holes in the only possible philosophical arguments that could allow you to maintain belief while being truthful to yourself.

Only God can prove Himself to anyone, and faith is a gift from God. What I've pointed out, really, is that atheists have no possible route to the truth.



God works by personal revelation; I couldn't prove He exists to you. You could hopefully see the evidence of His existence working in my life, but it takes His Spirit changing your heart and opening your eyes for you to realize that He is there.

And honestly, if you think that someone praying, and then seeing a piece of Toast with Jesus' image on it, or some mold in their bathroom in HIS image is proof enough to devote your life to that sham... well, you really don't have any sort of a grasp on what philosophy is about.

Philosophy is about a search for the truth, and when I searched for the truth, God revealed Himself to me.

But unlike you, I have truly examined the logic of my situation. I know exactly what would convince me of a super-natural power... it's exactly what would convince me of Aliens or Telepathy. A personal experience that can be independently verified by people I trust, and cannot be explained by hallucinations, slight-of-hand or illusions.

That is ALL it takes. It should be the smallest of things for an omnipotent being... after all, he certainly was never shy with appearances or miracles, according to the bible...

But alas, there remains nothing, no shred of evidence... for Jesus or for Telepathy, or for Aliens.... though I imagine that the Aliens at least have a good reason for not making their presence known.

It's no secret what God can do. If you really wanted to know Him, you would know Him already. The reason people don't come to God is because they don't want to change their life and live for Him. Would you lay down everything in your life to know God? If not, it explains why you don't know Him yet.

Strange, I wonder why I literally never heard or saw any of this when I was a kid. I had no idea back then that there were penmanship awards!

Anyway, when I looked it up it looked like it happened from grenade 1-8, at least in the United States. As to the girl in the video she is amazing; there are some Google images of her with what she wrote, but all the ones I found were so blurry you couldn't make anything out (or I would've posted/linked it). It also looked like at least one other kid (a boy) without hands had won before too!

I was, and I still am extremely good at penmanship. It makes me wonder why I never was involved in it. I'm actually a fairly good artist and I won awards as a kid, it's literally my artistry that gives me my great penmanship, as they walk hand-in-hand!

Although, I'll be the first to admit that I can't do Caligraphy or Spencerian types of writing at all--perhaps Caligraphy if I spent time on it, but that won't happen. My manuscript has literally been compared to, "...a printed copy!", so I was proud of my artistry when I used it the most. I could easily draw a realistic human hand, for an example. Enough of my glory hogging!

That girl is amazing, I REALLY wanted to see the range of expression she was able to commit to paper without two hands. She won so it must look amazing for a girl of her age, which makes me want to see it EVEN more! Damn them! How can you not show THAT are you an idiot journalist!?

If someone finds a gallery link or another video make sure to throw it up in here. I'm going to see if I can find a gallery, if I do I'll edit and tag it on to the end...

Edit-As you can see it was far more than one page for the first grader it was a packet, this is as close up basically as you can get to that image, so here it is (oh well, you can't see the thumb, but it goes to the picture correctly--I did flip the picture so you could read it far easier, plus a few other picture tricks, like making it bigger, sharper,etc...):


<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/kceaton2/th_annieclark-nohand-penmanship.jpg" border="0" alt="Annie Clark - Penmenship Award (First Grader; with/no hands), Annie Clark, with no hands, has won the hearts and minds of people as she won her Penmanship Award!" >

Pretty amazing how many manuscripts are turning up, and great to hear funding is being provided for their digitization/maintenance.

The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

The bible is the inspired word of God, and your read of history leaves much to be desired. First, many of the books in the NT were considered canon around 140 AD, just as the early church was getting its start, and there was no conspiracy in selecting them. The only issue in the selection process was to weed out the gnostic writings and the uninspired works from the old testament era. Second, the RCC was not an institution until much later. By the time the bible was canonized in 367, the whole church was in agreement about what should be in it. There is also no evidence of editing. We have the early manuscripts and can check this.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

That's as biased a read of american history as I have ever heard. To say that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country is patently absurd. If you want evidence, feel free to read my other post, or do some *unbiased* research. I suppose you have never seen the Mayflower Compact?

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/compact.htm

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

It's impossible for you to understand the bible without the Holy Spirit. It might as well have been written in swahili for the good that it did you reading it. The accuracy of the bible is not just a historical matter but also in how it describes the human condition. That's why you have those quotes you have to admit are undeniably true, because the bible tells us the reality of the human heart. Yes, of course the founders read it (many of them went to seminary). There were many books in those days, and many philosophies, but they specifically chose the bible, and books based on the bible, as references to draft our nations founding documents, which itself is well documented. Most of them believed the bible was the inspired word of God, which was the reason they used it, not because it was a "popular book of short stories".

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

Apparently you don't know but there was a defacto state religion; almost every state had its own church, and every state constitution mentioned God. Again, they held church every sunday in the house of representitives. Clearly the founders were not interested in removing religion from government, they were only concerned about the balance of power. The secular dream you think the founders had never existed; they loved God and deliberately included Him in public affairs. After they wrote the constitution, Washington declared a day of thanksgiving and praise to God

"to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"

"http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/"

>> ^Hive13

so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

Yep, I am a trinitarian.

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

I would agree that all of these views were represented, but the vast majority of them were trinitarians.

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

The word trinity does not appear in the bible, but the concept of the trinity certainly does. There are many concepts taught in the bible which are not specifically named, so a lack of the word "trinity" isn't proof that there is no such thing. You have to go by what the bible teaches about the nature of God, and it teaches that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, and that there is only one God and not three Gods. Here are a couple of verses mentioning them together:

•Matt. 28:19, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
•2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.


>> ^Diogenes:
so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?
next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?
1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)
finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

Really!? You mean the apostles weren't born in America? Sigh..

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

"The word is used as a title, hence its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning "The Messiah Jesus". Followers of Jesus became known as Christians (as in Acts 11:26) because they believed Jesus to be the Christ, or Christos, or Christian Messiah, prophesied in the Old Testament - therefore they often call him Jesus Christ, meaning Jesus is the Christos."

If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history. This isn't one of those subjects where you can look at the evidence and plausibly say it could go either way. It is totally beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"? The reason it was called that is because they wanted the public to be able to read and understand scripture so they wouldn't be deluded about the truth by Satan. Is it getting clear to you yet?

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html

"It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors."

>> ^Diogenes:

i know less than some, and i know more than some... but i certainly won't be learning any history from your trollish spiels
the word 'christian' appears in the bible, huh? you mean it appears in an english translation of the bible, right? because none of the original manuscripts that came to form the new testament contained any english
the original texts were in greek, aramaic, and hebrew - we see khristos derived from the nominative greek, which was simply a direct translation from the hebrew meaning of messiah or annointed one - latin added the '-anos' suffix to create the adjective form
hey! did you know that the swahili word 'mafuriko' appears in the epic of gilgamesh? yes, it means 'flood'
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
>> ^Diogenes:
you, sir, are full of dumb

i know less than some, and i know more than some... but i certainly won't be learning any history from your trollish spiels

the word 'christian' appears in the bible, huh? you mean it appears in an english translation of the bible, right? because none of the original manuscripts that came to form the new testament contained any english

the original texts were in greek, aramaic, and hebrew - we see khristos derived from the nominative greek, which was simply a direct translation from the hebrew meaning of messiah or annointed one - latin added the '-anos' suffix to create the adjective form

hey! did you know that the swahili word 'mafuriko' appears in the epic of gilgamesh? yes, it means 'flood'
>> ^shinyblurry:
You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible
>> ^Diogenes:
you, sir, are full of dumb