Surely the obliteration of the Jewish people is what was supposed to happen soon after the Messiah came lol. Exactly as the Prophets foretold lmao. I wonder why Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah lmfao.
>>18424374Yes absolutely, the prophecies are very clear that this would happen shortly after the Messiah died. Daniel 9:26-27 says "And after the sixty-two sets of seven years, the anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the ruler who is to come shall destroy the city and the temple. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed."It's explicit that after the Messiah dies, war and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple follow.
>>18424531This passage refers to the Maccabean Revolt after the fact and pretends it prophecied it. Daniel is an obvious Jewish propaganda piece.
>>18424544>This passage refers to the Maccabean RevoltNot possible as it gives a specific countdown to when the Messiah would die. It matches exactly with Christ but terminates long after the Maccabean revolt.Daniel 9:24-26 has the prophecy, it says: "Listen, and understand. Seven sets of seven years plus sixty-two sets of seven years will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a ruler – the Messiah – comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the distressing times. After this period of sixty-two sevens, the Messiah will be killed…"Fortunately, it later tells us when to start the countdown. Nehemiah 2:1 states that King Artaxerxes of Persia gave the order in his “twentieth year”, which was 445 BC, according to Britannica at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36741/Artaxerxes-I, in "the month of Nisan" (the Hebrew month corresponding to our March and April).So, knowing this, we can calculate exactly when it’s saying the Messiah would die. From the command being given to rebuild Jerusalem to the death of the Messiah is 483 years. We need to convert the date, as the timekeeping system Daniel was using was slightly different from our’s.Our Gregorian year has 365.25 days, while the Babylonian one Daniel was using had 360 days.So going back to the calculations, 360(days in the year) * 483(number of years) = 173880 (total days). 173880/365.25 = 476 years under our calendar. 476 years after 445 BC is 32 AD.So according to the prediction, the Messiah would die in of 32 AD.Luke 3:1 tells us that Jesus began his ministry “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”. Tiberius began to reign in 14 AD, according to here. So 29 AD was his fifteenth year.Jesus’ ministry lasted for three years, and then he was crucified.Since his ministry began in 29 AD, that means the year of his death would have been 32 AD. Exactly Daniel's countdown to the Messiah's death.
AIslop dogshit seething heeb retard thread
>>18424562LLMs say you cherrypicked the decree to restore Jerusalem as there were many. The 360 day year is made up. The Artaxerxes reign and Jesus's death dates are disputed. Messiah in the context could mean a priest or a regular ruler.Still it's pretty cool that it's possible to stretch things to make it look like Jesus was foretold. Thanks. I love it. I still won't become a Christian because Genesis is too funny.
>>18424661>LLMs say you cherrypicked the decree to restore Jerusalem as there were many. They are slightly confused. Ask them about the other decrees and they will specifically be about rebuilding the Temple, not Jerusalem. >The 360 day year is made up. Not so! Babylonian documents illustrate it clearly. The Babylonian Diviner's Manual, a document Babylonian diviners used, says according to https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/360day-administrative-year-in-ancient-israel-judahite-portable-calendars-and-the-flood-account/8F5696178CD94A096EA16DC811FC787D "Twelve months per year; 360 its days."Or look at the Babylonian document called the Mul.Apin, made in the very same century as Daniel lived according to http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070528/full/news070528-11.html, which says in Column 3, lines 49-50 that “Daily the stars in the morning go [1 US] into the night, daily the stars in the evening go [1 US] into the day”. As noted in this paper: http://www.caeno.org/pdf/Brown_Mesopotamian%20astronomy%20113-120.pdf on page 117, in this section the “Mul.Apin states that the stars move by 1 US (relative to the Sun) each day. Given that an US is 1/360th of a revolution…one full rotation, or year, would take 360 days. It is the ‘ideal year’…”>because Genesis is too funny.In what way? Perhaps I can explain
>>18424714Genesis claims things that are scientifically known to be untrue. Like the 6 creation days and such. This makes me not take Christianity seriously.
>>18424743You need to be 18 to post here
Also I am putting on a name since trolls like >>18424848 are coming in>>18424743>Genesis claims things that are scientifically known to be untrue. Like the 6 creation days and such.I think the evidence is strong for what Genesis says! Here's the simplest demonstration, it's something you can see any day or night. Ever notice that the sun and the moon are the same size in the sky?It's because the moon is 400 times closer, yet has 1/400 the diameter. There's no naturalistic mechanism that forces this to be so. Life would be perfectly fine if the ratio were different and other planets have moons with very different sizes in their skies. It's a purely aesthetic feature, telling us the sun and moon were made by something with an eye for aesthetics, rather than being random accretions. If you're open to it, here's a really quick video on it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GYt2pJxbehw
>>18424953That's some retarded nonsense. Genesis is wrong about almost everything. No, there was never a paradise without death. Humans evolved from apes, snakes weren't punished by god, they also evolved.
>>18424961>Humans evolved from apesNot so! This can be disproven. We actually have different numbers of chromosomes. So evolutionists had to start arguing that there was a chromosome fusion that took place in the human lineage, claiming it was on what is for us chromosome 2.The problem: modern genetics completely refutes this. You can see the claimed site of the fusion by clicking here http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?position=chr2:114360507-114360538&db=hg19&ss=../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.pslx+../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.fa&hgsid=312102787. The second and third A’s are where the fusion site supposedly is.Now, telomeres are the sequence CCCTAA (and its compliment, TTAGGG) repeated thousands of times. So to the right of the fusion site, we should see CCCTAA repeated over and over again. To the left, we should see TTAGGG repeated in the same way.But we don’t. If you keep scrolling to the right, within 500 bases CCCTAA is never repeated more than twice in a row. And if you search within 64,000 bases (longer than a telomere), its only there 136 times at all. Plus, unlike telomeres, the two sequences are jumbled together. You’ve got about 20 TTAGGG’s to the right of the fusion site, and about 20 CCTAAA’s to the left of it. So we don’t see anything at all like a telomere there.Our mutation rate is not nearly enough to even come close to accounting for these changes if we descend from an apelike ancestor at the time evolution claims. So it is genetically impossible.There’s also another problem: there’s no extra centromere in Chromosome 2. If two chromosomes fused, you’d have an extra centromere as well as a telomere. But there’s nothing resembling an additional centromere in the chromosome. You image says there is but that is completely false. Look at the paper at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5722054/, it's written to attempt to account for ways the second centromere could have been excised. It isn't there.
>>18424953You're more arguing for Deism than Christianity if your rhetoric is that there's a natural, intelligent order in the orbit of stars and planetary bodiesEven still though, the distance between the Earth, Sun, and Moon vary considerably between perigee and apogee because orbits aren't perfectly round, so the whole "400 times more distant" thing is more of a generalization
>>18424964You're a moron and don't understand science. It's 100% confirmed that we share a common ancestor. Your creationist crap won't convince anyone.
>>18424964Chromosomes are thd least of your problems. We mixed with neanderthals and denisovans, they also had 46 chromosomes, which means we weren't that special.
>>18424967>You're more arguing for Deism than ChristianityDidn't I argue quite specifically for Christianity in >>18424562? But you asked about Genesis. And there, I am arguing for Genesis 1:16's truth.>so the whole "400 times more distant" thing is more of a generalizationThey move around a bit so it changes to some degree, but look up in the sky: the sun and the moon will be the same size to your eye. This isn't the case on any other planet with any other moon - only here, on Earth, where there is an audience to see it.>>18424968These are just insults and not an actual reply. Alright then: what sort of evidence, if you were to see it, would persuade you that something in the world genuinely is the product of intelligent design? And that's not some sort of gotcha attempt or anything, I'm genuinely interested in your true answer. I might know some evidence along the lines of what you're looking to receive!>>18424983>neanderthals and denisovansThese are simply human ethnicities. By what standard do you call them non-human? By all available evidence they had tools, art, language, mourned their dead, you could even marry and have children with one. These are men same as you or I.
>>18424964Bro, there are animals in the same species that have different amount of chromosomes. Domesticated horses and przewalski's horses have different amount of chromosomes and those split 150,000 years ago or so. There's nothing unique or weird about apes and humans having different amount of chromosomes and 7 million years is certainly enough for this to occur.
>>18425039The moon argument doesn't even make sense. There are black holes, galaxies and all kind of other stuff billions of light years from us. Who is the audience for this? We can't see it with our naked eye.
>>18424953Okay it's cool that God has an aesthetic aspect to his plan. But the God who did this could very well be Allah, G-d or Ahura Mazda.I still don't see why Genesis proclaims false facts. Like for example the order of animals being 'created'.
>>18425376We can see where the chromosomes changed for them. My entire point was that there is no such thing for us in our genes. None of our chromosomes are the result of a fusion. And if none of our chromosomes are the result of a fusion, we cannot share a common ancestor with apes as there would need to have been a fusion in the human lineage.>>18425379>The moon argument doesn't even make senseLet's boil it down to basics. What are the signs that something was intentionally designed with aesthetics in mind, rather than being random?>There are black holes, galaxies and all kind of other stuff billions of light years from us. Who is the audience for this? We can't see it with our naked eye.Remember one implication of Creationism is that we're quite near the beginning. It's roughly the year 7500 after the beginning right now. Our population will grow and we will, as time goes on, expand to fill all of these places>>18425564Did you read >>18424562?
>>18425668>Did you read >>18424562 #?Yes. It's cool. Still - why does Genesis get nearly everything wrong? I'd love to believe in Jesus (as the Messiah) but Genesis makes it really hard for me.
>>18425736>Still - why does Genesis get nearly everything wrong?Well it doesn't. You just happen to live in a time where a different idea is in vogue for the world's origin. It's something your culture believes today, but it isn't actually true. All the claimed evidence for common descent is equally explained by common design, and all the claimed evidence for a world millions of years old is equally explained by a global flood.Think about it. Anytime you hear an argument for the world being millions of years old it is something along the lines of "well at the rate this happens today, forming X would take two million years". But X is always something that a dramatic global flood would have radically accelerated.
>>18425736>>18425750Let me give you another piece of evidence for Genesis, if you're up for it. Genetic repair mechanisms are a spectacular example of something that cannot evolve, since there's an inescapable catch-22: you would need to have them in order to evolve them in the first place.They couldn't evolve since a population of organisms without them would die extremely quickly, long before any real evolution (were it even possible) could occur.According to http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409, DNA replication enzymes “make mistakes at a rate of about 1 per every 100,000 nucleotides" (and that's our modern ones, which have supposedly had billions of years to perfect their craft). Making the very, very generous assumption that early organisms before genetic repair machinery evolved were in possession of DNA replication mechanisms of that quality (which they would not be), that means they've only got 100,000 divisions before the entirety to their genome is destroyed.If they reproduced at about the same rate as e.coli (about once every 20 minutes), that means in just under four years every single nucleotide would have mutated. All the data in their genes would have been erased, which obviously means it would be impossible for them to survive.So you'd need genetic repair mechanisms to evolve genetic repair mechanisms!So since its not possible for them to form through natural processes, we know the same thing must have made them that makes everything else that doesn't form naturally: an intelligence.
