Mysteries of the Bible

Ratings: 5.75/10 from 32 users.


Mysteries of the BibleUpheld as the literal word of God by some and a compelling artifact by others, the Bible has shaped western history for over 2,000 years.

For ages, it has provided a rich treasury of tradition, ritual, and mystery that has engaged scholars as much as it has guided the faithful.

After thousands of years of scrutiny and controversy, Mysteries of the Bible explores many of the greatest tales of Scripture.

Utilizing modern scientific techniques and newfound archaeological discoveries, Mysteries of the Bible reveals surprising facts and theories behind the legendary figures and fabled stories of the Bible.

More great documentaries

107 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Bible Reader

    I really enjoyed this documentary. I think it's very interesting how modern scientific discoveries confirm what the bible says. I also enjoyed the images.

  2. me

    Thank you so much for the help with understanding the mysteries that have kept me blocked from better understanding my faith.

  3. dbjohn

    Ok here are my top five in order;

    1. Star Wars Series George Lucas is the man.

    2. Lord Of The Rings Trilogy One word...Awesome!

    3. Matrix Trilogy Blew my mind!

    4. James Bond Showing my age.

    5. The Bible Fantasy Adventure at its best.

  4. Vlatko

    Funny thing... They are also my favorites. Nice list.

  5. Rusty

    Angels: existed for all eternity or created by God? Hmmmm? Perhaps sheer fantasy?

  6. hotice


    so your analogy is that if you can proof one thing in bible the rest is automatically true?

    he was referring bible fantasy book as whole and you say becouse there is evidence of a man called jesus who claimed to be a prophet the bible is not fantasy?

    cmon with that analogy if i would proof there is a man called clark kent it would mean super man is real too

  7. WTC7

    Nice analogy Hotice ! Agreed!

  8. Ice

    If you can prove the facts in the video cited in my earlier post are not facts at all - then you can prove the entire bible to be nothing but fantasy. And Christ did not claim to be JUST a prophet... he claimed to be the "Son of Man" which has an entirely different definition.

    The problem is that people have difficulty with understanding what was being written about. And I'll bet you didn't watch the video cited.

    Your question is based on assumptions that you have neither proven or dis-proven. Is there a God that could have created angels?? You did not prove any hypothesis either way. Prove that Christ was not the "Son of Man" (and fulfilled all the prophecies) and you can prove the entire bible to be sheer fantasy. The entire bible is directly related to Christ - whether you want to believe that or not. So, prove He was nothing more than a man and a "fantasy" was built up around his life and you will have proven the bible to be "fantasy".

    Prove up or shut up.

  9. JustG

    WTC7, you are taking things out of context. Whether purposely or through ignorance I cannot say.

    Nice link. Angelfire.... somebody's homepage.

  10. WTC7

    Exactly which context am I taking what out of? Didn't ice say that the "entire bible is directly related to Christ", so why not confront his statement to a different EXISTING view?

  11. WTC7

    ... and why question the link, why not answer the question?

  12. Ice

    So what you are telling me is that the bible is not directly related to God's dealing with men. That is your statement when you say that the bible is not directly related to Christ. The entire bible is directly related to salvation. And you claim this is not true?

    The term "Son of God" can be applied to you or me. It is not the term that I used in my earlier posts. Deal with the term "Son of Man" and its meaning.

    The fact of the lineage demonstrates a direct connection to the fulfillment of prophecy. Even by admission to His descent from King David there is admission to His claim as the Son of Man.

    The prophecy you quote has not yet been fulfilled and you claim that is proof that Christ was not the messiah?? If you read the new testament you will see that the prophecy you quote is yet to be fulfilled as it is a prophecy for the "second coming". (When all shall worship the one true God.)

    There is more ignorance here than I could have first imagined. The decades that I have spent in study and research of this topic have taught me that it is each man's decision to discern the facts (and reality) for himself. What I propose is simply this: do the research before you dismiss it altogether.

    Allow me to share something interesting that I found: a theologian named F.F. Bruce wrote a lot of books re Christianity, its history, beliefs, etc. In one book he makes a statement that the teachings of the Apostles should be adhered to and not doing so is akin to sin or rejecting Christ or some such thing. Yet he goes on to explain how Christians came to the rituals of Easter, Christmas, etc. And in another book he demonstrates that the Apostles taught Passover and etc. And we can see today that the teachings of the Apostles are not adhered to. (F.F. Bruce: "The Gospel of John" & "The Spreading Flame")

    So let me ask you this: Will all those that believe themselves to be Christians be saved? If you know anything of the Word then you would have to agree that even a great many of those that claim to be Christians will not be allowed to enter into the Kingdom. Christians were forewarned that there would be "wolves" among their own kind, ready to lead them astray. And this should enlighten you somewhat as to the splintering of Christianity.

    This topic is one that requires a great deal of study. When you have put the time in (years upon years) you may gain enough knowledge for a good debate. But at this time there hasn't been a demonstration of such.

    Good luck to you.

  13. WTC7

    That was a nice try, ice. And in your knowledgable opinion, how many times will the messiah have to come before all the prophesies are fulfilled? Because it seems that the Jews strongly maintain that the old testament doesn't mention the second coming... I guess you wouldn't claim that their religious brains have not enough knowledge for the debate?

  14. Charles B.

    Ice: Can you contrast the definitions of "Son of God" and "Son of Man" for us? I have a fairly well-educated understanding of why Jesus called Himself the "Son of Man" rather than the "Son of God" but I'd like to know how you view the contrasts. Some might argue that like the Prophet Mohammud, he was just a man as that is what he claimed by using this phrase. If you have the time.

  15. Ice

    The old testament mentions 2 totally different versions of Messiah. It mentions a "suffering" Messiah and a warrior type Messiah that defeats the enemies of His people.

    Answer me this: How can the Messiah suffer and die and yet be the warrior messiah that defeats the enemies of His people during one life span? If he defeats the enemies then how could he possibly "suffer" for their transgressions at the hands of those enemies? Not possible.

    My "nice try" is rooted in much more knowledge then you have thus far demonstrated.

    Remember this: The Jews TOTALLY REJECT CHRIST as the Messiah. They will not accept any doctrine that could possibly support His claim to be the "Son of Man". Do you think that they do not react to this claim emotionally first and then attempt to logically explain and defend their position? This is what they attempt to do. And for all their knowledge they cannot overcome the facts. Haven't you lived long enough to witness people persistently and unrepentantly defend a position... even though they are dead wrong? I've seen it many times. And when confronted with factual evidence of their error they still refuse to admit they are wrong. It happens all the time. Some people are just too proud to admit their error.

    And the debate is going on full steam ahead between Jews that have accepted Christ as the Messiah and those that have not. Their are thousands of Jews in Israel that are "Christians". Are you so daft that you do not realize the very first Christians were Jews?

    Your argument is so flimsy that most wouldn't bother to address this inane point you propose. For you to even propose that all Jews have rejected Christ and to totally ignore the fact that the first Christians were Jews is lunacy.

    The arguments you make here lack substance and have no true validity. There are points that could be addressed but seem to be avoided (like the fact that there were some 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ). Go, study and research so that you may find the knowledge that will lead you to the truth of the matter.

  16. Charles B.

    Ice: Looks like we're posting at the same time. Be sure to read my question above if you didn't notice it when you hit "enter" for your post. Thanks.

    P.S. I've known several Jewish Christians; they're some of my favorite Christians in fact as they have such a deep reverence for God that we Gentile believers take for granted.

  17. Ice

    I did answer your above question, Charles... but they have it awaiting moderation because I supplied a link within it. If you go to one of my posts above you will find a link to The Case For Christ. It explains the "Son of Man" phrase very well.

    But here is the real truth behind the phrase: It was His claim to be the Messiah. And the Jews knew exactly what He meant when He used the phrase.

  18. Charles B.

    Ah, that's interesting. I would haven't totally missed that aspect of the phrase. I thought it was his attempt to associate himself with minkind. We're always learning something new and something deeper, aren't we? How more lovely He becomes the more I know and understand and study; Jesusology is like an ocean blue and deep where a whale can play in it's phathomless depths, but also so plain and simple that a child can wade it it's simple truths and still understand. Thank you.

  19. Ice


    Seriously, Check out that doc ... it is loaded with some good information that many people tend to overlook even though these things are written quite clearly in the Word.

    It is a good "investigation" of the Christian claims.

  20. Joe_nyc

    OH boy..........

    Son of Man is a Semitic idiom. Greeks translated literally.
    Back in NT biblical time it was simply another way of saying 'human'.


    'Dude' is a modern idiom for 'you'.
    Hence; 'Hey, dude' means 'Hey, you'.

    Christ calls himself Son of Man. He is saying that he is a human.

  21. WTC7

    Dear ice,

    The two different messiahs in the Bible, can you at least tell me which one is supposed to fulfill exactly which of the prophesies and how will the god's chosen people know it? They are his chosen people after all, aren't they?

    It appears that it is all others except the Jews who are eventually going to spread the word of the Jewish god around the world? It is obvious that it is the Christians who got all the correct answers from god, Jews are so marginal here, they have no idea about anything, true?

    What you call the lack of knowledge, I call the common sense. Your arrogance doesn't place you among the righteous ones who claim to follow the teachings of their humble god. Your belligerence in the face of questions you can't answer, but feel safer to attack the ignorant since you can't teach him, shows that you have not been touched by the gentle spirit of the one you want to convince yourself is your god.

  22. Ice


    Sorry, you are in error. The term "Son of Man" is directly related to the Messiah. Christ was making a specific point by using the term. You can learn more about the term if you view "The Case for Christ" linked to above.

    It is obvious that you did not research the issue before stating your "opinion". Seek the truth and ye shall find it.

  23. Ice


    The two versions of Messiah are not too different people. It is two descriptions of the One Messiah... two agendas that He will fulfill.

    Do you know what the "chosen people" were chosen to do or be? The "chosen" are set to be an example to the rest of the world. When they keep in His law they will be blessed and when they do not keep in His law they will be chastised. They are to be an example of His love and mercy as well as His righteousness and wrath. Maybe the Jews will not be "spreading the word" but they will definitely demonstrate the characteristics as cited above. And if those things hold true then isn't that a demonstration of the existence of Him?

    And once again, you seem to ignore the fact that the First Christians were Jews. So your statement about the Jews being marginalized is more than just silly. The Word came to the Jews and a great many of them accepted the Word. And that is the beginning of Christianity. Do you believe that "Christians" were NOT Jews???

    Your "common sense" isn't working very well. Your posts are a great demonstration of it. Your insistence to ignore the fact that Jews were the first Christians is one demonstration of it. Are you now going to argue that Jews were not the first Christians and that Christianity did not come from the Jews?

    Your inability to offer a sound argument brings you to the only option you have left: name calling. You claim I am belligerent and arrogant? You claim there are questions that I can't or haven't answered simply because the answers given do not agree with your position.

    Is it not arrogant to refuse to accept facts that clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding and knowledge? When your error is corrected do you not refuse to accept the correction? You say I have "attacked" you simply because I have told you to educate yourself because your statements clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge?

    I am not attempting to convince myself, or you, of anything. There are certain FACTS that missing from statements made and I have supplied some of those facts. That is all. If you want to be a non-believer - that is okay.

    For those of you still wondering about the phrase "Son of Man", you will find it in Daniel. Daniel has a vision in which he describes one as "The Son of Man" being led into the presence of the "Ancient of Days". So "Son of Man" does not refer to His humanity as "Son of God" refers to His deity. The "Son of Man" is to be given all Glory, Power and Majesty. It also says of the "Son of Man" that His "dominion is a dominion that will never pass away. And His Kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

    This goes back to what I was attempting to explain earlier about the two agendas of the Messiah. One is the conquering Messiah and the other is the suffering Messiah that is "wounded for their transgressions". Christ has already fulfilled the prophecies of the suffering Messiah. Upon the fulfillment of this He is then given all Glory, Power and Majesty and will return as the Conquering Messiah to establish His Kingdom which shall never be destroyed.

    There are a lot of puzzle pieces to be put together but you can only put them together if you do the research. This is my suggestion to you all: Do the research. Seek the Truth and ye shall find it.

    Everyone has an "opinion" ... but how many opinions are truly rooted in FACTS?

  24. Joe_nyc


    In book of daniel 'son of man' is used to represent 'man'. Do you want me to give you specific verses and some basic bible lesson?

  25. Joe_nyc


    Messiah in Hebrew means 'anointed one(human)', preferably by their God. From which version of bible are you getting your info from? Or are you simply regurgitating what you heard?

  26. Ice

    So now Joe is an expert that claims that "man" in general will be led before the "Ancient of Days" and that "man", in general, will establish mans' kingdom which will never be destroyed... not "Messiah", mind you... "man", in general.

    "Son of Man" in Daniels vision is accepted by scholars to be the Messiah, not "man" in general. Allow me to quote an earlier post:

    Daniel has a vision in which he describes one as “The Son of Man” being led into the presence of the “Ancient of Days”. So “Son of Man” does not refer to His humanity as “Son of God” refers to His deity. The “Son of Man” is to be given all Glory, Power and Majesty. It also says of the “Son of Man” that His “dominion is a dominion that will never pass away. And His Kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

    When Christ used the term "Son of Man" He was stating His claim to be "the anointed one", the Messiah. And the priests knew exactly what He was stating.

    Yes, Messiah means "anointed one" but there is no clarification as to whether or not it means a "human". Originally the term was used for anyone with a "divine mission". In the First Temple period, Judaism was not a messianic religion and the term mashi'ah? did not have its later connotation... as you understand it today. [Mashiach: (mah-SHEE-akh) n. Messiah; The Anointed.]

    There are many versions and languages of the Bible. I've seen a great deal of them. As a matter of fact, I have the NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew... and a few other versions.

    And where did you study to become such an expert that you are so willing to post your OPINIONS?? And your education in this field comes from where? I do not believe that you have had any formal education in this field. I have boxes of books, Concordance and Lexicons (which there is no room for upon my shelves) which have been of great assistance in my study and research over the last 3+ decades. But if you need "bible lessons" don't look to me, I study theology. But I could suggest some reading material if you like.

  27. Epicurus

    @Ice, its funny you ask for someones credentials on something when you are making claims about history and physics (not directly but through claiming the bible as a credible source of information) what are you credentials in those areas? because i can tell you they contradict what your religion says.

    on to something neat.

    To be the Messiah one would have been anointed with what is described in Exodus 30:22-25.

    * 500 shekels (about 6 kg) of myrrh
    * Half as much (about 3 kg) of fragrant cinnamon
    * 250 shekels (about 3 kg) of kaneh-bosm
    * 500 shekels (about 6 kg) of cassia
    * A hin of olive oil. (Exodus 33:22-25)

    The focus here is the ingredient, kaneh-bosm (the ‘m’ is silent and only signifies a plural). It has been argued by Sula Benet in his book, “Early Diffusions and Folk Uses of Hemp”, that kaneh-bosm properly translates to Cannabis. He argues that the Hebrews used cannabis as medicine, and that the commonly accepted translation of calamus must be wrong since it is a marsh reed and does not contain the properties ascribed to kaneh-bosm.

    any thoughts on the Kaneh-Bosm Cannabis connection?

  28. Joe_nyc


    Daniel 7:13-14

    "I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man (??? ??? [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

    Let me make it simple for you.
    "there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man" = (equals) "someone came with the cloud that looks like a human being".
    In other words, Daniel looked up and saw a person in the cloud. A Semitic idiom, son of man, was used to describe what Daniel saw.

    Daniel 8:16-18

    "I heard a man's voice (???–???) between the banks of the Ulai, which called, and said, "Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision." 17 So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened, and fell on my face: but he said to me, "Understand, son of man (??–??? : [ben-'adam]); for the vision belongs to the time of the end." 18 Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright."

    It's even more simpler here. Gabriel is calling Daniel with a Semitic idiom, son of man.

    Do me a favour and drop the arrogance. For too long religees used your type of misinterpretation to lie to the people.

  29. Joe_nyc


    And if you want a lesson on messiah let me know. It;s bit more tricky to explain because it had different meanings during biblical times.

    As for my credentials I simply read and find out for myself.

  30. Charles B.

    Joe: Let me also research this phrase "the son of man" a bit more. My gut instinct is that Ice is right. Let's not loose sight of the forest for the trees! We have to remember that it's not just how we interpret the phrase now, but how it was understood then in Jesus time. Thank you for at least doing a little self-study in Daniel. That's more than most would do.


  31. Joe_nyc

    Charles, of course you think ICE is right. That's how it's taught at most theological seminars. I heard of Daniel foretelling of coming of big J all my life from different preachers and I always wondered why Jews never accepted this fact. Once, I asked an Orthodox Hasidic Jew about this and he just laughed at me saying it's funny that Christians always believe what ever they want to believe.

  32. Ice

    This is correct:

    “there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man” = (equals) “someone came with the cloud that looks like a human being”.
    In other words, Daniel looked up and saw a person in the cloud. A Semitic idiom, son of man, was used to describe what Daniel saw.

    And so is this:

    61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

    62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

    64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

    And what he meant by the "Son of Man" phrase is exactly as He stated here. And the Priests knew exactly what He was saying. This verse demonstrates that the phrase "Son of Man" is directly referring to the "Messiah".

    He came unto His own and they knew Him not. Do you honestly think that they will accept Him as the Messiah? I don't see how prophecy could be fulfilled if they would have. And to this day the Christian Jews are a very small minority.

    You claim that you just "read" and discover. I would suggest that you read a lot more and use a great many more sources.

    BTW, I am Jewish.

  33. alphafemale

    Shalom Ice. I agree just about 99% with you. There are some Hebrasims that have some folks in confusion, however I believe only The Lord can open the eyes, or cause one to study to become aware of these. Love to all & I am at least pleased so many peoples have taken time to see this documantary.


  34. just brousing

    I don't find this documentary informative at all. Different views don't add up to truth. People have to come to an understanding with a "free" mind. Then, look at a religious ceremony, in more than one community. I was drawn by God, not told to be anything by anyone.

  35. Faith

    Son of Man means to be half-god and half-human(according to the bible, there is only one).
    Messiah means anointed one(according to the bible, there is only one). Both titles refer to Jesus-christ. In the bible, the beginning of Genesis talk about probably two or more gods "Let Us..."(Polytheist), but from Abraham, it became One(Monotheist). If God created all things by his word, why can He saved by his words also? but sacrificing his son? since his word is powerful. It says also in Genesis,"After God created all things, He saw that everything was good", so where evil came from? since He knows the future.
    None of the holy books will reveal the truth of things to us human because the truth was concealed from us for generations. Just to let all of you know, the gods created us in their images, but after they created us, they were divided among them because some wanted to rule mankind and mankind had to worship them, and others wanted mankind to be free of mind and become like them. Now mankind is confuse, not knowing what to believe in to.

  36. khadijah

    "The Execution Of Jesus" 42:40 HUH?! Jesus was taken up to Heaven and sat at the right hand of God? I thought Jesus was God! How can God sit next to Himself?

    I am repelled by the concept of God being so incapable of forgiveness and empathy that he required the torture death of of His son in order to allow believers to be saved!

    Islam is a religion of success. Unlike Christianity, which has as its main image, in the West at least, a man dying in a devastating, disgraceful, helpless death.
    Karen Armstrong

  37. ez2b12

    @ Ice

    I am a theologian myself and I have to say you have a some what decent grip on Judaism and Christianity. Too bad you didn't take time to study the older polytheistic traditions that they grew out of. Then you would see the logical pattern that the human construct of religion has taken through out the years. A self serving pattern bent toward helping man remove himself more and more form the natural world around him. Bent toward comforting man from the loss and pain that is reality. A system of control that redefines itself over and over to fit in with the existing data. Soon we will redefine God again, we have to- we have been to the moon and seen earth form outter space, we understand DNA and cloning, tera forming, and quantum mechanics. We will keep redefining god until we realize the truth- we are god,We always have been. I am not god- and you are not god- but we, all of us together, are god. We decide what happens next. Its just a choice. No hard work- no savings of money- no school and books- no grand new technology- just a choice. Just a choice right now, between fear and love.

  38. eireannach666

    Religion is just as bad as a conspiracy , only assumption based on limited information come about for a weak need to justify and belong.

    Try science, its much mor efficient and fact-holding.

    Why religion? it just cuts off your ability to look further.

  39. Ice


    You make assumptions about just exactly what I have or have not studied.

    Yes, WE are god.

    Does not the behavior of the universe itself fit the definition of "conscious"? ... or is it really all just "random" activity? And then, how could it be random if the behavior is founded on scientific law and principles?

    The question of our existence, of religion, of "reality" is one that each of us must answer for our self. Whether people believe this or that is really no concern of mine. The differences of opinion and the facts that lead one to believe make interesting conversation. But really, do you expect that all people will come to the same conclusion? That will never happen.

    Truth is what you make it.

    Assumptions are another thing altogether.


  40. treelo

    It's nice to see supposed theologians blinded by their own faith.

    The Bible is not a factual text, it is a compilation of oral traditions with heavily tailored documentation slapped on the end to suit the changing needs of the society it represented.

    The Torah itself has nothing to do with Jesus, dealing with a period of history thousands of years before Christ and there is little to no evidence to support the claims found within.

    The Gospels were written roughly 100-150 years after Jesus was supposed to have lived. Funnily enough, both sections of the Bible were compiled around the same time that the Jews were exiled from Israel, presumably as a means of keeping the faith alive and giving hope to the desperate people living through those times.

    While you can argue semantics until Judgement Day, the context in which the Bible was written is where the truth of the matter lies.

    It stands as one of the finest pieces of literature known to man, providing a much needed moral compass and source of hope to those who seek it. I would have thought you were all familiar with allegory though...

    Oh, and Science is little more than a religion itself; a means of explaining the unexplainable and giving humanity a place within the universe. Time and again it has been proven wrong and updated. Until recently the only key difference lay in that science could be proven either correct or incorrect but with the recent addition of quantum mechanics and string theory, the line between faith and science blurs even more.

  41. Ice

    Don't ya just love those that attempt to educate the educated?

    Funny how one can make an assumption that people are blinded by "faith" when there is no evidence presented that they actually have "faith" ... in anything specific ... or anything at all.

    By the way, treelo, the time of when the gospels were actually written has been whittled down to be a lot shorter than the 100 to 150 years that you state above. If I recall properly, the new guesstimates are any where from 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion.

  42. treelo

    An assumption about faith? Terribly sorry, but when someone (read: you) proclaims they are Jewish it tends to remove any guess work. I guess you've just perfectly highlighted how people will ignore the truth laid bare before them when it suits their own needs, thanks for that.

    The revised figures you give fit with the second Diaspora even better than the original 100-150 years that I was taught a few years back. Again, you have my thanks.

  43. Ice

    So if someone proclaims they are Jewish they MUST be religious?

    Is that your understanding?

    Does that also mean that if someone someone claims to be an American they MUST be Christian?

    It is of no benefit to assume anything.

  44. ralphlo

    god is imaginary people..y waste so many words

  45. David

    Genensis is not the very beginning. God and the Word created the angels first. When God and the Word created earth and the galaxies the angels rejoiced. A third of the angels where put on earth with lucifer in charge. Everything was not in a continual state of decay like our world/galaxies is now. The angels, spirit beings, had power to create, and were to finish the earth, so to speak. But lucifer let vanity over-take him and he corupted this 1/3 of the angels. This coruption took how long no one knows. The beginning that is in genesis explains that the earth was covered with water, opening up the question, did God flood the earth twice? Once in Noahs time, and perhaps the 1st time to wipe away what these corupt angels created. Did these corupt angels create the dinosaurs and anything else that's older than 6,000 years? Can this explain why every now and again some funky creature is found, that could have survived these floods. Well now that 1/3 of the angels, and lucifer, spirit beings, that we can't see, are still here. And because Adam/Eve ate from the wrong tree, everything changed, everything is in a state of decay, and God is testing man to see if he can do the right thing. Unlike the 1/3 of the angels that failed. Which brings me to the meaning of life- God wants to duplicate Himself. That was why He created the angels, and that is why He created us. Example:The Word was made flesh, Jesus. Then after crucifixtion became Spirit. This model is what is to happen to humans that want to follow Christ upon His returns. We will become spirit beings, or the other option is the lake of fire, snuffed out for good. There's no forever in hell. Most of what I have explained can be found in the bible if you know where to look. The dinosaur part is speculation on my part.

  46. Kurrrt

    Once upon a time, one of this earth's earlier scientists pronounced, or enunciated, or he told a story, which was somewhat reasonable, of a flood, and of all the animals of this earth saved, as species, in a big boat. Perhaps the story was not meant seriously by its author, but was a satire upon the ambitious boat-builders of his day. It is probable that all religions are founded upon ancient jokes and hoaxes.
    Other records of Noah and the deluge indicate stringing rafts together loading available herds as a massive pre-warned great storm of the era was building it's momentum.
    Ancients often used exagerated phrases in comunicating along with writing supernatural fictional stories. Then believed truth today. Dan Brown's novel "The Bible Code" an un-truth taught in industrial churches as some truth.
    Bible language transfer mistakes now moves into it's new generations of believing mistakenly written words. Since the following herd witnesses no real God, more convincing selections from the Egyptian bible was copied to the first bible and passed down to the second for the new followers of the herd. As so for today is the existence of the slavery of man saved by the bible. It's the ones who brought you a hell are the same ones who make you believe in a God.
    Ancient script does not in any way deliver a positive ethical message that has significant pragmatic consequences for human culture in 2010.

  47. Kurrrt

    Read about any angel's in the news paper?
    Any new information about heaven on cable TV news lately? Did anyone locate a place called hell yet?
    Do you expect to see your dead relatives alive again? Jesus? The second coming all ready missed 4 wars.
    Only pathetic full grown humans could be presented such nonsence then share it as truth. Whats wrong with the focus on humanity, that we need such a non-existing entity and reigning orthodoxies? Evolve all ready.

  48. Dimorphic


    Well, yes if you say you are Jewish then you MUST be religious, since Judaism is in fact a religion.

    Your Equivalence of American = Christian is incorrect since American is a nationality, and Christian is a religion.

  49. Yavanna

    Wow , its amazing how little things change. OK I hope to settle this argument...........

    Apologists........ go back watch these "documentaries" again - only this time every time "God" is mentioned substitute Santa Claus. When Angels / Demons are brought up substitute with Helper Elves (presumably the evil version too just for balance)

    Now after that take a big deep breath (preferably whilst under water - survival of the fittest and all that ...) AND... just feel for one moment or three how perfectly r@#$%^&* you sound to people who have a loving personal relationship with reality.

  50. Hesus

    ... loving personal relationship with reality. LOL Welcome back Yavanna!

  51. Yavanna

    TY Hesus
    why is r3tard3d scrambled to r@#$%^&*? Is english not allowed here anymore or are the "r3tard3d3d" getting upset by apt description?

  52. Hesus

    Too many words here are now censored. Sadly you guessed right. Stup1d people are so easily offended. *sigh*

  53. Vlatko

    Well let me tell you the truth. People very, very often use profanity and offensive words to express themselves and to attack others. That is not a big deal. The following is.

    There is one art called SEO (Search Engine Optimization) in which a webmaster have to be careful (amongst other things) about the keyword density on the pages on his site. So for example if in the comments section of this page the word r*tarded is used let say 5 times, the probability that search engines will rank this page higher, for that word, is very big. That may not happen but for sure it will brake the density of other useful keywords.

    So if I'm serious about maintaining this site somewhat popular, I don't want my pages to rank high for the words r*tarded, stup*d, fu*k, etc. etc.

    Any other questions?

  54. Yavanna

    Thanks Vlatko that makes perfect sense.

  55. WTC7

    Yavanna, you are back! That's great!

  56. ryu

    I cannnot understand how anyone can believe in god! But to each its own. They are just stories... Science will prove it soon enough i hope!
    Too many religons with different gods and rules to live by, some religions can't eat certain things but yet it was all put here for man to use????!! Some religions get 4 wifes and infinite mistress?????? whaaaaa,for real???? Adam and eve ???? Abraham ???? Who raised them ??? Snakes ??? How do you make offsping with ur sister or brother/mother!!! After a couple generations ur gene pool should look like a 4 armed/4 headed dragon!!!! Maybe the stories would be more realistic if they elaborated a little more like.......
    So the whole 6.???? billion people on the planet are related to adam and eve....

    C'mon i heard better stories at my daughters birthday parties!!!!

    I have never belived in religion and i feel quite content living here on heaven/hell....(what most people call earth)
    its all what you make of your life, not where you go when you leave your body and mind, but what you did with it while you were here!
    poop happens!! alot!!!
    You think looking up at clouds or a statue will change or reverse the outcome??? Ye poor souls!!!!!

    "Yesterday's are history/mystery, tomorrow could be the end of it all..... It's all about you, and what to do today !!!! -Ryu- p.s N.L rules!

  57. nicholas

    Faith, We believe in God do to faith. If you read the Bible, Old testment beginning to end, then the new testment from the end to the beginning, you can assmeble your own time line. Adam and Eve, weird,rather unbelievable? Yes, it is, until you see the time line and the information within it. Brothers, sisters, mothers come on get real, Thats not what the bible, or any other document says, a matter of fact.
    Gnesis says, Man came from sand, Women came from rib. Along with the ages of Biblcial times, you find the humans lived much longer as well. Next you begin to look at the science of evolution. Whos to says that the sand that man was created from wasn't the very act of evolution: however SCIENCE proves itself wrong continually when it comes to the evolutionary concept. Furthermore, when comparing the animals in which we supposedly evolved from, anyone can read and see that even the smallest movements of organs, would kill humans instantly. So without reading the bible and studying its facts along side your science facts, you trult remain ignorant to the facts.

  58. Philip Gregory

    You have to be the most ignorant person concerning science that ever was... but that's no surprise considering you are a person of faith. Do you know anything about cumulative selection? There is no leaps where organs slightly moving would have anything to do with anything. Each organism changes slightly, copying what it needs from the previous genetic code, and adding only slightly, over millions of years. It's absolutely plausible that is how we came to be, and only a small percent (about 7% now I think) of the scientific community doubts this. Those people are most likely the faith trusting scientists who are using science to try to prove their faith, rather than just rely on empirical evidence - all of which points to the fact that the bible account of our creation is false. The evidence is overwhelming on the side of science - which you would know if you would stop relying on the bible for all of your information. To deny it is to remain ignorant by your own choice.

  59. kingdomcruz

    I must say I am impressed with your explanation. Your interpretation of the biblical time line is very thorough and does follow the bible correctly. It is all there in the bible, as you said. People often mistake Genesis for the actual beginning of the universe. This is incorrect according to what is actually written in the bible, just as you said. It is clear that the Earth was already created before the beginning of Genesis because the book describes the spirit of God hovering over the face of the water. What Genesis describes is merely a restoration of the Earth that was ruined in Lucifer’s angelic rebellion. I am also impressed that you believe in Christ and make the connection that it was He who restored the Earth.
    Most people that I have met who adhere to the time line you are describing are Hebrew, as am I although I am Christian.
    You are also correct that the angels must have been created prior to the events described in Genesis as the book of Job reads:
    “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? […] What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?”
    What perhaps impresses me the most is your explanation about the dinosaurs. My church and I share the opinion that the dinosaurs came about due to the presence of Lucifer on the Earth. It is obvious to me that Lucifer perverted everything that was under his authority while he was in control of the Earth including the animals. It is not unreasonable to think that dinosaurs became the twisted ungodly creatures that they were because Lucifer slowly warped them over the ages.
    You are also correct in thinking that the actual age of the Earth is not stated in the bible. Who knows how long Lucifer’s angelic rebellion lasted and how long ago the Earth was actually created?
    What also amazes me is your explanation for the purpose of life. You are absolutely correct. The goal of every created being is to emulate the perfection of Christ and to strive to become like him. Everything is created to serve Christ and God the Father, whether they are aware of that or not. We are on this Earth to do His will and serve him. Hopefully one day we will be perfected like Christ. All true servants must take up their cross and be willing to suffer for God. Life is just a temporary phase for our souls. It is a simulation to see whether we will serve him. Those who prove unreliable are cast into the lake of fire. You are correct that the lake of fire is not what most people think it is. The lake of fire is clearly described in the bible as the “second death” where both the body and soul are destroyed permanently. In Matthew 10:28 it is written:
    “Don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot kill your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
    The soul that is cast into the lake of fire is not present there forever according to the bible. That belief crept into the early church from Hellenistic mythology sometime in the third century.
    I am honored to meet a fellow believer in Christ that is so like-minded as myself.

  60. Epicurus are crazy

  61. Epicurus

    my goodness.....genesis says a snake believe that a sand man and rib woman were tricked by a talking snake to eat a magical fruit?!?!

    evolution is a fact. maybe you should spend some of the time you use reading the bible, to actually learn what science does say rather than make yourself look completely ignorant on the internet....

    why are people even allowed to be this simple?

  62. Epicurus

    lol best response ever!

  63. 0zyxcba1

    @ Epicurus

    The ancient agricultural transgression, to which you allude, is more serious than you think.

    Mustn't quibble with the bible, now, must we?

  64. SamuelClemensHill

    Gotta love Jack Perkins as narrator. The writing is pretty good and there is some balance in the points of view presented, though it would be nice to hear from a larger cross section of people from different (non-Western) cultures. Hardly ground-breaking, but still an enjoyable and informative documentary.

  65. SamuelClemensHill

    Hmm. Need to do more reading up on Lilith.

  66. Roc'abill Rocker

    "Love and sex"
    It amazes me how far from the from the truth this documentary is. It starts off with the statement - Adam and Eve Lived in the garden of Eden, This is not true as the man and woman did not receive names until they were kicked out of the garden. Then they state "gods fist commandment was to procreate". When God commanded the opposite, "you can eat from any tree except from the tree of the of the knowledge of good and evil". Then it speaks of a woman prier to Eve in Ge 1:27. Have these people read the bible ?. The man and woman mentioned Ge 1:27 are the same man and woman that become Aden and Eve after they eat the fruit God commanded them not to eat later in Ge 3-. I have known others to make the same mistake so let me clarify. Ge 1 through Ge 2:4 are overview of the whole creation, including the creation of the man and woman later to become Adam and Eve. Ge 2:5 and beyond bring detail into the man and woman's fall be fore god, and the consequence of there disobedience. I do not understand how this got past the editors of this documentary , unless they are deliberately trying to cloud the facts

  67. Jaire

    Wow, how and why is it that on anything religious the atheists always make themselves present??? Is it not solace enough that you dont believe in the metaphysical that you must patronize others to fill a void. Now I am not religious but a I am a theist. It really gets aggrivating when someone or some people are arrogant enough to think that with our limited understanding of everything in exsistance that you can say this and that does not exsist. You must remeber a few things the lack of evidence does not disprove something and the evidence of something does not prove it either ( circumstantial) one must also regard the scientific tentant of Occam's razor when evaluating things. Also in the scientific realm many ppl forget about the unbiased part of the scientific method. Im just saying that the exsistence of god has not been disproven using the scientific method so one cannot say definitevly that it does not exsist.

  68. Jaire

    Ive gotta halt you there. macro evolution is not yet a fact but a highly plausible theory still... and unfortunately it will not be proven as a definite fact until we observe the macro evolution of a species. micro evolution on the other hand is... there needs to be a distinction in your statement.

  69. shane scallan

    well said.. we need to remain open in our quest for scientific exploration. Science is our tool to build the kingdom on earth. To find the essence of all being and matter. Google Shamans and scientists.. deoxy,org, oh, its out there!!!

  70. alwaysconcious

    solomon was not responsible for the breaking up of the was his son's fault. not passing on the wisdom of his father..and not listening to the elders of that time. instead he mind his young friends and God did what he had to do as prophesy

  71. Vic Seay

    Thats not Jack's Richard Kiley!

  72. Vic Seay

    These episodes first aired on A&E in the early 1990's.

  73. lonatello

    Yes you are correct, we cannot prove there isn't a god, but by science empirically proving a system to be naturally caused it gives less of a reason to include him. I am an atheist and you'll never hear me say THERE IS NO GOD, but it just seems unlikely and not empirically proven.

  74. Destry Lack

    You hope science proves it soon enough? Sounds like you don't have faith in your science. Matter of fact, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. That is funny, It's more like the Bible proving science instead.

    How is it that this earth (that atheist believe existed without a designer) KNEW to provide everything your body needs in order to survive? You BREATH without even thinking about it, but oh know, it was just by chance that this world provided a thing called OXYGEN (which doesn't take a scientists to figure out that there's NOTHING else that can replace that or your body will accept that will keep you alive). Even our blood cells require oxygen to carry out the task to keep you alive. You SEE, so therefore there is such a thing as LIGHT. Hmmm, the world just by "chance" gave us LIGHT, huh? It's like it said, there will be people living upon me and I will need to provide them LIGHT because they will have eyes; and what good is there to have eyes if they don't have LIGHT? Your body HUNGERS, you have a craving for FOOD. Wow, we just got lucky there didn't we? Again, the world also looked at that, and said, gee these people will HUNGER, so I better provide them with food so they don't DIE. And speaking of poop, how did your body know during the evolutional stage to poop out the crap you eat? That was by "chance" right? Like what are the chances of a quarter being flipped it will land on the heads side every time? Or better yet, how about looking at it for what it really is. Is it by chance, or maybe it's by the weight and the gravitational pull that causes the quarter to land on the head side more often than the tails side? Did you know that if you didn't poop your life would seize to exist because of the harmful bacteria that would build up in your body, would eventually shut down all your COMPLEX organs? You'd rot from the inside out. Do you know where diesel fuel comes from? Yep, waist!

    Please, your statements are vague and it's sad to think that this world is all you have to live for. Again, living for society with societies ridiculous point of views such as "it's all what you make of your life." And then you go right back into a BOX. Oh, but poop happens!!!

  75. Destry Lack

    If he's ignorant, then what does that make you by attacking the person rather than what you're debating about. And since you have a limited understanding of EVERYTHING, it doesn't seem like to me this guy is the most ignorant person that EVER WAS.

  76. Gary Dale Farrington II

    There's a few fundamental flaws here. First: it's not really that atheists 'believe' in evolution. Indeed, it's a scientific theory that cannot be witnessed in its full scope due to the amount of time this process takes. However with the unlocking of the mysteries of DNA, biologists have been able to present loads of sound evidence pointing to the fact that life on Earth evolved over billions of years from single celled organisms. It's not faith that tells us any of this. It's just the math and science that do. Second: Faith and beliefs are not the realm of science. No scientist 'believes' in whatever theory they put forth. They simply put it forth as a discovery that they have been able to duplicate and prove through experimentation. Case in point; when bones older than Lucy were discovered (I believe they nicknamed them Ardi), scientists did not band together and say that they didn't believe in it. They all got together and did all the necessary studying and experiments to conclude that their original theory was wrong, and that they now had to include this new data into their collection of knowledge.Another point I'd like to make is the idea that the Earth gives us everything we need to survive as if it was some kind of descicion, or accident. It was neither. You seem to not have any kind of understanding of evolution, so I'll give you a very very quick crash course...First of all, our star came first. Not our planet. So the idea that the Earth provides us light is just plain silly. Anywho...Once our star formed, billions of years later, our little planet was able to form out of the debris from the sun (as were the rest of the planets in our system). Because our rock was just the right distance from the star, it would allow for liquid water to form on the surface. This is a mathematical probability. The amount of planets orbiting the habitable zone of their star (in our galaxy alone) is in the billions. Science will also tell you that the building blocks of life, the chemicals and elements necessary to even spark the chain of evolution, are quite abundant throughout the universe. Now once our little planet had finally formed and was a solid planet with a spinning molten core that creates an electromagnetic field, all it took was a rogue comet or asteroid carrying ice or some other kind of bacteria striking our planet, and the evolutionary process would be underway. It's not as if the Earth felt that there were animals and humans wandering around on it's surface, so it created light and air and food. All these things were in place before any living thing entered the picture. In fact, all these things allowed for life, not catered to it. If you're not playing devil's advocate, then you are quite the thinker aren't ya? "Oh s***, the human eye is so complex that I can't understand it. Must've been some kind of God. Oh man, I can't begin to understand the movements of the stars and how planets form. S***, that must've been God too." Let me ask you this? Do you go to the doctor? Why? doctor's have nothing to do with sickness, or curing disease. It's God's will. He makes people sick and he makes people well. So the next time someone you know gets really sick, say cancer or something. Don't trust science to take care of it. Because no matter how much chemo you take, or how much cancer treatment you get. It didn't work. If you got well, it was because God did it. So save yourself the money and just sit at home and pray.

  77. job38

    It is said that science and maths produce facts which support or provide doubt about a theory. How can we rely on these figures - isn't it because we believe there is such a thing as a fact (rules by which our world is governed)

    How can this co-exist in a world in which we also try and ask the question 'what is truth' and try to say that there are no absolutes, no ultimate rules which we should live by and no God who has put the rules in place.

    Regarding evolution - the question should be asked 'were you there?' when a star formed, when a planet came into being? Have you ever seen macro evolution take place? 'has anybody seen any of this? no!!! They are not observable facts which can be proved or disproved by science but theories which have arisen from an 'interpretation' of present day physical objects and assumptions about how we find them in the condition in which they are in.

    But these are not new questions. In the bible in Job ch.38 v 4 God asks the question of those who question him "where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." Job ch. 38-39 is full of God asking man the questions about the world which he created to show how little we do know.

    Who can truly say evolution happened cos I was there, I saw it.
    Just because people don't believe in God it does not remove Him from existence. As you say facts are facts.

  78. over the edge

    "Regarding evolution - the question should be asked 'were you there?' when a star formed, when a planet came into being" none of these things have anything to do with evolution period. next macroevolution is just lots of micro evolution dictionary dot com defines it as "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher" see the long term e-coli experiment where every stage of evolution of the sample of-e-coli has been observed and now after 50 000 generations there is a new species that thrives in citric acid (at the beginning the citric acid was harmful). evolution has been observed,tested and retested. we have fossils dna,anatomy,vestigial organs and appendages all observable by anyone who cares to look. this is going to sound rude (not meant to be) but you should educate yourself on a subject before making such statements. you imply that god is fact please show me these facts?

  79. over the edge

    i did not mean to imply that there was a criteria (there is tho in the faq but i don't think you said anything wrong) or that i have any authority on this site (and i don't) but some of your statements show a lack of a basic knowledge of evolution. next yes they still are e-coli but they are a different species and therefore "macro evolution" by definition. your definition of "kind" is not scientific and "evolution" is weather it be micro or macro (i hate those terms tho) ad you stated macro evolution never happened so i gave you a example based on the definition. i wrote a response to someone else on "the genius of charles darwin" with a link (so in moderation) for carbon dating. if you don't mind waiting for it to be posted there as i don't wish to repeat myself. on the religious side. if you believe in god and that gives you peace and makes you a better person please continue. i was raised roman catholic and as an atheist and as a believer i read the bible multiple times. i cannot quote it verbatim but i havestudied it. the bible has many contradictions with history and itself that make it unreliable as a book of facts. also the catholic chuurch (along with others) have stated that evolution is true. i have not looked at your links yet but i will and respond soon

  80. over the edge

    ok i went to your links. so you are a young earth creationist?
    i will answer the first link (15 questions)
    1 nothing to do with evolution
    2nothing to do with evolution
    3misinterpretation of evolution
    4natural selection isn't the creative process random mutations are
    5lol irreducible complexity really?
    6the fact it looks designed to creationists doesn't make it so and if it was designed why do we have wisdom teeth,tailbones,hernias,and many other useless or harmful parts?
    7cells didn't learn they mutated and the best suited survived
    8sex gives an opportunity to mix genes (diversity) and also provides two parents as opposed to one (asexual) which can provide benefits
    9they aren't all missing but please look up the conditions necessary and probabilities for a fossil to survive
    10they have changed but not much because they are so perfectly suited to their environment
    11evolution doesn't say there is no god. or claim the meaning for life
    12 ouch that one hurt the answer would be way too long please look up for yourself
    13really ok vaccines, genetic engineering, hiv/aids treatment, and so on
    14 yes you can do experiments to show evolution and we can test the evidence we have to test the past
    15 evolution is not a religion sorry
    creationism isn't accepted as science because it is not science. science studies the natural world and explains phenomena with natural causes religion (god) is supernatural so not science
    which one of our worldviews are correct? i cannot prove 100% i am right or 100% you are wrong but i am willing to compare facts and see who has more
    link 3 already answered
    link4 vestigial organs don't prove anything but when added to the growing pile of evidence it sure is convincing

    done finally lol
    ok i answered yours now for mine
    1where did all the water come from for the genesis flood?
    2can you give evidence for the universe being less then 10000 years old (i am assuming you are a young earther since all your links are from their site)
    3if god invented everything then can you prove evolution wasn't gods tool to make us?
    4 if intelligent complicated life needs a creator who created god?

  81. job38

    Hello again,
    you are very quick to respond. I was surprised you had read all the stuff on the links I sent you. I am sorry but other commitments means I cannot be so quick to reply and am not on the internet for long periods so though I got your message please be patient and I will try and reply in a few days time. Thanks
    But just to say your questions:-
    1. ok to answer, easy to explain from events spoken of in the bible. just need to check bible refs.
    2. Have to get the links (related to dating research example)
    3. straightforward but quite long answer (really a theological explanation which makes evolution and the bible totally incompatible)
    4. will be quick answer but need to think through the wording.

    Just thought to add this so you know I am not bowing out of the discussion but I have my limitations, timewise. Your answers to the links - it was good of you to go through all 15 questions, it must have taken some time but your answers really just expect me to take your word for it and look for evolutionary supporting evidence myself. I won't ask you about every question you answered but I heard Richard Dawkins in an interview say that he believes it is possible for aliens to have come to earth and put the information here on earth (I can't remember if he said in cells or what). He couldn't otherwise explain where the information came from. Is this a general view of evolutionists?? Just curious. Just was thinking of this when you answered that evolution was not a religion (fact not theory/belief).

    Just to respond to your comment which I only just saw about my use of the term 'kind'. I am sure there is a scientific term but I am using the term used in the bible and it best describes what I mean. The view from creationism agrees that there can be changes within a type of animal eg dog kind, so we can breed different types of dogs but they are still from the same animal family. The dog family would include fox, wolf, kyote as well as alsations, dalmations and mongrels. Same with people - there are chinese, african, european, short, tall blue eyed etc. etc but they are all human. I don't know how you would term 'scentifically' but I am sure it should be clear what I mean. If you want to call it evolution that's up to you but the term would give an impression of my beliefs which would be incorrect so I wouldn't use the term. However the ecoli experiment does not present me anything which would make me doubt my present view. I spoke to a friend of mine who studied biochemistry who also agreed that the information is present in the ecoli already and was selected out. She said that bacteria is very adaptable to environments but is not new information just information selection. I will try and email answers to your questions asap (probably in a few days)

  82. over the edge

    take your time responding no problem. also please don't take my word or the word of anybody else look it up yourself (from multiple sources) but when it comes to science listen to the experts not anybodies spin.

  83. Nikita2012

    TDF is a treasure trove of new information and knowledge. first time came to know about the interesting woman in the Bible - Lilith and now am tempted to watch the whole documentary :)

  84. job38

    Just to answer over the edge's q 1.
    1. Where did all the water come from for the flood.
    Genesis ch. 1v6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    It is thought that this is speaking of a type of water canopy which God created around the earth. Interestingly it is thought that this canopy would have been protective and would cause people and animals to live longer. (Interesting that those animals in the fossil record which are the same as the animals we see alive today always seem to be bigger - just an aside).

    In Genesis 7v11 it speaks of where the water came from as until this point there had been no rain but had mist went up from the ground every day to water it. but here in this verse when the flood came it says "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened and the rain rained upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

    The water therefore came from the canopy above the earth and from the fountains under the earth.

    It is believed that there would have been huge volcanic activity and tectonic plate movement during this time of flood.

  85. over the edge

    a water canopy over the earth would create so much pressure that almost all life would die. also the bible says the water receded so it would still be on the earth. where did it go? also that much fresh water into the oceans would dilute the salt content so much that salt water animals would die. also the temperature needed to keep all that water in vapor from would cook anything that survived the other changes

  86. job38

    Regarding over the edge's original question 3 - How can I prove that evolution wasn't God's tool to make us.

    I realise I haven't answered q. 2 yet but will come back to this if that's ok.

    q.3. Answer.
    A) The bible speaks about God creating the universe by speaking (not evolution) and only humans who were made in the image of God did he use tools to make (Adam - dust or clay from ground, Eve from Adam's rib) 'woman' meaning 'out of man' (image of God = things about humans which are characteristics of God's nature e.g. conscience, eternity, communion with God)

    Humans are distinctly different from animals in this way. Animals are not made in the image of God but we are. God breathed into Adam and made him a living soul, he did not do this to the animals. That's one thing.

    B) The bible speaks about that everything was perfect and good when it was first created.
    Evolution speaks about death and dying as good way in which the fittest survive and death is needed so the genes are passed on, mutations occur, diseased creatures die out and the best reproduces and the world develops.

    The bible says that sin entered into the world through man's disobedience of God and then death. Before this there was no death, disease, imperfection etc. according to the bible. So evolution = death before man, bible = death - by and through man (not before).

    C) The bible speaks about creation in 6 days and a day of rest. 6 literal days??? yes, to say otherwise is to twist the text and insert gaps where there are no gaps. Also other places in the bible where this is referred to e.g. the 10 commandments refers to
    9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work..11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodous 20 v 9,11.

    Should we therefore work for 6 million years and then rest for 1 million. Not trying to be cheeky but some people who wish to fit evolution into the bible try to take this sort of line. Genesis says the evening past, the morning came that was the first day.

    D) The whole message of the bible or gospel (the good news of Jesus Christ) - who is the embodiment of the revelation of God is that God made man perfect and our sin brought imperfection, separation from God, death, and his righteous judgement on Mankind. That is why we need a saviour to bring us back to a right relationship with God in which his justice and mercy are satisfied (and we can be forgiven).

    If evolution is true then death, disease and imperfection are just part of process by which we climbed from the slime pit to civilised human beings (using a general term of civilised as we humans are often involved in great 'uncivilised' atrocities). If evolution was true, we would not need a saviour, God is removed from the equation and hey.... (to take a biblical quote) "every man did that which was right in his own eyes". Evolution should teach us that no rules apply, race to the top fittest gets there first, cheating accepted as cunning and intelligent. That means that those who are seen as weak - disabled, mentally infirm, those from tribal peoples who would not be seen as civilised could all be theoretically wiped out. But isn't that what some historical dictators have done and we all stand aghast at their actions (and rightly so!!)

    This is why I do not believe that evolution was a tool used by God to make us. I hope what I have said is clear.

    There may be other things I could add to why evolution does not fit into the biblical account of how God made us but its getting late and I need some sleep. I believe the bible is the word of God, it's his book written to us not our book to re-interpret and change because there are bits that don't suit us. The bible itself says that it is the word of God and that every word of God is pure and that as a whole it is preserved by God. Near the beginning, the middle and the end it has verses which say that no-one should add to, or take away anything from this book. If we say we take most of it but cannot trust the first few chapters in Genesis then how can we trust the middle bits or the end bits, or the bits about Jesus, or about heaven and hell. This would not be logical or consistent.

    I hope my comments will not annoy people. I hope to answer the other questions of 'over the edge' later. sorry it took me a while answer 'over the edge' - life gets busy.

    Just to say I made 2 other posts before this one and they have not appeared, not sure why. I had links to websites, would that mean they need approval before they are seen here. I never saved a draft of them or anything so hopfully they will appear later (one was about the water canopy and one about the ecoli) If they don't appear and you can go on creation ministries website and do a search for water canopy (whole chapter on it) and ecoli (shortish article on it). Will save me writing the posts again, if thats ok

  87. over the edge

    thank you for responding. but (there had to be a but). i cannot take the bible as a source of facts , while it mat be true to you it is too full of errors ,contradictions with itself, contradicts history and was written long after the alleged time of christ by unknown authors. i know that sounded harsh and if you wish not to go into this discussion i will understand. also the reason my answers sounded like absolutes is because some of them are. the evidence gathered is so overwhelming that the only way to not agree is to be willfully blind. the site you continue to link to (yes i read all your links. even 1 not addressed to me) either has no concept of science or understands science and is being dishonest. Behe is mentioned several times on this site. he has been shown wrong by science many times and even a christian judge (dover trial) found him to be dishonest and wrong. nothing i pointed out proves your beliefs wrong. i learned a long time ago that i cannot disprove god. all i ask is that religion is kept away from science , public schools,my family,my wallet and my politics (that one is hard). and in return i will keep my thoughts out of church.while i look forward to your responses to my other questions please also include proof that i can see and check for myself.something tangible outside of the bible. also i will not read any more links from the site the info given to challenge evolution and or science is wrong and i believe them to be lying as opposed to just ignorant. that is not a reflection on yourself only the site

  88. nate_171

    belief in the end, no matter what ideas your faith dwells on is your God.

  89. Beth Lockett

    lol...dont be silly. Do your research friend.

  90. over the edge

    @Beth Lockett
    exactly what do you think i got wrong? i would love to respond but your response is too vague

  91. George11924900

    Over the edge, I could not help but over hear your comment about the bible. I though the same way as you did, however, I have studies the bible and there is no contradictions, I would be concern more so if it did not have a few minor errors.
    Lord bless

  92. over the edge

    you state "however, I have studies the bible and there is no contradictions," i disagree. i will give some one at a time if you wish to explain them to me. lets start with the birth of Jesus.
    Luke 2:1-2:5
    "2 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife,[a] who was with child"

    so Quirinius was governing Syria from ad6-12 and if there was a census it was 6-7 ad. they were there because the census ordered them to return to ancestral home. and came from Nazareth

    2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem
    21 Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

    so Herod was king but he died in 4bce. no census mentioned. move to Nazareth after birth

    so for the birth of the most important person in history they disagree on when he was born ,who was in charge,why they were there and where his parents came from. not only that if the Romans demanded that a person returns to their ancestral home the empire would collapse. and there is no record of a census taking place during the birth period. so they contradict each other,logic and history.

  93. Lorna Kennedy

    There is not a chance i,m putting myself through four and a half hours of this. Its pure muck. They are not mysteries, its just emphasising all the things that dont add up. Mysteries Ha ya mean inconsistencies.

  94. killerinside

    So explain your point in commenting then... Smug know it all. Grow up.

  95. mannyalbite

    Just because it has not been revealed to you
    you say
    is not
    open be

  96. mannyalbite

    The bible could show you a lot
    the spirit will show you the truth
    all you need for step 1
    change don't waste you precious time in this meaningless
    go OUT do GOOD
    and STOP sinning

  97. mannyalbite

    Leave the rest to your Creator

  98. Kateye70

    Song lyrics?

  99. stacie with a ie....

    mystery, or inconsisencies....its still gotta be better than "the voice" or any of those other s*upid reality t.v. crap that everyone seems to be into!

Leave a comment / review: