With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

He didn't do that. Why do you say that? I already clearly explained it in my post. Have you read it at all?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

M*W: No, you're wrong about that. It literally means the SUN who is the sinless creator. I suggest you read:
-
I must say it sounds pretty weird to think of sun as the creator of everything. Moses and Jesus were wise people, according to what I have heard. Also when saying "sun of God", then it seems there is a god above the sun. Just because something is written down doesn't mean it's the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gen 4:11 "Now be cursed and banned from the ground that has opened it's mouth to receive your brother's blood at your hands. When you till the ground it will no longer yield it's strength to you. A restless wanderer you will be on earth."

Cain was a soil tiller, stopping the ground from yielding it's strength to Cain prevents him from being able to do his job. The reason he would become a 'restless wanderer' is specifically because from that point forth he is to be unemployed - unable to perform the tasks that are needed from a soil tiller due to the curse placed upon him.

Yes. Have you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see Freedom in the bible - Freedom is a very modern concept. I sometimes suspect that we might even be worshipping a false god - Liberty (we even have the biggest graven image/idol in history erected in the harbor of our biggest city). I think the argument could be made that we have trended toward the worship of this new god - Liberty. I don't think it is wrong to desire liberty/freedom but the argument could be presented that we have gone beyond desire - to worship (especially in the courts).

Yes, I believe that all you say is true. Nonetheless, the bible still tells us to submit. My only point is that no one is ever told to make someone else submit. One of the things God condemns in Revelations is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. This is the combination of two Greek words - Nike (which means to conquer or to have authority over) and Laity (which means the People). The word Nicolaitans means those who have authority over the people. This should be seen as a rousing condemnation of authoritarian Church structure, like the Catholic Church, but very few seem to understand the meaning of this word. God does not approve of someone who takes authority over others (especially by conquest) but He does seem to tell us to submit to appropriate authority - and He doesn't leave it up to us what is appropriate, He tells us. Am I making a clear distinction between submitting to authority and someone taking authority?

Yes... You could quantify the leasons of the bible into this one word - Submit. I suppose I would prefer the word Obey, but I am not contradicting your word.

 

what768: I must say it sounds pretty weird to think of sun as the creator of everything. Moses and Jesus were wise people, according to what I have heard. Also when saying "sun of God", then it seems there is a god above the sun. Just because something is written down doesn't mean it's the truth.
*************
M*W: Just think about it. When the Big Bang occured (we are still Big Banging as we speak), our solar system was formed. Before we give the God of the Jews and Christians credit, let's look at the facts before we collapse into religious belief. The sun is at the center of our solar system. At first, our third rock was covered with ice. Eventually, the warmth of the sun melted most of the ice caps and warmed the oceans making the generation of life possible. The plants and animals from the warm seas eventually walked or crawled upon the dry land and made babies. Through the millenia, the babies grew and made more and more babies. During the many millenia, these offspring evolved into higher animals. That's where we come in. Life goes on because of the sun and the moon and the rotation of our rock. At a more recent point in time, humans evolved, and we are still in the process of our own evolution, but we're not finished, yet. We still depend on the sun to warm our environment and give us seasonal growth to feed ourselves.

Moses was the first to believe that god was the Sun. He worshipped the sun, and he tried to get all of Egypt to worship the Sun and the Sun alone. The Egyptians didn't particularly care for a single god to worship. They preferred to worship all the solar system as well as their various and sundry household gods. So, because of this, Moses fled Egypt, but he never made it to the Promised Land. His followers, the Habiru, did cross over believing the Sun was God. Enter Judaism. They may not realize it, but the God of the ancient Hebrews was the Sun. Moses made that definitely clear in the Pentateuch, but not many people today understand that.

In a nutshell, God=Sun and Jesus=Sun-of-God, or more simply, the Sun=God. Somewhere along the way, people started to think that God was something more supernatural than the obvious sun, but that's a fallacy. Whatever one calls their religion, it all boils down to the Sun=God.

Moses was a wise man but not a prudent one. If Moses did, in fact, write the Pentateuch (and there's scholarly evidence that he didn't), he would have HAD to have written it while he was still in Egypt. Therefore, Judaism is just an offshoot from the Egyptian belief in many gods. Where does that leave Christianity? Not an offshoot of Judaism, but an offshoot of Egyptian gods. I believe this to be the message of Jesus. Where was he between the years of 12 and 30? He was probably down in Heliopolis studying Egyptian mysticism. That is, if he really existed as a human. Scholarship says that's debatable.

If we didn't have the sun in our solar system, we wouldn't be here today. Nothing grows in a frozen environment.

 

I guess I need to keep saying this - wrong Moses. Moses/Arkenhaten lived about 300 years after the events portrayed in Exodus - but he would undoubtedly have know about them. Perhaps he tried to copy them?

The fact that in English Sun and Son sound the same is just an accident. In Hebrew the word for son is ben (Gr. huios) so Son of God would be "Ben h'Elohim". The word for sun is shemesh (Gr. helios). The words son and sun also sound similar in Greek, but Jesus was Hebrew and spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

Medicine Woman, You keep making the same error over and over again, and I don't know why such an obviously well-read woman like yourself can't see it.

You keep saying that "Son of God" (referring to Jesus) is actually "Sun of God." This cannot be the case since it is only in English that the two words have similarity, not the original Biblical languages.

If that isn't enough to illuminate your error, there is more. The notion of "son of god," dates much farther back than Christ. It goes back at least 1000 years BC, and is contained in the Genesis text (which was attributed to Moses, but obviously wasn't written by Moses... Attributing of texts to a specific person who hadn't necessarily written it was a common practice of the era... Genesis is actually a compilation of many different source texts, and source text fragments, and was not written by a single author). The "son(s) of god" symbolism carries with it a connotation of lineage, and refers to those persons who can trace their ancestry directly back to Adam, who was said to be created directly from God. Adam, though, is a transliteration of the word "man," and referred to the human species. The symbolism, then, of the "son of god" has more to do with those humans who live according to the laws of God (which are actually the laws of nature) and who did not follow the ways of wickedness, as represented in the Cain story. Those of the line of Cain (whose name is a transliteration of the word for "jealousy" and/or "domination") were given the denotation of "sons or daughters of men."

To call Jesus the Son of God, then, is simply to say that He was a man who walked the ways of God, lived according to goodness and the laws of Nature (not to be confused with what we might call Nature... that is, plants and animals etc... but rather, design or structure, and consequential proper action forms). "Son of God," while it may have similarity in English to "Sun of God" in its pronunciation, does not actually have relation to the idea of God as the Sun.

 

Thanks beyondtimeandspace, that was really instructive.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank God for that! And thank God for the Holy Spirit that helps

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

God is the Holy Spirit.

 

Where do you think the ice (water) came from? Although, I could ask that about just anything...

You forgot to mention where the plants and animals came from. Did they emerge from water and matter? Also, I really wonder how the fishes and stuff "walked" upon the dry land.

How did they mutate/transform into so many creatures like insects, birds, snakes, whales, t-rexes, pandas, horses, zebras, apes, people... To me it's more likely that they whole earth was "watered" with life somehow all over the earth and every creature evolved individually in countless different ways, almost at the same time. I believe things can evolve, but I don't think things can evolve to other things. I won't blindly believe that until I see some true evidence or insight.

The "sun of sun"... :S

What about other religions, like hinduism, do they also believe in the sun as God?

Actually, the Egyptians misunderstood an ancient teaching. The many Gods were just symbolic aspects of the one God - "Ra". (or maybe Aten, but I call it Ra) The sun is an earthly ("northly" - fire) manifestation of "Ra", but not Ra itself. They believed in the "spirit" of the sun. Jesus said: "The truth is given to you, (disciples) but to others it comes in means of parables." I have also thought about this "Sun" of God. The similarity of the english word sun and son is just coincidence. Don't you wonder how Jesus became so wise and so full of love, just by believe in that sun? How did the sun divide the sea for Moses and his people? And so on... it doesn't make sense.

I believe there is something (truth) in this, but... I believe Egypt may be the root to many things. The great pyramid. They say that Sufism (Islamic mysticism) is an offshoot from Egyptian mysticism. But I don't know. The country that has the largest number of Sufi followers is Egypt. I think the Egyptian gods and their religions come from an ancient teaching, but is in many ways misunderstood because of the people of that day. Ra is the creator of everything they say, it's not just the sun.

Yeah, but I think that which created the sun is "greater" than the sun. Don't you think?

 

David F.: I guess I need to keep saying this - wrong Moses. Moses/Arkenhaten lived about 300 years after the events portrayed in Exodus - but he would undoubtedly have know about them. Perhaps he tried to copy them?
*************
M*W: David, I know you keep correcting me on this, but my references say you're wrong. I recommend you read:

Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, by Ahmed Osman. Mr. Osman was an expert on Egyptian history and religion. Additionally, I recommend that you read:

Egypt of the Pharaohs, by Alan H. Gardiner, 1961. Mr. Gardiner is also a world-renown scholar of ancient Egyptian affairs.
*************
David F.: The fact that in English Sun and Son sound the same is just an accident. In Hebrew the word for son is ben (Gr. huios) so Son of God would be "Ben h'Elohim". The word for sun is shemesh (Gr. helios). The words son and sun also sound similar in Greek, but Jesus was Hebrew and spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic.
*************
M*W: Sun and Son do sound the same. I do agree that the Greek word for sun is helios. There is/was a city in Egypt called Heliopolis, where Moses was allegedly born. Some scholars also believe that when Jesus reached the age of 12, he went down to Heliopolis to learn Egyptian mystic religions. Jesus, in fact, spoke Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew, but it's quite possible that he spoke Hebrew and possibly Greek. The error arises from the many translations of the Old (Hebrew) and New Testament (Greek). Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could prove the translations were correct, but they weren't.

I certainly don't doubt your knowledge of Hebrew, and your posts are very helpful where Hebrew is concerned. But, remember, Moses DID NOT SPEAK HEBREW! He was an educated man who spoke and wrote the ancient Egyptian language -- whether that be Egyptian or a version of Arabic, I don't know. In any event, the translations of at least the Pentateuch were translated from ancient Egyptian into Hebrew.

 

beyondtimeandspace: Medicine Woman, You keep making the same error over and over again, and I don't know why such an obviously well-read woman like yourself can't see it.
*************
M*W: b-t-&-s: Thank you for the compliment. I endeavor to bring the truth to sciforums.
*************
b-t-&-s: You keep saying that "Son of God" (referring to Jesus) is actually "Sun of God." This cannot be the case since it is only in English that the two words have similarity, not the original Biblical languages.
*************
M*W: What I'm saying is that the TRANSLATION from Egyptian to Hebrew has limitations and errors.
*************
b-t-&-s: If that isn't enough to illuminate your error, there is more. The notion of "son of god," dates much farther back than Christ. It goes back at least 1000 years BC, and is contained in the Genesis text (which was attributed to Moses, but obviously wasn't written by Moses...
*************
M*W: I agree. Yes, some biblical scholars do not believe Moses wrote the first five books of the OT. I haven't made a decision on that as yet. I still tend to believe he did. However, if Moses did, in fact, write them, they would have HAD to be written down in Egypt! Moses never made it to the Promised Land. This "god" that slew Moses was the sun and only the sun. It was probably time for Moses to go. I don't believe he was as old as his current images would assume. I believe him to be a younger man of 30-40 years, but I cannot yet prove this.
*************
b-t-&-s: Attributing of texts to a specific person who hadn't necessarily written it was a common practice of the era... Genesis is actually a compilation of many different source texts, and source text fragments, and was not written by a single author).
*************
M*W: Okay, I'll take your word on it. That's still something I need to research.
*************
b-t-&-s: The "son(s) of god" symbolism carries with it a connotation of lineage, and refers to those persons who can trace their ancestry directly back to Adam, who was said to be created directly from God. Adam, though, is a transliteration of the word "man," and referred to the human species. The symbolism, then, of the "son of god" has more to do with those humans who live according to the laws of God (which are actually the laws of nature) and who did not follow the ways of wickedness, as represented in the Cain story. Those of the line of Cain (whose name is a transliteration of the word for "jealousy" and/or "domination") were given the denotation of "sons or daughters of men."
*************
M*W: I partially agree with you... but, Adam simply means "Earthing," or "Earth." "Adam" does NOT mean "man." "Man" came much later! The original word was "adama" which means "Earth" or "from the Earth." It does not, however, mean the 'human species.' The 'laws of nature' imply the 'sun god' who created the all. The Cain Story is another thing altogether.
*************
b-t-&-s: To call Jesus the Son of God, then, is simply to say that He was a man who walked the ways of God, lived according to goodness and the laws of Nature (not to be confused with what we might call Nature... that is, plants and animals etc... but rather, design or structure, and consequential proper action forms). "Son of God," while it may have similarity in English to "Sun of God" in its pronunciation, does not actually have relation to the idea of God as the Sun.
*************
M*W: To the early Christians, I feel sure that 'Jesus' was the 'son of God.' But, in reality, regardless of what the early Christians believed, Jesus was nothing more than a little sun god. The sun god was, in fact, called 'Ra.' This is evident in both Egyptian and Hindu. The early Christians, according to the translation of the Greek version, were confused about who are what God or Jesus was/is. God was 'Ra' or the 'Sun.' Jesus was nothing more than a believer of this doctrine. I believe MM holds the key to this enigma. MM was a 'tower' among women. Not so different as the pyramids of Egypt, Peru, Mexico and Central America. All the pyramids were built to reach the 'heavens' and to become 'closer to god.' Jesus was taught the ancient Egyptian lore. MM was his tower to god.

It's simple, really. Perhaps there was no 'true god' and perhaps, there was no 'true Jesus.' Maybe it's all allegorical, and Christians' believe in a fallacy. I'm not trying to deconvert them, the truth should be all that is required. The sun is the center of our universe. The sun is what created us all. I believe that was the message of Jesus. If it was NOT, then he never existed at all. The sun doesn't need a son, and Jesus didn't need the sun to be his father. But, that's what it is. The sun created us all. Why should we worship Jesus, when our creator was the 'sun?'

Like I've told my children and grandchildren -- simple things made easy.

 

Why believe so? Because the Bible says so?

 

§outh§tar: Why believe so? Because the Bible says so?
*************
M*W: The Bible lies, as you know. What can believed of the Bible? The ultimate Sun God is the 'true god.' There are no gods after this 'true god.'

 

What I find to be very interesting by your insistance in this nonsense M*W is that you will actually cause the sheep to go running to their shepard much quicker than had you not opened your mouth.

Carry on by all means. You are like a sheep dog, worrying the sheep back into the pen. God bless you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

peace

c20

 

M*W: To the early Christians, I feel sure that 'Jesus' was the 'son of God.' But, in reality, regardless of what the early Christians believed, Jesus was nothing more than a little sun god. The sun god was, in fact, called 'Ra.' This is evident in both Egyptian and Hindu. The early Christians, according to the translation of the Greek version, were confused about who are what God or Jesus was/is. God was 'Ra' or the 'Sun.' Jesus was nothing more than a believer of this doctrine. I believe MM holds the key to this enigma. MM was a 'tower' among women. Not so different as the pyramids of Egypt, Peru, Mexico and Central America. All the pyramids were built to reach the 'heavens' and to become 'closer to god.' Jesus was taught the ancient Egyptian lore. MM was his tower to god.

It's simple, really. Perhaps there was no 'true god' and perhaps, there was no 'true Jesus.' Maybe it's all allegorical, and Christians' believe in a fallacy. I'm not trying to deconvert them, the truth should be all that is required. The sun is the center of our universe. The sun is what created us all. I believe that was the message of Jesus. If it was NOT, then he never existed at all. The sun doesn't need a son, and Jesus didn't need the sun to be his father. But, that's what it is. The sun created us all. Why should we worship Jesus, when our creator was the 'sun?'

Alright, you want to press the issue, so let's press it. Let's hash this out.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khephir.htm

I would say that this Egyptian Sun God has more influence in the Christ story than either Amon-Ra, or Aten.

AMON m
Usage: Egyptian Mythology
Pronounced: AH-mun
Possibly means "the hidden one" in Egyptian. In Egyptian mythology he was originally a god of the wind and the air. Later, during the Middle Kingdom, his attributes were combined with those of the god Ra and he was worshipped as Amon-Ra.

RA m
Usage: Egyptian Mythology
Pronounced: RAH
Possibly means "sun" in Egyptian. Ra was the Egyptian god of the sun and the creator of the other gods. He was usually depicted as a man with the head of a falcon crowned with a solar disc.

Taken from: http://www.behindthename.com/nmc/egy-myth.html

The similarities that the OT God have with these two gods are very striking, and definitely influential.

Now, I've already admitted, both in this post and in previous, that there is definitely egyptian influence in Biblical myths, stories, and even cosmologies. Therefore, I am not opposed to the consideration that you put forth that the Biblical God is derived very much from the Egyptian sun god, Ra.

I invite you to take a gander at this next link, I'm sure you'll find it very corroborative.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

Now, I'm sure you found that to be very supportive of your claims. However, let's now put your claims under scrutiny.... all of them.

Let us assume, for the moment, that you are correct about Moses. Let us assume that Moses as an Egyptian Pharoah who led a movement toward worship of Aten, Sun God and Disk. Let us assume that the Pentateuch was written by Moses (or even by his followers, and therefore attributed to him). Let us assume that Moses was basically the founder of a whole new religion that became known as Judaism.

Alright, the assumption is set up. Now let's examine your claims concerning Paul. You say that the present Christian churches are based upon Paulinism. You say that the present Christian churches are a movement away from Judaism, this being because Paul had a grudge, of sorts, against the Pharisees of the time, and hence, the Christian Churches aren't based upon Christ's teachings, upon a Messiah, and therefore not true fulfillment of Judaic scriptures and prophesies. Alright. You also say that Judaism is based in Sun-God worship. You just saw a sight the indicated very strongly trends of sun-god worship within the largest Christian religion in the world, Catholocism. Hence, if the Christian churches of the day are based upon the lies of Paul, and are a movement away from true judaism, which is based in sun-god worship, then the present day christian religions shouldn't have trends of sun-god worship in them. This is clearly not the case.

Let us now consider Judaic scriptures under the light of your assumption. The assumption says that Judaism is founded upon sun-god worship, founded by a sun-god worshipper. Ergo, the scriptures from which that religion should draw its teachings should be fully supportive of sun-god worship. However, this is not the case.

During the reign of Solomon, who defiled the temples:
2 Ki 23:11 And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathanmelech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs, and burned the chariots of the sun with fire.
This was an act of cleansing of the Temple. These "gifts" to the sun were only one of numerous objects given to numerous other gods that were taken out of the temple due to their sacriligious natures as items of worship to false gods.

In the following verses, the word for "image" is translated from chamman (H2553. chamman, kham-mawn'; from H2535; a sun-pillar:--idol, image.) which referred to sun-pillars/idols.

Isa 17:8 And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images.

Isa 27:9 By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

2 Chr 34:4 And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images, that were on high above them, he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them, and strowed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them.

Likewise, another word, matstsebah, is used here:

Deu 16:22 Neither shalt thou set thee up any image (matstsebah / sun pillar); which the LORD thy God hateth.

The next is self-explanatory:

Ezek 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

These are just a few examples in which it is clear that Jewish Scriptures opposed Sun-worship. If your theory is correct, and Moses initiated a religion that was based upon worship of Aten, Sun God and Disk, then the Jewish scriptures don't represent his vision. This represents another major problem for your argumentation.

The following link places Moses as a Pharaoh, but never a ruling Pharaoh.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/moses.htm

Note, the change by Akhenaten to monotheistic worship of Aten. From this it can be implied that Moses too believed in Aten, the Sun God.

So the difficulty here lies in the meaning of Aten. There were three different sun gods in Egyptian theism. Ra (or Amon-Ra), Khephir, and Aten. Ra was believed simply to be the Sun Disk, rather than the actual sun God (i.e., sun spirit). Khephir too was not actually the sun God (spirit), but rather a patron to the sun God. Aten, on the other hand, was both the Sun Disk (Ra) AND the Spirit of the Sun. Ra was said to be the supreme Egyptian God. However, If Aten was both Ra, and the actual Spirit of the Sun, then Aten would have been greater than Ra, and really, would have placed him as the supreme deity. Scholars have even gone so far as to give correspondence to Aten with Zeus, the supreme Greek God. Furthermore, in Hinduism, there is also a supreme God, as opposed to all the other gods (the difference is delineated by the case of the 'g', lower or upper). Furthermore, Hinduism would liken the 'gods' to Christian Angels, or Saints. Biblical Scholars, in examining the similarities, and the borrowing of Biblical symbolisms, etc.. from Egyptian mythology, would assert that Biblical Angels probably had correspondence to Egyptian Gods.

The key to all of this is that in every polytheistic religion (at least those of the ancient world, excluding the religions of native americans) there is a supreme deity, that is placed above the rest, and is the creator of the rest. This is also reflected in the teachings of Christianity. There is a supreme God, and lower angels, who were created by God. The DIFFERENCE then is how these supreme gods were depicted, or symbolized within the different cultures. In Egypt, the supreme deity, Aten, was depicted through the sun, which illuminates the world, and gives life to the world (which indicates that at the time Egypt wasn't as desertified as it is today, otherwise the supreme deity tha gives life would have been symbolized by water). In Greece, the supreme deity was symbolized through thunder and lighting, a "booming voice" and power.

Ergo, in teaching Aten, a Sun God, Moses wouldn't have been teaching that the Sun was God, but that there was symbolism in the Sun that was likened to God (likewise in other cultures depending on what was important in their eyes). The teachings against sun worship spoken in the Bible, or OT, would have been warnings against false gods, such as Ra, who did not represent the Supreme deity, but lower divine creatures (that is, creatures of free will and intellect). THIS is the teachings you will find in Judaism, which, as is well known, was initiated by Moses. THIS is the teachings you would find in Christianity. The symbols that were presented on that site, then, in reference to the Catholic Church as apostasizing wouldn't be accurate. This is because the sumbols used are exactly that, symbolic, and applied to the supreme being. Unlike the purveyors of such images of old, Catholics do not make use of them as objects of worship. It is simply the symbolism that is drawn upon.

*sigh* I think I'm finished this post.

 

You know, this is really simple. The OT says Moses was born around 1600BC. When was Arkenaten born?

 

OK, I actually downloaded and read through this rather long list (BTW how are you doing on the link I gave you - have you even looked at it?) I even looked up some of the references she quotes and some of the fossils she cites - some of which are disputed by other Paleontologists!

The author starts by bandying about excuses why she can't prove the very subject of her paper. She admits huge (millions of years) gaps in any transitional linkage she will show and then also admits that the very fossils she is citing are only sometimes in the actual lineage (some of the transitional fossils are actually cousins or uncles of the next fossil in the lineage - or they might not be linked at all). Such disclaimers don't bode well for acceptance. She once again makes the claim that speciation (changes within a species or what was called adaptation prior to evolution) proves the evolution of all life from a common ancestory. Since I have never argued that species do change to fit their environment, this is not an argument at all.

Next she does a little creation bashing and mocking by trying to show the fallacy of creation theories which she supposes would cause some method of sorting during Flood created fossil layers. She seems to project that some order actually does occur in the fossil layers - even though she doesn't come right out and say such a thing since it would be an outrageous lie.

Next she lines up fossils in an order which might show some transition but don't actually have any demostratable linkage to each other, even though she has no references to her fancy latin names (there are some references at the bottom of her paper which I did try to verify). However, the transitions she quotes could just as easily be made up of modern animals - like lining up species of dogs from smallest to biggest (Chihuahua to Great Dane) and claiming that the differences constitute an evolutionary transition. She claims that these fossils are known to be different ages because of the radiological difference of the rock they were found in.

Concerning the common radio-dating method used by evolutionists...

The method used to date the fossil is also questionable. It is a form of paleomagnetism. Evolutionists measured the magnetic orientation of certain minerals, such as magnetite, found in the layers of rock and assigned particular orientations to certain time periods. When they discover a fossil ...they determine the direction of the magnetic orientation of the minerals from the surrounding rock and match it to that which has already been assigned to a specific time period.

However, there is evidence that that the magnetic field has reversed extremely rapidly over periods of only a few days, as shown by patterns in a thin lava flow. This is documented from secular geophysical sources in the article 'The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young' by Dr Jonathan Sarfati (Creation 20(2):15-17). ref​

In other words, using the magnetic field of the rock formation, in no way indicates the age of the rock. Under very calm conditions when the sediment layers have time to orient themselves to the magnetic field of the Earth, they will settle into alignment. However, under turbulent conditions, such as in a flood (which is required for fossilization) the sediment will quickly be covered and may not be in alignment at all. Further, modern geologists tell us that the magnetic poles of the Earth have shifted radically, and sometimes quickly, numerous times during its history. This leads us to conclude that rock dating by measuring the polarity of sediment crystals will give absolutely random results - negating any idea of how old these fossils might be.

I suspect that you didn't actually read this link before pointing me to it - else you wouldn't have done so. However, I am getting tired of reading links you found on Google - especially if you won't read my links.

 

David F.: You know, this is really simple. The OT says Moses was born around 1600BC. When was Arkenaten born?
*************
M*W: Where is the OT does it say Moses was born around 1600 BC? The Moses I'm familiar with was a pharaoh from 1367-1350 BC. The date of 1600 BC was the beginning of the 18th dynasty, which Moses lived in, but did not rule until 1367 BC. However, the confusion may come in because the first pharaoh of the 18th dynasty was named Ahmosis who ruled from 1575-1550 BC. I'll list the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty:

Ahmosis - 1575-1550BC
Amenhotep I - 1550-1528BC
Tuthmosis I - 1528-1510BC
Tuthmosis II - 1510-1490BC
Hatshepsut - 1490-1468BC ____ co-regents
Tuthmosis III - 1490-1436BC
Amenhotep II - 1436-1413BC
Tuthmosis IV - 1413-1405BC
Amenhotep III - 1405-1367BC (Moses' father)
Amenhotep IV - 1367-1350BC
(OT Moses born Aminadab, upon becoming pharoah, changed his name to King Amenhotep IV, then changed it to Akhenaten meaning worshipper of the Sun as God)
Semenkhkare - 1350-1347BC (Moses' brother/cousin Aaron)
Tutankhamun - 1347-1339BC (Moses' son, Boy King Tut died young)
Aye - 1339-1335BC
Horemheb - 1335-1308BC

This is the entire 18th dynasty. I hope it makes more sense now.