found this text? please help disprove?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2014, 02:35 PM
found this text? please help disprove?
Please help me to explain this? I have only just found this, to be honest religion is worrying me so much I just want to disprove it, I set out to disprove it and end up believing in it more Undecided

I found this, i'm not really sure what it's about but I think it's some sort of Jewish text written a long time ago, that talks about science?

http://www.revealingscienceofgod.com/ind...icipations

Thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
Kabbalah is ancient Jewish mysticism reborn into new age woo.

Welcome to our community.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-08-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
Welcome aboard.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
Thanks for the welcome Smile so this is made up stuff? I'm really confused by all this? thanks again
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
Why believe something that claims science is part of it's proof? Why not just accept that science can provide answers without the woo?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
22-08-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
Welcome, anything like that to me just seems to be old writings rewritten to fit the times.

Any religion can be rewritten over and over again and people will be fooled into thinking its still the original perfectly translated text from like 5000 years ago or whatever. I can rewrite every single bible in all sects to make them say that the 4th commandment stats that you shall impregnant your siblings and daughters and the little girls that live in the house next to you and every Christian on the planet would never question it. They would just accept it as truth and try to work it out later...

Just like this guy here.
[Image: bible-quote.jpg]


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
Why do you need to disprove it?

Shouldn't it first need to be proven to you?

If so... how did it convince you?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
22-08-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
(22-08-2014 02:46 PM)harveywales Wrote:  Thanks for the welcome Smile so this is made up stuff? I'm really confused by all this? thanks again

It's reengineered for today. Modern woo -- like magic crystals and wearing a bracelet that will cleanse your whole body.

It's like the people who read Nostradamus and talk about things he predicted. The veracity of such predictions are always open to speculation.

He wrote for his time, nothing more -- but people will try to make circles from squares to try to convince otherwise.

They discount the misses and focus on what they call hits.

It's a common thread throughout all mythology, tall tales and legends.

All religions and holy books stem from some sort of mythology.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-08-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
(22-08-2014 03:12 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 02:46 PM)harveywales Wrote:  Thanks for the welcome Smile so this is made up stuff? I'm really confused by all this? thanks again

It's reengineered for today. Modern woo -- like magic crystals and wearing a bracelet that will cleanse your whole body.

It's like the people who read Nostradamus and talk about things he predicted. The veracity of such predictions are always open to speculation.

He wrote for his time, nothing more -- but people will try to make circles from squares to try to convince otherwise.

They discount the misses and focus on what they call hits.

It's a common thread throughout all mythology, tall tales and legends.

All religions and holy books stem from some sort of mythology.

thanks so much for the help Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes harveywales's post
22-08-2014, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 03:33 PM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: found this text? please help disprove?
Well copernicus was an astronomer in the 15th century, and a white guy. His discoveries where hardly secret, and even less religious.

Saying the age of the earth is enumerable is hardly scientific, or even prophetic. Just because darwin said the same thing doesn't make the coincidence very telling. Darwin had great theories about biology, his area of expertise was not in geology or in any science used to date the age of the planet. At the time, accurate measurements where not even possible.

Quote:Evolution of life - Zohar states that living creatures came into being through a long process that began when Elohim made the "elements differentiate with powers of attraction and cohesion, and the power of repulsion" to form larger clusters. These basic clusters of the elements further grouped together to develop "the elaboration of forms and bodies" in an "evolutionary" process. All living things owe their existence to living things that came before them, and this process has been going on for too many years to accurately measure. Is this not precisely what Darwin told us?

No. That is not at all what Darwin said.

Quote:Extinction - Kabbalism rejects the entire notion of species extinction. Rather, when the Earth's environment changes sufficiently, the forms of creatures naturally change in order to survive in the new environment. Zohar states "There is no annihilation" of species. This was also Darwin's opinion on the matter. He said that species tranmutation is often so extreme that it seems as if a species has gone extinct, but actually the species has transmutated into an entirely different form. The older, less survivable form dies out and the new form prolifierates.

Not accurate. Not science. I don't believe Darwin said that.

Quote:And, etc. - There are many, many more anticipations of Darwin to be found in Zohar, but these should give the reader a good idea of the high degree of similarity between Kabbalistic evolutionary theory and Darwin's evolutionary theory. One key difference, though, is that Darwin uses the term "evolve" only once in his The Origin of Species, and never uses the term "evolution" or any other derivative of the term. On the other hand, the use of "evolutionary" terms in Zohar are many and diverse.

Who cares if they used the word "evolution" to describe something that was not at all evolution? Besides of which, evolution being the best translation of whatever word they actually used. Beside of which does it matter anyway, because evolution describes the process of natural selection, which actually is a specific and scientific term.

Quote:Big Bang - The incredibly precise anticipation of the Big Bang Theory to be found in Zohar's explanation of the creation story in Genesis is literally unbelievable. Believe it! It's there. All of it. Every step in Big Bang precisely corresponds to every step in the Zohar explication of Genesis, and vice versa. The words used by each are often identical. You won't find "quantum singularity" in Zohar, but the number of actual terminological coincidences is quite disarming. (Zohar Books I-IV, VII-III)

"Believe me it's true" is not compelling evidence, even if the claim is so inconsequential as "their interpretation of genesis was just like it". Even if they did interpret genesis so that it sounded a lot like the big bang, that doesn't mean they correctly predicted the big bang. It's a novel coincidence at best.

Quote:Temporal theory - Kabbalism has never taught that time is the measure of change. Rather, we measure the operation of time in intervals of change. In other words, Kabbalists have always treated time as a force of nature. Further, if the seed of creation occured at the first moment of the divine timepiece, the divine timepiece must have wound up to the first moment before the seed of creation happened. In other words, before there was physical substance there was time. Time is prior to substance. This is precisely what Hawking said in his seminal paper on temporal theory in 1971, albeit in quite different terms. Hawking refers to the cosmic clock, and there were no clocks other than the movements of heavenly bodies 4000 years ago. Further, modern scientific cosmologists now treat time as the fundemental force of our universal cosmos. Without it, change would not be possible, and the only true constant in our universe is change itself. (Zohar Book XXIII)

Word salad. Time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. If Stephen Hawking said that it did (and I would wager he didn't) then Stephen Hawking was wrong, and so were the Kabbalists.

There is nothing particularly interesting here. This doesn't support or prove the bible. At best kabbalists had some novel ideas that happened to be similar to science discovered after their time - even this being a strenuous stretch given the information linked in the OP.

Ancient woo brought back as modern woo sounds accurate enough.

Just worth noting, there are a number of spelling and grammar errors in the link. That doesn't prove its wrong, but it does show a lack of professionalism. This certainly doesn't carry the tone one would expect from an academic source.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: