Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Second Coming of Christ


Riaan
 Share

Recommended Posts

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 4:12 AM, Meditation and Prayer said:

If Gold is burned to ash it is in a state of decay. Pure Gold would be inert if it wasn't burned to ash but gold that has been burned to ash would contain radioactive isotopes (highly reactive) of gold which would most likely cause cancer and death.

Gold can be melted in a hot enough fire.  It cannot be burned to ash.  The only way to oxidize it is with aqua regia ("Royal Water"), so named because it is the only thing that can dissolve gold ("King of Metals").  Aqua Regia is made from one part nitric acid to three parts hydrochloric acid by molar weight.  The Bible stories do not mention the availability of either acid.  The product is auric chloride.

Natural gold is almost-pure 197gold.  Other isotopes constitute one part in 5893.  This produces less than background radiation.  Gold is less radioactive than the food they were eating.

You are depending on your own made-up pseudo-science.  If you are going to make a claim, back it up with something real.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 4:37 PM, eight bits said:

Doug

Maybe. Based on the book, though, it sounds like it'd be hard to miss, if it happened.

Just for entertainment, read Josephus' "Against Apion."  There's another version of the Exodus story in there.  And it's hard to recognize.  But Josephus actually names the Pharaoh:  Seti I.  Josephus was obviously using different sources than what we call "the Bible."  He says he was quoting "ancient writers" without saying exactly which one supplied what information.

There's another story by Djehuty who was describing his exile in Canaan.  It sounds an awful lot like Moses in exile.  But 250 years separate the two events.  That's why I maintain the biblical story is a composite, made up of many different stories rolled into one.

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 3:32 AM, eight bits said:

I am unsure that that is an argument. The authors clearly intended to report a miracle, by which I mean something with one or more elements that are not seriously possible. The story as we read it has at least two such elements:

- that a huge body of water yielded a stable large-scale ford

- that the Egyptians, who have been established in the story as familiar with magic and as knowing Moses to be a magician who murders his opponents wholesale, deploy troops into what is plainly a temporary feature under the wizard Moses' control.

IF the story of the Exodus reflects real events, then they had to happen somewhere to somebody.  Look at a list of Egyptian kings; on that list is a person Moses talked to.  Which one was he?  Moses demonstrated his miracles to Pharaoh on "the field of Zoane."  A better translation would probably be "District of Zoane."  The area around San el Hagar acquired that name late in the reign of Ramses II - 1235 BC +/-.  That's about 60 years after Josephus description of Moses talking to Seti I.  Zoane (the city) wasn't built until the reign of Psusennes I, about 1000 BC.  So we have a rough spot here.  I think "field of Zoane" is the name of the site that was known to the author who was writing many years after the fact.

One can look at the physical requirements of anything described in a story.  If we have two wave trains approaching each other from opposite directions, then we look for a place where that happens now - El Kubrit.  Still happens.  The waves are only about six feet high, not the hundreds of feet imagined in the movies.  But that's the basis of the story.

The Exodus had the same composition as an Egyptian work gang.  Military wing, skilled laborers (Kenites) and unskilled laborers.  It was organized like a military expedition with pillars of cloud and fire leading the procession.  To me, everything points to a work gang; the military wing, crossing last, got caught by the converging wave trains and drowned.  Basically, the story is true; it's just that some of the details are a little exaggerated and there is some confusion about the dating.

 

Question:  Seti I fought a war in Canaan.  So did Ramses II.  Does the Bible describe either of these wars?

Doug

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug

Steve Mason, if I recall correctly (the historian whom I quote to the left in the sidebar), remarked that Josephus is more consulted than read. Such is my relationship with Against Apion (and so it will likely remain, at least for a while longer :) ).

Are you referring to Josephus' discussion in Book I of material he attributes to Manetho? The Hyskos migration? The linkage with the Jews is Josephus' own idea, and there are some questions whether Manetho's history might have been tampered with by the First Century CE.

Quote

Question:  Seti I fought a war in Canaan.  So did Ramses II.  Does the Bible describe either of these wars?

Not that I know of. They're 13th Century BCE. That's still in the Bible's legendary time, I think.

The canonical Hebrew Bible isn't securely "historical" until (at the earliest) just after the supposed death of Solomon, when we have the two kingdoms in place and the story gets down  to their respective struggles against foreign enemies and with each other. Call that shortly after the turn of the Last Millennium BCE, missing Seti and Ramses II by a few centuries.

I am open to correction on any part of that estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, eight bits said:

Doug

Steve Mason, if I recall correctly (the historian whom I quote to the left in the sidebar), remarked that Josephus is more consulted than read. Such is my relationship with Against Apion (and so it will likely remain, at least for a while longer :) ).

Are you referring to Josephus' discussion in Book I of material he attributes to Manetho? The Hyskos migration? The linkage with the Jews is Josephus' own idea, and there are some questions whether Manetho's history might have been tampered with by the First Century CE.

Not that I know of. They're 13th Century BCE. That's still in the Bible's legendary time, I think.

The canonical Hebrew Bible isn't securely "historical" until (at the earliest) just after the supposed death of Solomon, when we have the two kingdoms in place and the story gets down  to their respective struggles against foreign enemies and with each other. Call that shortly after the turn of the Last Millennium BCE, missing Seti and Ramses II by a few centuries.

I am open to correction on any part of that estimate.

If you want to pull the Exodus story out of Josephus, it will take some effort.  And all those Pharaohs have several different names and keeping them separate is a challenge.

All Josephus says by way of attribution is that he got his information from....  He then lists his sources, but gives no further information, leaving one to wonder which contributed what.  Josephus identified three different people as possible Moses prototypes.  I thought I'd made an original discovery with Amenmesses, then discovered Josephus beat me to him by 2000 years.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2016 at 4:54 AM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

You really have to brush up on you chemistry if you think that burning something will make it radioactive ! 

Burning is a chemical process and does not change any isoptopes at all. In fact radioactive decay means that an atom looses mass, hence why it is called decay. It doesn't magically gain new neutrons. 

Where are you getting this from ?

PS: Habitat you are not the one who would have a problem passing the chemistry course 

You guys are right I cant discuss chemistry with you on this topic. Ive only taken inorganic chemistry 1 and 2. There is really not enough data to analyze the possibility that the gold was really turned to ash. It happened but we dont know just how. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Meditation and Prayer said:
On 8/9/2016 at 11:54 AM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

You guys are right I cant discuss chemistry with you on this topic. Ive only taken inorganic chemistry 1 and 2. There is really not enough data to analyze the possibility that the gold was really turned to ash. It happened but we dont know just how. 

If you make a claim without having any idea of its validity, it is called "making things up". Why did you do that ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2016 at 5:19 AM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

If you make a claim without having any idea of its validity, it is called "making things up". Why did you do that ?

Believing the supernatural events of the Bibile require the ability to reason beyond what we know as science, math, psychology or any other field. I simply provided a possible scenario with the limited knowledge that I have which is called a "hypothesis" rather than "making things up". At the time I posted that statement I was considering the fact the the fire may have had supernatural (or spiritual) influence by Moses ( or God). A fire that has the capability to turn Gold to ash has to have something special going on in order for the Gold to stay in place long enough along with the smelting container holding it if there was one (Could the Gold have been hovering as the Ark did?).

What temperature turns Gold to ash?

Does this sound logical to you?

Sorry I didn't clarify in the beginning.

Edited by Meditation and Prayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meditation and Prayer said:

Believing the supernatural events of the Bibile require the ability to reason beyond what we know as science, math, psychology or any other field. I simply provided a possible scenario with the limited knowledge that I have which is called a "hypothesis" rather than "making things up". At the time I posted that statement I was considering the fact the the fire may have had supernatural (or spiritual) influence by Moses ( or God). A fire that has the capability to turn Gold to ash has to have something special going on in order for the Gold to stay in place long enough along with the smelting container holding it if there was one (Could the Gold have been hovering as the Ark did?).

What temperature turns Gold to ash?

Does this sound logical to you?

Sorry I didn't clarify in the beginning.

The reason why I used the term "made up" is because it is clear that you are only interested in making things fit the bible, not in what is actually possible. If you make a hypothesis you need some kind of evidence to back it up, not just a book written thousands of years ago, by people who have no concept of modern chemistry.

Ash is the remains of a fire, which is a chemical reaction. Gold is chemically inert, so it can't burn, thus not turned into ash in the first place. So to answer your question, gold never turns into ash !

Here is a friendly suggestion to you:

Evidence Clipart Prov 56 5 Png

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Meditation and Prayer said:

What temperature turns Gold to ash?

No temperature turns gold into ash.  You can melt it; you can even vaporize it if you get it hot enough.  Gold cannot be oxidized by heat in air.  But it can be oxidized in a chemical solution.  One can also oxidize gold by passing chlorine gas over it at 180 degrees C.  One might then say that the residue (auric chloride) is an ash.  But once again, I don't see any mentions in the Bible of such chemical processes being used.

You're still living in your own world.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The reason why I used the term "made up" is because it is clear that you are only interested in making things fit the bible, not in what is actually possible. If you make a hypothesis you need some kind of evidence to back it up, not just a book written thousands of years ago, by people who have no concept of modern chemistry.

Ash is the remains of a fire, which is a chemical reaction. Gold is chemically inert, so it can't burn, thus not turned into ash in the first place. So to answer your question, gold never turns into ash !

Here is a friendly suggestion to you:

Evidence Clipart Prov 56 5 Png

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

No temperature turns gold into ash.  You can melt it; you can even vaporize it if you get it hot enough.  Gold cannot be oxidized by heat in air.  But it can be oxidized in a chemical solution.  One can also oxidize gold by passing chlorine gas over it at 180 degrees C.  One might then say that the residue (auric chloride) is an ash.  But once again, I don't see any mentions in the Bible of such chemical processes being used.

You're still living in your own world.

Doug

There is no use in debating this we will only continue to revolve in circles discussing phase changes we have no way of proving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Meditation and Prayer said:

There is no use in debating this we will only continue to revolve in circles discussing phase changes we have no way of proving. 

The thing is that we do have a way of proving this, its just that the result isn't the one you like it to be. So its much simpler just to ignore it......... isn't it ? 

So you are not going to accept the possibility that the bible might be wrong on this one ? 

Lots of christians accept that the bible isn't literally true, even the pope. Why is it so important for you to prove that it is literally true, when it is clearly not possible to do so ? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Meditation and Prayer said:

There is no use in debating this we will only continue to revolve in circles discussing phase changes we have no way of proving. 

Melting gold is a phase change.  Vaporizing it is also a phase change.  Oxidation is not a phase change.  You are not using the terms correctly.

My background only includes a minor in organic chemistry (General chem is a prerequisite.).  Until you learn something about chemistry, we probably don't have much reason to continue.

When mythical/legendary stories are in conflict with natural law, natural law is ALWAYS right.  No exceptions.  Given that, it is possible to reconstruct the stories so that they make sense and don't violate the laws of nature.  Moses and the Exodus is one such story.

Doug

P.S.:  I used to work in a chem lab.  I have made and used Aqua Regia.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2016 at 0:59 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Melting gold is a phase change.  Vaporizing it is also a phase change.  Oxidation is not a phase change.  You are not using the terms correctly.

My background only includes a minor in organic chemistry (General chem is a prerequisite.).  Until you learn something about chemistry, we probably don't have much reason to continue.

When mythical/legendary stories are in conflict with natural law, natural law is ALWAYS right.  No exceptions.  Given that, it is possible to reconstruct the stories so that they make sense and don't violate the laws of nature.  Moses and the Exodus is one such story.

Doug

P.S.:  I used to work in a chem lab.  I have made and used Aqua Regia.

Doug

Phase change cannot be initiated through oxidation? The reaction of solid potassium and water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2016 at 0:59 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Melting gold is a phase change.  Vaporizing it is also a phase change.  Oxidation is not a phase change.  You are not using the terms correctly.

My background only includes a minor in organic chemistry (General chem is a prerequisite.).  Until you learn something about chemistry, we probably don't have much reason to continue.

When mythical/legendary stories are in conflict with natural law, natural law is ALWAYS right.  No exceptions.  Given that, it is possible to reconstruct the stories so that they make sense and don't violate the laws of nature.  Moses and the Exodus is one such story.

Doug

P.S.:  I used to work in a chem lab.  I have made and used Aqua Regia.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2016 at 0:59 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Melting gold is a phase change.  Vaporizing it is also a phase change.  Oxidation is not a phase change.  You are not using the terms correctly.

My background only includes a minor in organic chemistry (General chem is a prerequisite.).  Until you learn something about chemistry, we probably don't have much reason to continue.

When mythical/legendary stories are in conflict with natural law, natural law is ALWAYS right.  No exceptions.  Given that, it is possible to reconstruct the stories so that they make sense and don't violate the laws of nature.  Moses and the Exodus is one such story.

Doug

P.S.:  I used to work in a chem lab.  I have made and used Aqua Regia.

Doug

You have a pretty interesting theory that nothing supersedes natural law. What about unnatural law? Does it exist at all? If you think about it logically then if one exists then the other must also just as day and night exists or hot and cold. The existence of everything that is "bad" allows the word "good" to be definable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2016 at 5:55 AM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The thing is that we do have a way of proving this, its just that the result isn't the one you like it to be. So its much simpler just to ignore it......... isn't it ? 

So you are not going to accept the possibility that the bible might be wrong on this one ? 

Lots of christians accept that the bible isn't literally true, even the pope. Why is it so important for you to prove that it is literally true, when it is clearly not possible to do so ? 

Why am I not willing to compromise my faith?

Understand the spiritual principle that everything starts from a seed. If I sow a seed of compromise within my soul (or mind as secular psychology would term it) that seed would eventually grow into a larger compromise later in time. To explain this more plainly, if I compromise this one occurrence then what else would I be willing to compromise in the future if I start this tendency. Does starting a tendency make me more ready to accept more compromise or does staying true to the faith make me stronger in the long run?

I for one have to stay true.

I will try to communicate this to you. I don't live my life operating under the conventional beliefs that everyone should accept because evidence exists for it as it is readily available. Advocates of mainstream science wants everyone to believe that there is a way to prove everything and that everything has a logical explanation. My perspective of existence is very similar to that of the Jewish Kabbalist but I am Christian. According to this perspective, mainstream science only accounts for 1% (all of visible matter) of what we know as our existence. This is why scientist get lost when it comes to explaining anything beyond matter such as dark matter or energy. Most of the space inside any one atom is empty (about 99%). Add two or three atoms together and you still get the same ratio of 1:99 when you reduce the fraction.

It is important for me to prove that you can't subject the occurrences in the bible to fall within the parameters of natural law because God supersedes natural law. He created it.

Edited by Meditation and Prayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Meditation and Prayer said:

You have a pretty interesting theory that nothing supersedes natural law. What about unnatural law? Does it exist at all? If you think about it logically then if one exists then the other must also just as day and night exists or hot and cold. The existence of everything that is "bad" allows the word "good" to be definable. 

A theory requires evidential support.  There is no evidence that anything exists apart from nature.  So your "unnatural law" is not a theory.  You haven't put up enough evidence to even posit a hypothesis.  If you are going to invoke science, at least learn to use the terms correctly.

"Bad" defines "good."  That's situational ethics.  There are no absolutes.  Everything is acceptable if I think its OK.  That's also a good description of your reasoning process.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

A theory requires evidential support.  There is no evidence that anything exists apart from nature.  So your "unnatural law" is not a theory.  You haven't put up enough evidence to even posit a hypothesis.  If you are going to invoke science, at least learn to use the terms correctly.

"Bad" defines "good."  That's situational ethics.  There are no absolutes.  Everything is acceptable if I think its OK.  That's also a good description of your reasoning process.

Doug

Well my friend I guess we have learned quite a bit about each others perceptions; It was interesting talking with you and I respect your views. Everyone is entitled to free will. 

Have a great year!!:)

M & P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Meditation and Prayer said:

Everyone is entitled to free will. 

Leviticus 13:40New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

"40 If anyone loses the hair from his head, he is bald but he is clean."

 

863875.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/9/2016 at 5:40 AM, Meditation and Prayer said:

It is important for me to prove that you can't subject the occurrences in the bible to fall within the parameters of natural law because God supersedes natural law. He created it.

Why didn't you just say that from the beginning ?

There is very little point in debating someone who will allways be able to explain anything with the "God supercedes natural law" explanation. 

I think this sums it up:

davis_id_3-1.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 8:18 PM, Meditation and Prayer said:

Phase change cannot be initiated through oxidation? The reaction of solid potassium and water.

No.  In the reaction of sodium/potassium in water, heat generated by the reaction melts, then vaporizes the Na/K.  The oxidation reaction is initiated by contact between the solid metal and the water; thereafter the reaction occurs in the vapor (steam) phase.  There is a huge difference between melting or vaporizing a material (phase change) and reacting it with something.  Phase changes do not alter the chemical make up of the molecule, reactions do.  BTW:  not everything CAN vaporize.  Some materials decompose before they get hot enough.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Why didn't you just say that from the beginning ?

There is very little point in debating someone who will allways be able to explain anything with the "God supercedes natural law" explanation. 

I think this sums it up:

davis_id_3-1.jpg

Well can I get you to raise your hand and shout a little bit!! Debate closed until next season!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

No.  In the reaction of sodium/potassium in water, heat generated by the reaction melts, then vaporizes the Na/K.  The oxidation reaction is initiated by contact between the solid metal and the water; thereafter the reaction occurs in the vapor (steam) phase.  There is a huge difference between melting or vaporizing a material (phase change) and reacting it with something.  Phase changes do not alter the chemical make up of the molecule, reactions do.  BTW:  not everything CAN vaporize.  Some materials decompose before they get hot enough.

Doug

Crap forgot about that. Well you got me. Lets just slide this argument under the rug ok :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Leviticus 13:40New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

"40 If anyone loses the hair from his head, he is bald but he is clean."

 

863875.jpg

Just shaved my head yesterday!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.