Keber'
A Persian seet (generally rich merchants), distinguished by their beards and dress. When one of them dies, a cock is driven out of the poultry yard; if a fox seizes it, it is a proof that the soul of the deceased is saved. If this experiment does not answer, they prop the dead body against a wall, and if the birds peck out the right eye first, the Keber is gone to heaven; if the left eye, the carcase is flung into the ditch, for the Keber was a reprobate.
As meaning "THE grave," it is to be distinguished from keber, A grave, or, burying-place (from kabar, to bury, first occurrence Gen. 23:4) : and bor, a pit, generally hewn in the rock, hence used of a cistern (Gen. 37:20) or a dungeon, &c., when dry. (See note on the word "well" in Gen. 21:19.)
Pretty much the same...
In Hebrew, Sheol (שאול😉 is the "abode of the dead", the "underworld."
But we don't have to cross the river STYX to get there.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Keber'A Persian seet (generally rich merchants), distinguished by their beards and dress. When one of them dies, a cock is driven out of the poultry yard; if a fox seizes it, it is a proof that the soul of the deceased is saved. If this experiment does not answer, they prop the dead body against a wall, and if the birds peck out the right eye first, the Keber is gone to heaven; if the left eye, the carcase is flung into the ditch, for the Keber was a reprobate.
As meaning "THE grave," it is to be distinguished from keber, A grave, or, burying-place ([B]from kabar, to bury
, first occurrence Gen. 23:4) : and bor, a pit, generally hewn in the rock, hence used of a cistern (Gen. 37:20) or a dungeon, &c., when dry. (See note on the word "well" in Gen. 21:19.)Pretty much the same...
Originally posted by debbiejo
In Hebrew, Sheol (שאול😉 is the "abode of the dead", the "underworld."But we don't have to cross the river STYX to get there.
Read the words 'it is to be distinguished from keber'. Sheol is not referring to a physical place, it is an afterlife place.YES where the dead go!! NOWHERE....They are dead.......The body is dead Jim..it's dead!
The spirit returns to god who gave it
Everything goes back to where it came from. Energy cannot be destroyed and all is made of energy where is came from.
Originally posted by Adam_Poe
In other words, you cannot substantiate that time exists only as an abstract concept, and that any measurements thereof “are strictly derived from one's speculative-faith based assumptions and visual observations,” nor can you refute that time does not exist only as an abstract concept in that it is a dimension that is measurable, i.e. the curvature of space-time around an object is just as real as the mass or volume of the object.In other words, it was possible for scientists prior to April 12th 1961 to understand what exists outside of the atmosphere of the planet despite no one having been to space, but it is not possible for scientists today to understand what exists outside of time as no one has been outside of time.
Your analogy comparing the "outside of time" argument to man understanding what existed "outside of earth's atmosphere" is an extremely poor one.
The impression you are giving with such an analogy, is that man attempted to travel and understand what goes on outside the abstract known as space, when he left the earth's atmosphere. Nothing can be further from the truth, as man still existed within space, despite having traveled outside of the earth.
It is illogical to equate the two scenarios, seeing as how with our initial time argument, we have already assumed that man will be travelling outside the known measurable quantities of the given abstract time; something that is not the case in your scenario, regarding the given abstract space.
So as it has been stated multiple times, man cannot conclusively say what is possible for God to do outside of time, since he has never experienced, observed, nor has a means of measuring what exists outside of it. And from a common sense perspective, when one infers that a being exists "outside of time", they have already inferred that such a being is "timeless", not being limited to the rules that we know exist inside of time. Why you cannot conceptualize this obvious and rather common sensical interpretation to the predestination argument, is completely beyond me.
Originally posted by Thundar
So as it has been stated multiple times, man cannot conclusively say what is possible for God to do outside of time, since he has never experienced, observed, nor has a means of measuring what exists outside of it.
Man cannot say much about God, except what we want to believe that IT can do, or look like.
dont go quoting that we were created in God's image, because if we were, which race would God be? The best we can say is that we want to believe that god is humaniod in appearance.
Using ur point, we cannot prove nor disprove that God kept experimenting with life( hence evolution, i believe that this was God's way of getting it right and changing what is on the planet), nor that life was set on other planets etc.
Originally posted by fini
Man cannot say much about God, except what we want to believe that IT can do, or look like.
Originally posted by Thundar
So as it has been stated multiple times, man cannot conclusively say what is possible for God to do outside of time
*umm mr. Fini..please actually add something that i havent already said to the discussion next time before you post..😉
I DID ADD SOMETHING....................... if you only see bible quotes as adding something then thats your problem.
I think that I did add something, especially with you bible thumpers going on about how god does not change and what the bible says bout IT, blah blah blah...........
you said that we do not know the possiblities about god, but yet you all go on about how , what, who, where, how old god is and etc, when in fact we KNOW nothing bout God, except what we want to believe.
Originally posted by Thundar
Your analogy comparing the "outside of time" argument to man understanding what existed "outside of earth's atmosphere" is an extremely poor one.The impression you are giving with such an analogy, is that man attempted to travel and understand what goes on outside the abstract known as space, when he left the earth's atmosphere. Nothing can be further from the truth, as man still existed within space, despite having traveled outside of the earth.
It is illogical to equate the two scenarios, seeing as how with our initial time argument, we have already assumed that man will be travelling outside the known measurable quantities of the given abstract time; something that is not the case in your scenario, regarding the given abstract space.
So as it has been stated multiple times, man cannot conclusively say what is possible for God to do outside of time, since he has never experienced, observed, nor has a means of measuring what exists outside of it. And from a common sense perspective, when one infers that a being exists "outside of time", they have already inferred that such a being is "timeless", not being limited to the rules that we know exist inside of time. Why you cannot conceptualize this obvious and rather common sensical interpretation to the predestination argument, is completely beyond me.
Either you do not understand the argument that is being presented, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it because you cannot refute it.
Prior to April 12th 1961, no one had existed outside of the atmosphere of the planet, yet scientists had enough knowledge about the nature of what exists outside of the atmosphere of the planet, to send a man into space.
By all means, indicate where I stated, "man attempted to travel and understand what goes on outside the abstract known as space, when he left the earth's atmosphere."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Either you do not understand the argument that is being presented, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it because you cannot refute it.Prior to April 12th 1961, no one had existed outside of the atmosphere of the planet, yet scientists had enough knowledge about the nature of what exists outside of the atmosphere of the planet, to send a man into space.
By all means, indicate where I stated, "man attempted to travel and understand what goes on outside the abstract known as space, when he left the earth's atmosphere."
Earth's atmosphere does not exist outside of "space." Logically it exists within it, as does the rest of the universe that we currently know of. In the context of this argument, the immeasurable-unobservable dimension we're referring to, exists outside of "time."
So as it has already been stated, the analogy you originally provided was a poor one, due to the fact that scientists knew or at least understood that they would be travelling within space upon exiting earth's atmosphere, where as we have been arguing about individuals travelling outside of a similar abstract concept.
Originally posted by Thundar
Earth's atmosphere does not exist outside of "space." Logically it exists within it, as does the rest of the universe that we currently know of. In the context of this argument, the immeasurable-unobservable dimension we're referring to, exists outside of "time."So as it has already been stated, the analogy you originally provided was a poor one, due to the fact that scientists knew or at least understood that they would be travelling within space upon exiting earth's atmosphere, where as we have been arguing about individuals travelling outside of a similar abstract concept.
There is nothing outside of time. Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonBut you can't say for sure. Just like what was before the big bang? And for sure what caused it, though there are theories, we can't say for sure.
There is nothing outside of time. Prove me wrong.
I DID ADD SOMETHING..Yes you did. I saw it, 3 paragraphs....yezzzzzz
Originally posted by Thundar
Earth's atmosphere does not exist outside of "space." Logically it exists within it, as does the rest of the universe that we currently know of. In the context of this argument, the immeasurable-unobservable dimension we're referring to, exists outside of "time."So as it has already been stated, the analogy you originally provided was a poor one, due to the fact that scientists knew or at least understood that they would be travelling within space upon exiting earth's atmosphere, where as we have been arguing about individuals travelling outside of a similar abstract concept.
The ability of scientists prior to April 12th 1961 to understand what exists outside of the atmosphere of the planet despite no one having existed outside of the atmosphere of the planet is equivocal to physicists today understanding what exists outside of time despite no one having existed outside of time.
Originally posted by debbiejo
But you can't say for sure. Just like what was before the big bang? And for sure what caused it, though there are theories, we can't say for sure.Yes you did. I saw it, 3 paragraphs....yezzzzzz
If there is an outside of time, then Adam_PoE is absolutely correct. We live in a universe where information cannot be lost. What that means is that there is never information added or removed. Therefore, anything outside of time would have no effect on things in time. Anything that would be outside of time could be considered to not exist.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The ability of scientists prior to April 12th 1961 to understand what exists outside of the atmosphere of the planet despite no one having existed outside of the atmosphere of the planet is equivocal to physicists today understanding what exists outside of time despite no one having existed outside of time.
Taken from mr. Adam_Poe...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The curvature of spacetime around an object is as much a feature of that object as its mass and volume.
definition: space
the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur.
So based on the definition you've given as well as the one I've provided, it's quite apparent that earth's atmosphere is just a reference to a specific area within "space."
This being stated, once again one can logically conclude that you're analogy is erroneous and not equivocal to our initial argument, as it does not pertain to man travelling outside of a given abstract, but rather, it only pertains to man travelling to a specific location within it.
So moving back to the original topic, it is rather apparent that one must be careful when definitively stating what one can do(specifically God) outside of measurable or observable abstract concepts, when they have no knowledge of what lies beyond such concepts.
This is my last post on the topic, seeing as how my point has already been well made. I have very much enjoyed discussing this with you.