World's oldest rock found in W. Australia; 4.374 billion years

[Everythingg]

I already showed you.​

Actually you showed this:

Which contains human letters and concepts (periods, commas). You have yet to exemplify how this applies to the universe and can be used as a means to communicate with anyone in the universe.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Actually you showed this:

I answered this question:​

How can you use math or instrumental sounds to communicate your answer?

Morse Code is a series of mathematically-patterned sounds which enables communication.
​

Which contains human letters and concepts (periods, commas). You have yet to exemplify how this applies to the universe and can be used as a means to communicate with anyone in the universe.

The video exemplifies a means of communication to any sentient being in the Universe. If you still have a problem understanding the concept, try using a pattern of sounds on a dog, a cat, a fish, and a 5-year-old child and see which one can repeat it. Math, by it's very nature, is nothing more than patterns.​

 

[Czar]

One isnt going to take the greek version of the Hebrew version. The tanakh doesnt have it and the dead sea scrolls doesnt have it. Not to mention that its not the law

Breh, the Septuagint was translated from older scrolls than those found in the dead sea.

And the Masoretic text, aka the Tankah, DOES have it.

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

You seem to be under the impression that everything was just uniform under the jews of that period. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been such a strong rift between the Sadducees (Strictly Torah), The Pharisees (There own oral tradition along with Torah) and the Essenes (a mixture of weird things). Ironically, the Essenes are traditionally associated as the writers of the dead sea scrolls (Although that's still an issue of debate)

Regardless, there are things in those scrolls which weren't in either the Tanakh or Septuagint.

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

The scrolls have traditionally been identified with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this association and argue that the scrolls were penned by priests in Jerusalem, Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups.[5][6]

Due to the poor condition of some of the Scrolls, not all of them have been identified. Those that have been identified can be divided into three general groups: (1) some 40% of them are copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible, (2) approximately another 30% of them are texts from the Second Temple Period and which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and (3) the remaining roughly 30% of them are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and The Rule of the Blessing.[7]

Did this contrast have anything to do with Saul being called a fake jew? Because I dont remember that part in there but maybe you can make your contrast more clearer?

The contrast had to do with how natural Israelites, or rather, those born into the tribes, weren't keeping Torah and were ultimately destroyed. Yet we have examples of Proselytes doing the will of the creator and gaining his favor. Scripture even has an entire scroll dedicated to one (Ruth).

Esther is not in the dead sea scrolls which was a group of people from the house of Israel. Thus they were following every book we have in the OT except Esther for some reason. Not to mention that it doesnt hold precedence over the law

Yet it is in the Septuagint, which again, uses older scrolls than those found in the dead sea. Lol what part of that are you not understanding? You seem to be under the impression that the Dead sea scrolls were literally the ONLY set of scrolls ever created in hebrew.

How about Ruth being in all versions of scripture. She was a Moabite, yet she was accepted into the lord's flock despite the law against Moabites and Ammonites. In fact, David had a Moabite and Ammonite in his army in 1st Chronicles 11:39-46.

But as The Most High told Moses in Exodus 33:19." I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion"

He also made himself very clear in Isaiah 56:1-8

This is what the Lord says:
“Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.
2 Blessed is the one who does this—
the person who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
and keeps their hands from doing any evil.”

3 Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,“The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let no eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.”

4 For this is what the Lord says:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Sovereign Lord declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.”

Oh and does Leviticus 19:33-34 say the foreigner is now an Israelite? Or does it say that the foreigner would be treated in the same way as an Israelite? Because these are two different things of course.

What did the lord say? No stranger uncircumcised could enter into his assembly, not even the foreigner living amongst the Israelites and treated as one.

Ezekiel 44:9 mentions foreigners

Ezekiel 47 mentions foreigners as well as treating them the same as an Israelite born doesnt say they become Israelites especially since it continues to call them foreigners

It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger dwells, there you shall give him his inheritance,” says the Lord God.

That's going alot deeper than just saying "be nice to them" as you're implying. They are literally a part of the fold at that point and given an inheritence. These same people must also keep Torah, as is plainly stated in Exodus 12:49

"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

No they were not. Thats why in verse 38 it differentiates them by saying "MANY OTHER PEOPLE WENT UP WITH THEM.... In each of your verses that are supposed to be supporting your stance, its differentiating Israelite from foreigner. Not in the way they're treated, but just the bloodline. Not everyone is a son of Jacob friend.

Lol now you're just being hard headed for the sake of pride. Obviously it's making a contrast in terms of who is who, that's common sense. But ultimately, it is letting you know that those who joined with Israel were considered one with the native-born people.

What part of that are you not understanding?

When David was king of Israel, he had foreigners in his army. Was his army known as the army of Israel, plus the foreigners converts? Or were they simple known as the army of Israel? Lol

But if we use your logic one would conclude that Israel and Judah are two different people, since the OT makes distinctions between them after their split.

Nowhere does it say they become Israelites. Just that they are one in the same (in treatment) as Israel. But Israelite refers to a PHYSICAL son of Jacob. That doesnt mean that a person cannot come and be as an Israelite abiding by the God of their ancestors(Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). What Im referring to is that they're not a son of Jacob.

Which is fine. What I'm telling you is they are still considered one with Israel. The difference is obvious. One is native-born, the other is a convert.

But onto the creator, they are one people. Or does it not say the Egyptians and Assyrians would worship together with Israel in Isaiah 19:20-25? Even calling the Egyptians my people...

 

[Czar]

The pattern I notice is that all your passages differentiate ISRAELITE (son of Jacob) from foreigner (not son of Jacob). Not that these people live by a different law when worshiping the Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not that these people are considered less important than the sons of Jacob. Not that these people will be rejected for not being sons of Jacob. Just that they are not sons of Jacob. And each one of your passages made it abundantly clear by differentiating them by calling one set "foreigner" and the other set "native born" or "Israelite".

Yet the Most High tells them to treat the foreigners just like the native-born.

Just as he chose a foreigner in Abraham to be the father of many nations... Or did you assume Abraham was already born with the promise guaranteed to him?

I wouldnt call you telling me that the same law applying to the foreigner and Israelite means that the foreigner is all of a sudden an Israelite as "rock solid proof". I also wouldnt call quoting Maccabees and Esther as "rock solid proof" either. But all in all an Israelite is a son of Jacob. I dont get whats so hard to understand about it but I guess if you want to make it harder than it has to be, go with your THEORY.

A theory that apparently appears all throughout scripture.

One which you've gone outta your way to deflect by consciously rejecting certain scrolls, along with rejecting a historical account from an 1st century Jew (Josephus).

That's too bad, cause history and scripture are pretty clear in telling you that converts were seen as one in the same with those who were born Israelites. They and their children had to follow the same Torah, received the same blessings, the same inheritance, etc

To him, they were ALL equal.

We even see that in the New Testament. Drusilla is called a Jew in Acts 24:24. Her father King Herod Agrippa was of Idumean descent. Yet the Idumeans became Jews under the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty of Judah. The book of Maccabees are the historical accounts of that dynasty. Yet you don't accept those cause "they weren't in the dead sea scrolls"

How about those events took places AFTER the given date of 400 BCE for the Qumran texts.

And yet nowhere in the OT is one called a "Fake" for not following the law of God Almighty despite many instances where it could have happened. None of what you said here changes this fact and the fact that nowhere in the law or the prophets does it say foreigners will become sons of Jacob. What it does say is that they will become AS the Israelite. But that is in treatment and responsibility that comes with worshiping the God of Abraham. This is open to people of all backgrounds. But they wont just hop up and become sons of Jacob without the bloodline.

"Fake" has been OUR terminology in our discussion. The text in Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 doesn't use that word at all. It simply says those who claim to be Jews, but are a Synagogue of Satan.

Just as the Pharisees were men who claimed to be Jews (i.e keepers of Torah) but were really wolves in sheep's clothing.

But the Old Testament sure does use words such as "destroyed, cut off and rejected" alot in reference to Israel and Judah.

So I pose this question.... will men like Saul and Solomon be counted on that day JUST because they were native-born Israelites? Or have they already made their bed?

Well that word is not "literally Judaism". What it is referring to is the way that the jews followed. This way was not Judaism. Nowhere did Moses instruct Israel to follow Judaism. Nowhere did Abraham instruct Isaac to follow Judaism. Same with the prophets and the instructions they gave on the behalf of their God.
So try again friend. If you're going to give it another go, go ahead and go the law and exemplify where Moses instructed the house of Israel to follow Judaism. If you cant, well my point is proven.

Breh.... You really aren't all there are you?

I guess you just went ahead and forgot the part where the Kingdom of Israel (Which didn't even exist in Moses time) was split in two. You done left out the part where the lord said he would destroy Israel, yet save Judah (Hosea 1:6-7).

You done left out the part where even the Levites referred to their faith as Judaism, which would make alotta sense considering everything was handed over to Judah, including the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. But I guess their opinions don't count either. I mean, it wasn't like Moses and Arron weren't Levites right, lol.
I guess you gonna argue about the land being referred to as Judea next.

Furthermore, nowhere in scripture are the scrolls referred to as the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) yet that hasn't stopped you from referring to them as such.

 

[blackslash]

answersingenesis.org

real credible

if ur not gonna follow the valid logic and attempt to deny the necessary distinction between historical and observational science simply to laugh at the source..then do u


Just shows u merely cant think for urself..


wait hol up aint u that same nikka that I sonned on that Atheist thread talm bout morals when u couldnt even provide a foundation for that sht that stayed consistent with your worldview


Face facts...u lack critical thinking skills and are only able to think within the confines that mainstream education allows u to think in


In other words u aint sht nikka

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

if ur not gonna follow the valid logic and attempt to deny the necessary distinction between historical and observational science simply to laugh at the source..then do u


Just shows u merely cant think for urself..


wait hol up aint u that same nikka that I sonned on that Atheist thread talm bout morals when u couldnt even provide a foundation for that sht that stayed consistent with your worldview


Face facts...u lack critical thinking skills and are only able to think within the confines that mainstream education allows u to think in


In other words u aint sht nikka

You aint never talked to me before

what's a backslash? that's a asscrack

 

[Chris.B]

I refuse to entertain this nonsense.

Get this shyt out of here

 

[Propaganda]

But you know none of your fellow brethren thought music was the universal language right?

Not to mention what you brought forth was fiction. How can you say musical notes are the universal language? Im sure you wouldnt go there, but if you want to I'll let you do it yourself.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I already showed him, but he's trying too hard to be oblivious.​

 

[Mr swag]

There's probably far older rocks deep within the earth that we can't access, but to find something that old on the surface is pretty cool.​

In the middle of the ocean were we can't even get to will have the oldest rocks

 

[Everythingg]

Yet the Most High tells them to treat the foreigners just like the native-born.

Just as he chose a foreigner in Abraham to be the father of many nations... Or did you assume Abraham was already born with the promise guaranteed to him?

A foreigner? Abraham wasnt a foreigner to Israel since Israel didnt exist so I dont see what you're trying to get at.

Im still waiting for you to show where a foreigner is said to become an Israelite. I already said they get the same treatment. If you cant show the law saying they will become Israelites well then

A theory that apparently appears all throughout scripture.

One which you've gone outta your way to deflect by consciously rejecting certain scrolls, along with rejecting a historical account from an 1st century Jew (Josephus).

That's too bad, cause history and scripture are pretty clear in telling you that converts were seen as one in the same with those who were born Israelites. They and their children had to follow the same Torah, received the same blessings, the same inheritance, etc

To him, they were ALL equal.

We even see that in the New Testament. Drusilla is called a Jew in Acts 24:24. Her father King Herod Agrippa was of Idumean descent. Yet the Idumeans became Jews under the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty of Judah. The book of Maccabees are the historical accounts of that dynasty. Yet you don't accept those cause "they weren't in the dead sea scrolls"

How about those events took places AFTER the given date of 400 BCE for the Qumran texts.

Nah your THEORY doesnt hold weight because you still havent shown in the law or the prophets that states that a person can become a son of Jacob. All you can show is their treatment. I didnt say they would be treated different. But an Israelite is a son of Jacob. Not a religion. Not a walk of life. Which is why I asked you to show where a person in the OT was called a "fake" son of Israel. Couldnt find it could you? Oh and I didnt mean a literal translation of fake. I want you to exemplify a person being a "fake" son of Jacob by their actions. Can you find it? I mean you have many kings that did evil in the sight of the Almighty, where were they called fake sons of Jacob?

Why dont I accept Maccabees? Though you didnt ask, I'll tell you anyways. Where in the law or the prophets does it advocate praying for the dead? Or saints making intercession? It doesnt does it?

"Fake" has been OUR terminology in our discussion. The text in Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 doesn't use that word at all. It simply says those who claim to be Jews, but are a Synagogue of Satan.

Just as the Pharisees were men who claimed to be Jews (i.e keepers of Torah) but were really wolves in sheep's clothing.

But the Old Testament sure does use words such as "destroyed, cut off and rejected" alot in reference to Israel and Judah.

So I pose this question.... will men like Saul and Solomon be counted on that day JUST because they were native-born Israelites? Or have they already made their bed?

Who said anything of Saul or Solomon or any Israelite being accepted just because they were Israelites? Who said that foreigners who are not SONS OF JACOB will be rejected because of this? NOT I. I've said the same thing all along. An Israelite is a son of Jacob. Not a religion. Not a walk of life lol.

A jew is not a keeper of the torah. But a descendant of the tribe of Judah. Solomon was from the tribe of Judah despite his shortcomings. Can you bring an example of where the OT uses "destroyed cut off and rejected" and lets see if it refers to them as not being from the tribe of Judah anymore? Nobody said that an Israelite is going to be accepted no matter what so Im not sure what you're getting at by insinuating that this is my argument. Maybe you're just arguing to argue?

Breh.... You really aren't all there are you?

I guess you just went ahead and forgot the part where the Kingdom of Israel (Which didn't even exist in Moses time) was split in two. You done left out the part where the lord said he would destroy Israel, yet save Judah (Hosea 1:6-7).

And yet none of this has anything to do with the FACT that the way Israel was supposed to follow for ALL generations was never called Judaism when it was first given to them

You done left out the part where even the Levites referred to their faith as Judaism, which would make alotta sense considering everything was handed over to Judah, including the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. But I guess their opinions don't count either. I mean, it wasn't like Moses and Arron weren't Levites right, lol.
I guess you gonna argue about the land being referred to as Judea next.

Furthermore, nowhere in scripture are the scrolls referred to as the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) yet that hasn't stopped you from referring to them as such.

Where did the Levites refer to their faith as Judaism?

I really dont refer to it as the Tanakh and I dont like referring to it as the OT but I do so so the person Im speaking with understands me. If I have an understanding with the person, I usually refer to it as the law and the prophets

 

[Everythingg]

Breh, the Septuagint was translated from older scrolls than those found in the dead sea.

And the Masoretic text, aka the Tankah, DOES have it.

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

You seem to be under the impression that everything was just uniform under the jews of that period. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been such a strong rift between the Sadducees (Strictly Torah), The Pharisees (There own oral tradition along with Torah) and the Essenes (a mixture of weird things). Ironically, the Essenes are traditionally associated as the writers of the dead sea scrolls (Although that's still an issue of debate)

Breh if you believe Moses then you would also believe that you are not simply going to accept any prophet that comes in the name of the God of Abraham since their have been and will be false prophets. Soooooooooo..... Maccabees teaches things contrary to what was given to Israel. There for it gets the treatment.

I mean how can you read maccabees, see the doctrine presented in it, and agree with it if you've also read the law and the prophets?

Regardless, there are things in those scrolls which weren't in either the Tanakh or Septuagint.

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


The contrast had to do with how natural Israelites, or rather, those born into the tribes, weren't keeping Torah and were ultimately destroyed. Yet we have examples of Proselytes doing the will of the creator and gaining his favor. Scripture even has an entire scroll dedicated to one (Ruth).

I guess Im abouta be done wit this lol. You keep insinuating that Im saying that a foreigner is less than an Israelite. NOPE. You keep insinuating that Im saying that an Israelite will be accepted no matter what. NOPE. What Im saying is that foreigners do not become sons of Jacob. That is physical. They can be accepted just as Israel is and get the same treatment that Israel does. But they do not become sons of Israel. Now that you brought up Ruth, where does it say she became a daughter of Israel?

Yet it is in the Septuagint, which again, uses older scrolls than those found in the dead sea. Lol what part of that are you not understanding? You seem to be under the impression that the Dead sea scrolls were literally the ONLY set of scrolls ever created in hebrew.

How about Ruth being in all versions of scripture. She was a Moabite, yet she was accepted into the lord's flock despite the law against Moabites and Ammonites. In fact, David had a Moabite and Ammonite in his army in 1st Chronicles 11:39-46.

But as The Most High told Moses in Exodus 33:19." I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion"

He also made himself very clear in Isaiah 56:1-8

What are you not getting about the law holding precedence over everything after it? So the Maccabees would get the treatment because it teaches things contrary to what the law does. Not to mention that the best you could do from the law is showing that foreigners would be treated the same as Israel. They wouldnt get lesser treatment for being foreigners. Very well, I never disagreed with that. Why cant you show the law stating that foreigners would become sons of Israel? Is it not there?

So again, I've never said that foreigners will not be accepted. Can you stop insinuating that? I mean at least keep the convo honest breh

That's going alot deeper than just saying "be nice to them" as you're implying. They are literally a part of the fold at that point and given an inheritence. These same people must also keep Torah, as is plainly stated in Exodus 12:49

"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

I've said all along that they get the same treatment
I've said all along that they would not be rejected for not being an Israelite.
I've said all along that an Israelite will not simply be accepted for being an Israelite.

And ultimately, I've said that they (the foreigners) would not become Israelites. Well intermingling can occur of course so I guess in that manner they could. But not simply by believing in the God of Abraham. Which is why all your verses differentiate them by calling one "foreigner" and the other "Israelite" or "native born".

Lol now you're just being hard headed for the sake of pride. Obviously it's making a contrast in terms of who is who, that's common sense. But ultimately, it is letting you know that those who joined with Israel were considered one with the native-born people.

What part of that are you not understanding?

When David was king of Israel, he had foreigners in his army. Was his army known as the army of Israel, plus the foreigners converts? Or were they simple known as the army of Israel? Lol

You're getting desperate Thats all that needs to be said breh. I never said that foreigners would not be accepted. I never said they wouldnt get the benefits that Israel got. What Im saying is that NOWHERE in the law or the prophets does it state that they will become sons of Israel. All you can show is treatment.

And again, if it differentiates them, then well you know they're not Israelites.

But if we use your logic one would conclude that Israel and Judah are two different people, since the OT makes distinctions between them after their split.




Which is fine. What I'm telling you is they are still considered one with Israel. The difference is obvious. One is native-born, the other is a convert.

But onto the creator, they are one people. Or does it not say the Egyptians and Assyrians would worship together with Israel in Isaiah 19:20-25? Even calling the Egyptians my people...

No. If you used my logic you would know why I dont consider anyone that is not a son of Jacob an Israelite. Therefore Judah would still be an Israelites as they are still sons of Jacob. So why were they differentiated? Well that is because their kingdom was separated from the rest of Israel. But you knew that already

You dont seem to get it. I NEVER said a foreigner would not be accepted by God Almighty. But the fact that they're called "Egyptians" and "Assyrians" shows that they are not suddenly sons of Israel just by worshiping the God of Abraham. You can look at King Cyrus being called God's anointed one in the same manner. He didnt become a son of Israel because of it. Because a son is a PHYSICAL descendant. Not a walk of life. There will be many sons of Israel that continue idol worshiping. There will be many sons of Israel that perish along with foreigners for not following the God of their ancestors. So being an Israelite isnt a "get out of jail free" card. But it is a bloodline.

 

[Everythingg]

I answered this question:​

Morse Code is a series of mathematically-patterned sounds which enables communication.
​

The video exemplifies a means of communication to any sentient being in the Universe. If you still have a problem understanding the concept, try using a pattern of sounds on a dog, a cat, a fish, and a 5-year-old child and see which one can repeat it. Math, by it's very nature, is nothing more than patterns.​

Fix your word usage my friend:

Universal definition: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole

So it doesnt pertain to the whole but only select beings then its not universal now is it? Wait Im not done.

Communication definition: the imparting or exchanging of information or news.

I guess its more than getting the other to repeat sounds to you

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Fix your word usage my friend:

Universal definition: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole

Well, it actually is Universal. You see, the Fibonacci Sequence is found in ALL of Nature. Therefore, it is a characteristic of the whole Universe.
​

This sequence can continue on forever. As it turns out, Fibonacci numbers are one of Nature's numbering systems. Not only do they appear in population growth of rabbits, but everywhere in Nature. From the leaf arrangements in plants, all the way to structures in outer space.

Fibonacci Numbers are directly and intricately related to another very special math formula that is found all throughout life and the physical universe. This is the Golden Ratio or “Phi” (as it is more commonly known). It is an irrational number who’s decimal place is never-ending, non-repeating and goes on forever

How is the Golden Ratio related to Fibonacci numbers? If we were to divide each consecutive Fibonacci number, instead of adding., we find the results gradually converge on The Golden Ratio.

http://wellaware1.com/docs/ear/fibonaccipdf.pdf

My usage of the word in this instance is absolutely correct.
​

 

[Everythingg]

Well, it actually is Universal. You see, the Fibonacci Sequence is found in ALL of Nature. Therefore, it is a characteristic of the whole Universe.
​

http://wellaware1.com/docs/ear/fibonaccipdf.pdf

​

Nature isnt the universe friend

You still havent explained the communication that is supposed to be going on using these friend