Jesus Christ explains the particle used in my cosmology theory using parables in the bible.

by Aleon 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  CalebInFloroda

  Aleon,

  I wasn't offering conclusions. They were questions (which is why there were question marks).

  The other information is the prevailing data of Biblical academia regarding the parables. They are not exegesis (interpretation), they are philology not theology. I didn't invent this data nor is it part of my convictions as a Jew. I don't believe in Jesus, so interpretation is not my goal.

  I wasn't judging your work. I believe in the scientific method. I was asking about your formulas. You mentioned expansion particle theory which is a hobby of mine. I never heard of expansion theory connected to my specialty in the field of Biblical linguistics and critical literary methodologies.

  And finally the scientific method doesn't allow for "theory correctness" based on 'just taking a look,' as you put it, you know that. The expanding cosmological model does not allow for theory without controls and verification. Like one would do with any scientific theory that one has never heard of, I was asking for the verification findings from the independent study. Only after these concur with yours can one rightly claim they have a theory.

  Can you explain your response and how and why you mistook my statements the way you did? I was asking, what I thought, were very important and respectful questions of inquiry.
• 

  Finkelstein

  You people hate too much. Is it that you're afraid my theory is too difficult to handle for you?

  No its just your attempted assertion of trying to prove bible scriptural as something backed by established scientific knowledge is a failed irrational and illogicality vain endeavor.
  
• 

  Aleon

  CalebInForida: Like I wrote, I didn't build the theory looking at the bible parables. They simply fit. And you "raised your points" that aren't questions. What they explain in the bible is expansion and fine pearls. And they write this is the kingdom of heaven. And hence my theory explains the universe or the heaven using an expanding sphere particle. It fits.

  StrongHaiku: It's all mathematics in the scientific community. As they say. If it isn't math it isn't science. And all peer review is mathematics. Of course they are wrong. That written unlike Bonsai's believe the theory is written in a way anyone can learn it. So anyone may be a peer reviewer. Do not expect the scientific community to be of any use here they won't stray from their dogmatic mathematics. It's their tool of trade. As for Einstein's theory it's incomplete and that’s why they simply agreed that it must be real instead of ever really proofing it. My theory offers more observation than Einstein's theory. I can explain you exactly why the sun glows red when it's low in the atmosphere. And you would be able to understand it with no issues exactly why it does that. The cosmology theory uses the most simplistic particle ever as it only uses 1 bit of information technically. And within this 1 bit framework of an expanding particle every phenomena is logically deducted. I can explain to you in my theory why an atom bomb explodes and why the same simple 1 bit particle causes neutron stars to spin rapidly. And how gravity works and you will be able to observe it with your own eyes by how water swirls down a drain. I can explain to you why electrons form a magnetic field using physical particles as attraction instead of using some magical fourth dimension that supposedly explains everything that didn't fit in 3D space using mathematical theories. And you'll be able to see with your mind's eye how everything works in the universe.

  CalebInForida: You cannot decide what is a theory and what is not. The system works and thus it is a theory regardless if you agree with that point of view. There is no rule that decides if something is a real theory or not except it has to fit. Your method is not a law. Now like I wrote Einstein's theory doesn't actually have a proper gravity model yet they accepted it as a theory anyway but it doesn't really fit. My theory on the other hand fits observation like a glove on a hand.
• 

  LorenzoSmithXVII

  As far as Jesus' parables and comparisons go, it is very important to understand the culture as well as idiomatic expressions. For instance, when Jesus said the Pharisees used to strain out the gnat and gulp down the "camel" he wasn't talking about the 4-legged dromedary. But "camel" was the common reference for what we call a "horsefly." They called it a "camel fly" and for short a "camel." So what Jesus was saying was that the they would strain out the tiniest fly but gulp down the largest fly.

  Likewise, a camel has a hump. Sometimes when there were humps in the thread, or the thread would bunch up behind the eye of the needle with a few strands only getting through, it looked like a camel with a long skiny neck followed by a hump. So the local colloquialism for a lump in the thread was called a "camel." So what Jesus was saying was how difficult it was to get a "camel" or a lump in the thread into a needle; of course, you can't. He wasn't suggesting that women would try to get a literal camel into their sewing.

  As far as Jesus' parable about the yeast fermenting the whole lump, he didn't mention anything about enough to make the bread rise apparently. So perhaps his point was that it would only take a slight amount of yeast to pollute the flour making it unfit to make "unleavened bread" as required for the Passover meal. So in that sense, maybe that was the real point of his reference. That when you need something kosher, like unleavened flour to make unleavened bread, if you mix even a little yeast in a large amount of flour, it still pollutes the entire measure of flour, since you now can't make kosher, unleavened bread. Unleavened bread has to be 100% pure and the least amount of leaven makes it unpure, non-kosher.

  But this parable still matches the impact the kingdom will have. That is, it will begin very small, affecting a select few. First the elect, God's own people, Jews and JWs then Christendom in general. But eventually it would impact upon the whole world. Something small would change the whole world, like a tiny bit of leaven polluting a large measure of flour. Christ's kingdom begins small then spreads to affect the entire world.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  Aleon,

  I am not doubting your claims. I was merely asking how you developed what you are claiming is "theory."

  I didn't invent the term "scientific theory" or the scientific method. You write as if I am making up my own rules as to what can be considered "theory." But I am not.

  A scientific theory is an explanation of a certain facet or aspect of the natural world that has been tested, confirmed and well-substantiated through methods of observation and experimentation validated by means of the scientific method. I did not make that up. That rule was in place before I was conceived!

  Again, I am not doubting your claims. But now I am doubting that you understand what a theory is.

  And when you say "Einstein's theory," do you mean the "theory of relativity"? There is no "Einstein's theory." And there is no scientific theory which is not tested before being considered theory. Again there is no such thing as a scientific theory that is no validated independently and well-substantiated by disinterested parties.

  Everyone who advances a theory must subject their hypothesis to the scrutiny of others. People are not haters because they ask intelligent questions. I'm not saying you are lying or stupid or misleading us. Besides, why share something on a forum if you don't expect to have people challenge it? No one publishesd theories on a forum. They publish a scientific paper for a journal.

  Am I making that up too? Sigh! Just say what you want to say, I guess. People can see the difference between what you are saying and the reasonableness of others who have replied to your original post.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Everyone knows that Jesus had a Phd. in Astrophysics
  
• 

  Village Idiot

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jZu0szdFjG4
• 

  Aleon

  Here is a little parable for CalebInFloroda.

  Aleon and CalebInFloroda where walking down a path. Aleon pointed CalebInFloroda at the rock he found on the ground and told CalebInFloroda, "Look I found a rock". And all CalebInFloroda could do was ignore the rock and question Aleon if it actually was a real rock or not, without bothering to look at it.

  The moral of this parable.... CalebInFloroda is too busy trying to proof the rock isn't a rock instead of actually looking at it so he can see for himself if it's a rock or not.

  CalebinFloroda, again theory doesn't simply mean what you decide it is. It has many different applications. If you want to understand what theory means I suggest you look at it here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t

  There is no human that stands for the authority what theory means. CalebInFloroda if you could please point out any single human that stands for this authority then please do so. I've never heard of such a human that is the judge of what is a real theory or not. Besides what you're attempting to do, but I doubt you're that judge because you keep pointing out your written words are that of someone else? Who decides it CalebInFloroda?

  Please don't doubt me CalebInFloroda. I understand perfectly well what the word theory is. I'm just trying to explain to you what its not.
• 

  Ruby456

  Aleon, it isn't nice to come here and do bogus things. how do we know your pdf is safe to download anyway?
• 

  cofty

  Still bollocks