Well, so long as you're cool with it.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Adam and or Eve had all the viruses.
- Thread starter tieman55
- Start date
SwordOfTruth
Member
I wonder what you would call evidence?
Regardless, yes my claim is that there are numerous references to the Stone in the Bible and to it's benefits and to the colors seen during the alchemical processes used to create the Stone. I mean I could very happily cite them here but you guys seem so closed that I wonder what the point would be? Ideally you would need to know a bit about the alchemical processes first in order to then see what the Bible passages are talking about. I've already tried to give a few things but here's the most important:
Primary point to note, none of the following is my opinion, it is all already well laid out in 1000s of alchemy texts spanning 100s of years.
The Colours
1. The alchemy process sees the substance in the flask turn from WHITE to BLACK and then to RED
2. The BLACK stage is the putrefaction stage where the matter is decomposing to prima materia. It is allegorically referred to as the Raven or Crow in many alchemy texts
3. In between those primary colour changes are a myriad of other colours often referred to as the Peacock
The end products of the work are a WHITE STONE and a RED STONE and note that "stone" here doesn't mean a rock. It's a powder or oil.
Stone Benefits
As described by 100s of alchemy and other works the benefits that these 2 "Stones" bestow are:
1. White Stone facilitates healing of the body from any disease or ailment though it's not medicine in itself
2. White Stone facilitates the transmutation of base metals into Silver
3. Red Stone bestows longevity, hugely increased life span of 100s or 1000s of years, possibly indefinite lifespan.
4. Red Stone facilitates transmutation of base metals into gold.
Processes
There are a few processes involved in the creatiion of the Stone (according to the ancient ways). Modern science has likely fast tracked some of them now.
Distillation - The gentle distilling of a starting substance in a flask on top of which is placed a retort or alembic (dome)
Gentle body heat is applied under the flask which warms the substance and causes vapour or mist to rise up.
This mist condenses in the dome above which is cooler than the flask below. Small droplets of dew are formed which are collected in a receiving flask.
Fermentation - At some point in the work you arrive at a salt and a special distillate liquid (known as philosophical Mercury) and another component known as sulfur. These are placed in an egg-shaped flask which is sealed up and placed in a water bath again at body temp of circa 37.5 degrees though the temp is increased later on.
Again this gentle heat cause a vapour or mist to rise up to the top of the flask (allegorically the "heavens") where it condenses, creates droplets of dew which then fall back down like rain into the bottom of the flask where the whole cycle starts again. In essence what you have is a micro weather cycle going on in the flask much like our weather outside. As above, so below.
Over time the white damp salt in this flask goes through the colour changes. It first begins to rot and decompose and goes jet BLACK. This is the putrefaction stage and is a vital part of the work without which nothing else will work. Jesus underpins this in his parables. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" John 12 etc. This is Jesus iterating the vital alchemical principal of putrefaction. A thing must first be reduced back to its prima materia before it can be reformed by Nature into something new and better.
After the Black stage is reached the substance then starts turning other colours. Green is one of them, the colour of new generation and life, but also here is yellow and others.
Eventually it reaches the WHITE stage. A pure brilliant white. This is the White Stone that bestows healing (though it needs a little further work before it can be ingested).
If the white substance is left "cooking" in the flask then it eventually turns CRIMSON RED. This is the Red Stone that bestows longevity/immortality.
Let me iterate again, none of the above is my opinion. It is all basic alchemy laid out in 1000s of texts spanning 100s of years which you can freely download at your convenience from nuerous websites.
So to summarise. And this is just the basics. The processes for creating the Stone go through 3 primary colours which are BLACK, WHITE and RED.
The benefits of the Stones are 2 fold. On the one hand it can make you rich as you can transmute base metals and gems into precious metals and gems. On the other hand there is the far more important and valuable benefit of healing and increased life span.
The work involved includes distillations that require a domed alembic to catch the rising vapours and create drops of dew which are collected.
The work involved includes sealed fermentation which mimics the weather cycles outside with rising vapours which consense and rain back down.
Here's a diagram of what it looks like.
This is much to take in so I'll leave this here just for now. Shortly I will furnish you with many examples of Bible references that allude to all the above though I suspect some of you might already know what some of them are.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
We most certainly require more than NOTHING!
And yet you provided ZERO references to these "numerous references".
Your mind reading skills are not so good as you think.
Alchemy...
SoT, who cares what the Bible says, Your explanation is sooo detailed, you must have carried out the process yourself, so have you any of those red stones to sell?
And, I repeat, you are the bestest poster here, you provide more entertainment than anyone else. But please, please, my wife needs more gold jewelry, get me one of those red stones. Thank you so much.
And, I repeat, you are the bestest poster here, you provide more entertainment than anyone else. But please, please, my wife needs more gold jewelry, get me one of those red stones. Thank you so much.
SwordOfTruth
Member
It's a compiled collection of works about many things but alchemy is certainly one of them. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was an alchemist and taught the same to his disciples. It's secret that could have gotten them killed at the time and so not something they broadcast plainly to ordinary people. Hence Jesus spoke in parables so that those who didn't understand the alchemy related allegorical terms would not hear and understand.
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Alchemy is of course a real thing, it's a science that is still going on today in the world and was the forerunner to modern chemistry
These are certainly the documented claims of alchemy as laid out in 1000s of works spanning 100s of years
SwordOfTruth
Member
I said very clearly that Bible references would follow and so here they come.
John 12:23-24: Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
This is the vital alchemical principle of putrefaction. Decomposition is necessary to reveal the true matters hidden with a given substance and from those something new can be created/formed. This is how Nature operates. Alchemy is an art that simply mimics Nature's processes.
Revelation 2:17: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of
the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
There's your White Stone.
Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
The "tree of life" is just one of many allegorical terms for the Stone. Others are manna, Soma, Ambrosia, Pearl Of Great Price and so on, it has countless names in countless cultures. The passage confirms that the Stone enables one to "live forever". It's an interesting aside that in th eliteral story, God didn't want Adam and Eve to live forever. Seems rather cruel.
Genesis 2:4-7: This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
This is an allegorical description of the fermentation part that I highlighted. The "heavens" is the top of the sealed flask, the "earth" is the damp substance in the bottom of the flask. The gentle warmth causes a vapour or mist to rise up where it condenses at the top and rains back down on the "earth" below.
Genesis 1: Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other. 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome.
As per the diagram in my prev post the "dome" is the alembic which forms the "heavens" and is needed to ensure that the waters, vapours, moisture etc that is INSIDE the flask and the alembic are kept separate from the moisture, vapours in the air all around us. i.e. we need a sealed system in order to perform this part of the work.
It's also worth noting that the notion of the "separation of the waters" is equally referring to the alchemy processes because in the flask the damp waters in the "earth" at the bottom of the flask are separated by the gentle distillation process. The gentle heat creates the vapour to rise and the vapour is the most voltile and pure parts of the waters below. Distillation is doing the separating work.
Isaiah 45:8 "Distil, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, that it may bring forth salvation,
and let it cause righteousness to spring up together; I, Jehovah, have created it.
Distil - distillation. The "heavens" at the top of the flask where the mist condenses "pour down" the pure drops from above onto the earth below. The process "opens up" the earth which will putrefy and by that decomposition bring forth the Stone again iterating Jesus's parable of the corn of wheat.
Deuteronomy 32:2 "My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb,
and as the showers upon the grass:"
Same terminology used again. Dew, rain, distillation.
Job 36: 27-28
27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.
ECCLESIAST.
"He that abides in the fear of the Lord, and cleaves to His Word, and waits faithfully on His office, will transform tin and copper into silver and gold, and will do great things with the help of God: yea, with the grace of Jehovah, he will have power to make gold out of common refuse."
It couldn't be clearer that this is referring to alchemy. Transmutation of base metals into gold and silver.
Proverbs 3:13-20: Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is
better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou
canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are
ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that
retaineth her. The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths
are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.
This is probably the greatest passage in all the Bible referring to the Stone and alchemy and its processes. It's all there in one passage condensed.
You have the 2 primary benefits of the Stone listed. On the one hand there is "length of days", i.e. longevity/immortality and on the other hand there is the ability to transmute base metals into silver and gold (mentioned in the same passage) which provide "riches and honour".
Then you have yet again the reference to "tree of life" which again is just one of many names for the Stone. To underpin the entire alchemical meaning the passage ends by iterating again the same alchemy process of fermentation mentioned in Genesis, the "heavens" and "earth" and the dew falling down.
Song of Solomon 5:10-16: My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is as the most fine gold, his
locks are bushy, and black as a raven. His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set.
Remember what I said in the prev post about the primary colours seen during the alchemy work? Black, White and Red. All three are referenced here and the mention of the alchemical term "raven" for the black totally underpins this is talking about alchemy.
John 6:53-58: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Naturally this one will greatly upset the fundamentalists. Jesus wasn't a cannibal obviously, he's not actually saying we have to eat his WHITE flesh and drink his RED blood. But neither is he referring to some wishy washy new age magical woo nonsense about bread and wine and the sacrament as such. He's very clerly referring to the White Stone and the Red Stone. He's warning us all that unless we eat / drink the white and red Stones then literally "there is no life in us". That's because the Stones facilitate the "importing" or transfer of the universal life force into our bodies, without it we don't get enough of that life force from the food and drink we take in daily and so we get ill, decay and die.
In a way "God" is that universal life force from which all life exists. That life force is in everything. However our human bodies just don't get enough of it. We need the Stone because the Stone is essentially a scientific tangible substance with remarkable properties that is like a magnet for the universal life force. The life force is all around is, in the air, in the water, everywhere and we take it in via many methods, by breathing (which is why it's the 'breath of life'), from being in sunlight and from food and drink. But what we take in is not enough. Hence we don't live forever. We have to eat from the Tree Of Life (the Stone) in order to get sufficient amounts of that life energy to be able to heal properly and live indefinitely.
Jesus had the Stone, so too his disciples. He was telling them that they must continue to eat/drink the White/Red Stone in order to life forever.
There are other implications to this too. The Stone is essentially purifying the body, expelling all gross matter. The end game of that is that a person would eventually become a "light being" or a purely spiritual being. That's what happened to Jesus at which point he left this earthly existence and "ascended". Everyone else can do the same if they have access to the Stone.
I think the above quotes will do for the time being. If anyone wants I can quote the passages in the Quran which relate the same alchemical distillation/fermentation processes and quotes from elsewhere.
There will be derision of course by those who do not have the eyes to see and ears to hear which is just fine. There are others here however who will read and realise the truth almost instinctively. Once that spark of intuition is lit, it can never be extinguished.
In peace and love
Last edited:
SwordOfTruth
Member
There is no point to this question in the context of this thread. The point being made here is NOT whether or not I or anyone else has the Stone, nor is it even confirmation that the Stone exists at all. The point being made is simply that the Bible passages are allegorical references to the Stone either way. They were put there for a reason by scholars of the time, doubtless as a way to communicate related secrets to others who already had "the eyes to see and ears to hear" that Jesus spoke of and to keep the secrets away from the general Hoi Polloi.
Once one sees and realises that these are all indeed alchemical references then one is then greatly persuaded to reappraise the Bible and how to interpret it and to not take too much of it litarally. The same becomes true of other works.
SwordOfTruth
Member
Just for brevity here are some quotes from the Quran that iterate the same alchemical principles:
Surah Ar-Rum (Rome)
24. He sends down water (rain) from the sky, and therewith revives the earth
after its death. Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who understand
Very clear this passage. It speaks of the black putrefaction stage, the "death" of the earth, the decomposition and it's reviving by the drops of rain falling from above. Note the last sentence, "Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who understand". Why would they put that in if they were just talking about simple literal matters of rain, earth and the weather? It's telling us that there is hidden meaning here whch is only for those who understand. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear. It's talking about alchemy and the processes used.
Surah Al-Fatir or Al-Mala'ikah (The Originator or The Angels)
27. See you not that Allah sends down water (rain) from the sky, and We produce
therewith fruits of varying colours, and among the mountains are streaks white and
red, of varying colours and (others) very black.
Well well, what do we have here? Again we have the allegorical description of the alchemy process (rain, dew etc) but it is accompanied by references to thr primary 3 colours seen during the work, i.e. white, red and black. Coincidence? Of course not.
Surah Az-Zukhruf (The Gold Adornments)
11. And Who sends down water (rain) from the sky in due measure. Then We revive a dead land therewith, and even so you will be brought forth (from the dead)
More of the same alchemical references.
Surah Az-Zumar (The Groups)
21. See you not, that Allah sends down water (rain) from the sky, and causes
it to penetrate the earth, (and then makes it to spring up) as water-springs and
afterward thereby produces crops of different colours, and afterward they wither
and you see them turn yellow, then He makes them dry and broken pieces. Verily,
in this, is a Reminder for men of understanding.
And yet more simlar references. Here we get a nice little reference to the yellow colour that can be seen between the black and white stages. There is also green seen at one point but that's not mentioned here. And again note that last sentence. Why would that sentence be there at all unless it were alluding to a hidden meaning for those who understand?
Surah: 22 Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage)
[63] Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and forthwith the earth becomes clothed with green? for Allah is He Who understands the finest mysteries, and is well-acquainted (with them).
Ah, there's the reference to the green colour seen during the work.
Surah Ar-Rum (Rome)
24. He sends down water (rain) from the sky, and therewith revives the earth
after its death. Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who understand
Very clear this passage. It speaks of the black putrefaction stage, the "death" of the earth, the decomposition and it's reviving by the drops of rain falling from above. Note the last sentence, "Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who understand". Why would they put that in if they were just talking about simple literal matters of rain, earth and the weather? It's telling us that there is hidden meaning here whch is only for those who understand. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear. It's talking about alchemy and the processes used.
Surah Al-Fatir or Al-Mala'ikah (The Originator or The Angels)
27. See you not that Allah sends down water (rain) from the sky, and We produce
therewith fruits of varying colours, and among the mountains are streaks white and
red, of varying colours and (others) very black.
Well well, what do we have here? Again we have the allegorical description of the alchemy process (rain, dew etc) but it is accompanied by references to thr primary 3 colours seen during the work, i.e. white, red and black. Coincidence? Of course not.
Surah Az-Zukhruf (The Gold Adornments)
11. And Who sends down water (rain) from the sky in due measure. Then We revive a dead land therewith, and even so you will be brought forth (from the dead)
More of the same alchemical references.
Surah Az-Zumar (The Groups)
21. See you not, that Allah sends down water (rain) from the sky, and causes
it to penetrate the earth, (and then makes it to spring up) as water-springs and
afterward thereby produces crops of different colours, and afterward they wither
and you see them turn yellow, then He makes them dry and broken pieces. Verily,
in this, is a Reminder for men of understanding.
And yet more simlar references. Here we get a nice little reference to the yellow colour that can be seen between the black and white stages. There is also green seen at one point but that's not mentioned here. And again note that last sentence. Why would that sentence be there at all unless it were alluding to a hidden meaning for those who understand?
Surah: 22 Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage)
[63] Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and forthwith the earth becomes clothed with green? for Allah is He Who understands the finest mysteries, and is well-acquainted (with them).
Ah, there's the reference to the green colour seen during the work.
So if the bible is about alchemy and these "stones" may not even exist, do you believe then that the bible is true, even if it is in an allegorical sense or are these allegorical references to things that were believed to be true but that really aren't?
Also, what about all of the stuff that Jesus taught and that was taught about Jesus? Is that all allegory? Is it true? Did Jesus die? Are the parts of the bible that talk about Jesus' resurrection allegory? Are they true?
I mean, you are on an overtly Christian web forum where we mostly discuss Christian theology and where NO ONE is going to believe this nonsense about alchemy. Indeed, your implied claim that alchemy actually works has to be in the running for the single most insane claim that anyone has ever made on this website. It's right up there with Flat Earth Theory, Ancient Aliens and "we never went to the moon" conspiracy nut cases and so you might want to figure out how to say something about how this impacts Christian theology if you want people to continue to actually read your posts.
SwordOfTruth
Member
The Bible I think is too big to be about any singular thing. However alchemy is imho most certainly a part of it just as it is a part of the Quran and other religious underpinning works. What is true and what is fiction is something to be discovered for every individual on their personal spitirual journey. A key point to note here is that if one's mind is permitted to be locked tight by religious conditioning to the extent that it's forbidden, discouraged or otherwise obstructed to go looking into all manner of things (alchemy, flat earth theory, whatever) then it's going to be nigh on impossible for a person to progress and evolve freely.
In respect of the alchemy related parts of the Bible, Quran, Baghavad Gita and so on yes, I believe they are truthfully relating :
a) the end products of alchemy
b) the processes used in alchemy
c) the colours seen during the Great Work
d) the benefits to be gained from the end products
As I have already explained, Jesus himself taught at least one of the core principles of alchemy and there are likely others that I might not yet have discoveredd/realised. If you ever decide to look into the science of alchemy and it's long and rich history and start reading the 1000s of works dedicated to it by the philosopher's and sages and indeed people like St Thomas Aquinas and so on, then you'll soon find and realise that terms are deliberately used interchangeably in those works. One minute term X means one thing, the next minute it means another. It's made deliberately confusing like this to keep the ordinary public from knowing the secrets. It's actually really hard in fact to decipher the alchemy texts. Some people have studied them for years. Myself I have 10-15yrs behind me. Continuing with your question then, it is entirely possible that the same is true of the Bible and other works. It's possible for example that the name "Jesus" may refer in one place to the man Jesus and in another place Jesus or Christ referring to either the Stone or to the universal life force that is in everything
Did Jesus die? Interesting question. A question that already assumes that Jesus was a real person not a made up fictitious entity. I think there's plenty of historical record to suggest that Jesus was a real person of the time. Did he die? Well sheer common sense says yes of course he died if he was a man as all men die. There are however other factors and I appreciate that some of these will not sit well with Christian fundies. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Jesus was an alchemist and had achieved the Stone(s). The Bible allegorical references are too "in your face" for alchemy to not be a part of the Biblical stories in some way and the (for the time period) astonishing feats of Jesus totally gel with the abilities and benefits of the Stone(s). For example, transmutations, a key principle of the Stones, water into wine, base metals into silver/gold and so on. Healing, another huge mainstream benefit of the Stones so absolutely no surprise that Jesus could cure the blind man, or the leper or anyone else. He was using the Stone the right way, for the good of mankind, for the good of others. It is not a power to be squandered or misued. Those who look into alchemy hoping only for the benefit of making tons of gold to be rich and wealthy will I suspect come unstuck and never succeed. The Stones represent a scientific power that is not to be misused and which come with great responsibility.
Again, did Jesus die? My personal view, nothing more is yes he died. Though his body will already have been infused with the Stone prior to his crucifixion. Remembering that his disciples had also been taught the secrets of the Stone and thus will have had the Stone then Occam's Razor suggests that upon Jesus's death, his disciples went into his tomb and revived him using the Stone. Alchemy lore suggests such ressurection is possible but only very shortly after a person's death. I know Christians will not entertain such notions and have been programmed to believe more non-scientific explanations. But then the same people believe that there are talking snakes and that a real wooden Ark was built to house examples of every creature on Earth and so on. I don't mind what people believe, we all have to make our own spiritual journeys. We started off (many of us) needing and enjoying a belief in Santa Claus despite the utterly ludicrous notion of this fat man coming down chimneys and flying through th eskies on a sleigh pulled by reindeer. It's a comfort blanket. When we mature spiritually and when we begin to exercise true critical thinking, we then move on and discard silly notions. Mainstream religion in all its forms is for me, just another step or layer in that spiritual progression. Another comfort blanket people need and get succor from in their personal difficulties.
I don't claim to have all the answers. I've simply moved on from programmed religious indoctrination, creed and dogma and freed myself up to go and search for truth in any direction I choose to look. Seek and you will find. That much is imo true.
The implication from the alchemy angle is of course that Jesus was not divine as such but just another man and yet a man who has the Stone is very much not "just a man" but is infused with the universal life force that pervades everything so as a result is more self-aware, more perceptive, more "perfected" or in the process of being perfected and enjoys the benefits the Stones bestow.
I've highlighted a few of those benefits in earlier posts. Longevity for example and ability to transmute things but there are many others. For example when one's body is infused with life energy (which is the true source of fuel the human body actually needs) then the reliance on other forms of life energy intake become less required. i.e. you don't need to eat or drink as much (if at all) because your body is now getting all the energy it needs to function from the life energy coming in. Neither does a person who has the Stone feel the extreme impacts of heat or cold.
This is exemplified by young kids who still have much life-energy in their bodies resulting from the birth process. Those kids will happily go out and play in the snow in T-shirts whilst adults need to wear numerous layers to keep warm. The kids just don't feel that cold. They are "full of beans" so to speak.
This then also explains how the man Jesus survived in the wilderness for 40 days and nights without food or drink. He had the Stone. He didn't need food or drink per say and neither did he feel the adverse effects of what would have been very hot days and very cold nights.
Let's be clear, very very clear. Alchemy is not nonsense. It is a very real science that is well recorded throught history spanning 1000s of years. So there's no question about whether alchemy exists or not, that is indesputable. Alchemy is still being practiced to day by eminent university professors and 1000s of people all over the world. What you may question however is whether alchemy can or does produce the kind of end products that are claimed and have been recorded in texts for countless years and on that matter of course like everyone else, you would have to look into alchemy and start that journey of discovery for yourself.
I entertain the possibility that alchemy can produce really useful end products like the Stones. I have read the texts and thus I know what is supposed to happen in the glass flasks and alembics etc including the vapours released, the colour changes said to occur and so on. If you look into alchemy you will see that numerous people have tried to follow the processes described in the texts and have indeed seen those very colour changes occur in their flasks. And so we must at the very least entertain the notion that the texts are truthful in this part. It lends at least some credibility to the texts. Of course the crux of the matter is whether or not the end product is the Stone and on that matter you will unfortunately not find a definitive answer and this is no surprise if you think about it for anyone who dared claim they had succeeded in making the Stone would doubtless be hunted down very quickly by either unscrupulous thugs wanting the Stone for themselves to get rich quick, or be hunted down by the "men in black" who want to make sure that the global value of gold is not rendered worthless overnight. Then of course there is the mighty power of the Pharmaceuticals which we've all seen in action these past 4 years. How happy do you think they would be for someone to suddenly show the world that the only medicine they needed was the Stone made simply from Nature and her processes? They would likely stop at nothing to suppress that and "deal" with the person who had the Stone in their possession. So you see, asking someone on an internet forum if they have the Stone is a rather naive and silly thing to do. No-one in their right mind would admit to having the Stone.
How does it impact Christian Theology/general doctrine? Well I guess at base level it paints Jesus as an incredible man who took full responsibility for the incredible gift he had either discovered or inherited from his forbears directly, but a man nonetheless. He went about his way using the Stone for the good of others and protected the secret from the wicked rulers of the time so that it would not become abused He taught his disciples about the Stone and sent them out into the world where that secret spread but in a controlled way to those who shared the "faith" and who were trusted with the secret. The rest as they say, is history.
then what's the point? You come here with claims that are very specific (even if the "proof" is, well a little more than vague) but you have pictures of the equipment needed to create these wonderful stones, stories about how the alchemical process is ancient and found everywhere but you have not a thing to show.
And so in the words of fellow New Yorker, John McEnroe, "You CANNOT be serious". But I still think you are the bestest poster for the comic relief you provide.
There is a thousand years of history of superstition and of otherwise well meaning people looking into whether it is possible to stansmute one substance into another via all sorts of methods including magic and elixirs and "sorcerer stones" et. al. and those who were honest progressed further and further away from believing any such thing can happen because superstition and magic aren't real and will inevitably give way to actual science. There is a reason why they don't call chemistry "alchemy". One is science, the other is hocus-pocus nonsense.
As superstition and hopeless wishful thinking of those who wanted to find a way to get rich without having to work for it.
Liar.
Only insane people question such things. There is no question. Alchemy is horse hockey.
You, as I suggested early on, know less about the bible and Christianity than you pretend and this little nugget of ignorance is the proof of it. Jesus, if He was not God in the flesh, if He is still dead, then He was nowhere near being a good man. He was either what He claimed to be or He was a raving lunatic with delusions of godhood who could not be rightly trusted with anything, much less the secret to unlimited health and wealth!
SwordOfTruth
Member
Your views are archaic and ill-founded in this respect but that's no surprise.
Here's the Royal Society of Chemistry
"Alchemists are often described as the first chemists. They developed an extraordinary language (rather than the chemical symbols we use today) to describe all manner of things, from chemical reactions to philosophical tenets. Click on ‘What is alchemy?’ to learn about the three aims of the alchemists. Click on each of the alchemical symbols for more information and to see alternative symbols."
Alchemy was the forerunner science to what we now know as Chemistry. No hocus-pocus involved
Here's the prestigious Cambridge University offering an international conference on the links between alchemy and modern chemistry:
All is not what it seems: the blurred boundaries between alchemy and medicine
An international conference taking place at Cambridge University later this week will reveal that for many centuries alchemy and medicine were deeply
Here's the Smithsonian Magazine commenting on the subject and highlighting that the prestigious professor Lawrence Principe at John Hopkins University is actively engaged in alchemy work and has succeeded in creating the "Philosopher's Tree"
Alchemy May Not Have Been the Pseudoscience We All Thought It Was
Although scientists never could quite turn lead into gold, they did attempt some noteworthy experiments
"What intrigues Principe and his fellow historians, though, is the growing evidence that the alchemists seem to have performed legitimate experiments, manipulated and analyzed the material world in interesting ways and reported genuine results. And many of the great names in the canon of modern science took note, says William Newman, a historian at Indiana University Bloomington."
"Robert Boyle, one of the 17th-century founders of modern chemistry, “basically pillaged” the work of the German physician and alchemist Daniel Sennert, says Newman. When Boyle’s French counterpart, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, substituted a modern list
of elements (oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and others) for the ancient four elements (earth, air, fire and water), he built on an idea that was “actually widespread in earlier alchemical sources,” Newman writes. The concept that matter was composed of several distinctive elements, in turn, inspired Sir Isaac Newton’s work on optics—notably, his demonstration that the multiple colors produced by a prism could be reconstituted into white light."
I could go on, but what's the point !
Nope. Poor show. Here's Lawrence Principe's page:
Lawrence M. Principe | History of Science and Technology
I am broadly interested in late medieval and early modern (1200-1750) science and technology. I...
host.jhu.edu
"My research specialization lies in exploring and understanding the history of chemistry/alchemy. While I am especially active in the study of early modern (1500-1750) chymistry (a term intended to include both what we call “chemistry” and “alchemy” in a time before there existed any clear distinction between the two), I also have a keen interest in the alchemy of the Greek, Islamic, and Medieval periods, and even its revival in the nineteenth century. My broad research goals include resituating alchemy in its due context--intellectual, social, philosophical, technological, religious, and experimental--and displaying its importance and influence in the history of science and in European culture more broadly. I want to understand both how alchemists thought about the world and their work and what they actually did practically on a daily basis. Consequently, my approaches include both the traditional historical methods of textual analysis/contextualization and archival research as well as the more innovative method of replicating alchemical processes in a modern laboratory (using historical apparatus and materials that try to approximate the impure substances ordinarily used in the past) in order more fully to understand the historical texts and their authors’ motivations as well as the practical aims, abilities, and observations of the original practitioners. This dual approach allows for a richer exploration of the interactions between theory and practice, between mind and hand--a feature that characterizes not only alchemy throughout its history but also its descendant, modern chemistry."
Here's The Washington Post confirming that Professor Lawrence Principe is doing alchemy :
"His work shows that alchemy should not be dismissed as cheap tricks. Principe has replicated alchemists’ ancient formulas, taking chemical reactions several steps beyond what skeptics thought possible. He has reproduced alchemists’ unusual materials, such as a glow-in-the-dark stone that remained a mystery for centuries."
"Principe has shown “that the processes the alchemists described were made up of real laboratory steps, not just metaphors,” said Mary Ellen Bowden, senior research fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia.
Italian and French scholars attempted alchemical reconstructions in the 1950s, Rampling said. But Principe was one of the first people who brought that technique into the mainstream of the history of science, she said."
You're wrong as I have shown above.
SwordOfTruth
Member
Here's another article about Principe and his work which has some photos at the bottom showing the results of one of his alchemical experiments:
Historical investigations are not the same thing as someone actually performing alchemy experiments because they believe alchemy (the attempt to change iron, copper, silver or any other substance into gold) actually works.Your views are archaic and ill-founded in this respect but that's no surprise.
Here's the Royal Society of Chemistry
"Alchemists are often described as the first chemists. They developed an extraordinary language (rather than the chemical symbols we use today) to describe all manner of things, from chemical reactions to philosophical tenets. Click on ‘What is alchemy?’ to learn about the three aims of the alchemists. Click on each of the alchemical symbols for more information and to see alternative symbols."
Alchemy was the forerunner science to what we now know as Chemistry. No hocus-pocus involved
Here's the prestigious Cambridge University offering an international conference on the links between alchemy and modern chemistry:
All is not what it seems: the blurred boundaries between alchemy and medicine
An international conference taking place at Cambridge University later this week will reveal that for many centuries alchemy and medicine were deeplywww.cam.ac.uk
Here's the Smithsonian Magazine commenting on the subject and highlighting that the prestigious professor Lawrence Principe at John Hopkins University is actively engaged in alchemy work and has succeeded in creating the "Philosopher's Tree"
Alchemy May Not Have Been the Pseudoscience We All Thought It Was
Although scientists never could quite turn lead into gold, they did attempt some noteworthy experimentswww.smithsonianmag.com
"What intrigues Principe and his fellow historians, though, is the growing evidence that the alchemists seem to have performed legitimate experiments, manipulated and analyzed the material world in interesting ways and reported genuine results. And many of the great names in the canon of modern science took note, says William Newman, a historian at Indiana University Bloomington."
"Robert Boyle, one of the 17th-century founders of modern chemistry, “basically pillaged” the work of the German physician and alchemist Daniel Sennert, says Newman. When Boyle’s French counterpart, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, substituted a modern list
of elements (oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and others) for the ancient four elements (earth, air, fire and water), he built on an idea that was “actually widespread in earlier alchemical sources,” Newman writes. The concept that matter was composed of several distinctive elements, in turn, inspired Sir Isaac Newton’s work on optics—notably, his demonstration that the multiple colors produced by a prism could be reconstituted into white light."
I could go on, but what's the point !
Nope. Poor show. Here's Lawrence Principe's page:
Lawrence M. Principe | History of Science and Technology
I am broadly interested in late medieval and early modern (1200-1750) science and technology. I...
"My research specialization lies in exploring and understanding the history of chemistry/alchemy. While I am especially active in the study of early modern (1500-1750) chymistry (a term intended to include both what we call “chemistry” and “alchemy” in a time before there existed any clear distinction between the two), I also have a keen interest in the alchemy of the Greek, Islamic, and Medieval periods, and even its revival in the nineteenth century. My broad research goals include resituating alchemy in its due context--intellectual, social, philosophical, technological, religious, and experimental--and displaying its importance and influence in the history of science and in European culture more broadly. I want to understand both how alchemists thought about the world and their work and what they actually did practically on a daily basis. Consequently, my approaches include both the traditional historical methods of textual analysis/contextualization and archival research as well as the more innovative method of replicating alchemical processes in a modern laboratory (using historical apparatus and materials that try to approximate the impure substances ordinarily used in the past) in order more fully to understand the historical texts and their authors’ motivations as well as the practical aims, abilities, and observations of the original practitioners. This dual approach allows for a richer exploration of the interactions between theory and practice, between mind and hand--a feature that characterizes not only alchemy throughout its history but also its descendant, modern chemistry."
Here's The Washington Post confirming that Professor Lawrence Principe is doing alchemy :
"His work shows that alchemy should not be dismissed as cheap tricks. Principe has replicated alchemists’ ancient formulas, taking chemical reactions several steps beyond what skeptics thought possible. He has reproduced alchemists’ unusual materials, such as a glow-in-the-dark stone that remained a mystery for centuries."
"Principe has shown “that the processes the alchemists described were made up of real laboratory steps, not just metaphors,” said Mary Ellen Bowden, senior research fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia.
Italian and French scholars attempted alchemical reconstructions in the 1950s, Rampling said. But Principe was one of the first people who brought that technique into the mainstream of the history of science, she said."
You're wrong as I have shown above.
I do take it back though! You didn't lie. Lying implies an awareness that what you've said is false. You're too stupid to be able to lie.
I guarantee this lunatic thinks Giorgio Tsoukalos' ancient alien theory is legitimate. His mind "works" the same way.
There wasn't that much.
You just don't want to respond, because you know it completely blows whatever complaint you have against Scripture out of the water.
Try reading the whole thing, and responding to each of the points I made.
I dare you.
I reject the "popular conception" of God.
I prefer the Biblical description of God, which is that He is living, loving, personal, relational, and good.
Which are not necessarily the same. Which is the entire point we've been trying to pound into your thick skull this entire time.
Stick to what the Bible says, not what men say.
Men say there are many gods.
The Bible says there is only one God, YHWH.
Only one of of those claims can be true.
Hitler is not God.
Neither is God Hitler.
God is just in all His ways.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think that protecting someone from any and all consequences of their actions results in a healthy relationship with them?
It really isn't that simple.
Who's excusing any actions/inaction?
Should God protect every human being from the consequences of every other human being's actions?
So because God doesn't meet your standard, therefore you reject Him?
So what?
That is, in fact, what He was referring to.
The context of the bread and wine being His blood and body is literally the Passover.
He said those during the Passover meal.
The symbolism is there. Why do you refuse to see it?
You can disagree all you like. It doesn't mean what I said is wrong.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
1) Your premise is wrong, that God is "all-powerful" and "all-knowing."
2) Sure, God could look at each individual's heart and find out, but God, as shown throughout the Bible, likes using means.
Doorposts, floods, pillars of fire and cloud, writing on walls, marching around a city. God uses means to accomplish His will, because they have value and meaning for the humans that are involved, and are often symbolic.
Ever heard of Abraham? Ever heard the story about how He told him to take his son Isaac up a mountain to be sacrificed?
Yeah, go read that, and let me know what God said about Abraham afterwards.
I addressed this, but you seem to have skipped over it.
Rather, it makes perfect sense, and you're just throwing a tantrum because it doesn't meet your standards.
Yeah, your standards for reality are off.
The stories are literal.
God is not wrong.
The Bible is not just "fanciful invention."
No, it doesn't.
You simply let the text say what it says.
If it's narrative, then you read it as narrative. If there are figures of speech used, you take those into consideration.
If it's poetry, you read it as poetry. If the poetry is directed at someone, but describes something else, then you take that into consideration.
If it's parable, then parable, and you look for the explanation that is given.
This isn't hard.
Off the top of my head, the parables Jesus gave.
More here:
Does the Bible contain allegory? | GotQuestions.org
Does the Bible contain allegory? What are some of the allegories in the Bible? Should some parts of the Bible be interpreted allegorically?
gotquestions.org
Most of the allegories in the Bible, however, are allegorical interpretations of real things, like marriage, the story of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah, and many of the ceremonial laws given to Israel through Moses.
SwordOfTruth
Member
Excellent
I guess at this point it behoves me to ask which particular version of the Bible you think it the true one so we can avoid silly discussion about Bible quotes not being the right translation
No it doesn't. It refers to numerous gods in numerous places for example:
"God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." KJV
The concept of "just" is subjective.
Let me ask you this (since you deliberately avoided this challenging scenario)
Is morally right or wrong to sit and watch an innocent and helpless child be sexually molested by the likes of Jimmy Savile. It's a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think that there are at least some instances such as the above where a God should be intervening to protect the people he claims to love?
Could a human parent be deemed loving if they stood by and watched their helpess child being sexually molested?
Please don't skip over these 3 questions
Human parents protect their children from other human's actions where possible and protect them from basic dangers like crossing the road and so on. Its a parental responsibility without which we would be abandoning innocent kids to much suffering and or death. If humans know and understand this, how much more should a powerful and supposedly loving God know this?
You are. You're making excuses for your God's wilful inaction or indiffernce to the sexual abuse of helpess children. What does that say about you?
Why would any human accept any ruler or mentor that didn't meet an accepted standard? Rulers, kings, queensthroughout history have been toppled or killed because they behaved appallingly. So yes of course we should and MUST hold any would be ruling entity to some level of behaviour and standard otherwise we will beget a total uncaring tyrant. On a personal basis I only reject the defacto concept of an all-loving all-powerful all-knowing entity as peddled by the Church. Reality around us every day demonstrates admirably that no such entity exists. The life answers therefore must lie elsewhere.
Because I see the truer meaning in the alchemical allegory. There's simply no point that Jesus actually wanted anyone to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood and thus equally there's no allegory that alludes to that. The allegories are alluding to the consumation of the White and Red Stones and that's supported by the numerous other references the Stone in the Bible such as I have already given.
It doesn't mean what you said is right either.
See how that works?!And again, saying it doesn't make it so doesn't make it not so.
That's the Bible's premise not mine, at least the all-powerful part.
Genesis 18:14 - Is anything too difficult for the Lord?
Job 42:1-2 - Then Job answered the Lord and said, “I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
Luke 1:37 - For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Jeremiah 32:27 - “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?”
Hebrews 1:3 - He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.
and so on
However if you are claiming that your God is NOT all-powerful then on what basis should any human worship him rather than any other God which may or may not be even more powerful?
But according to the Bible God does already know all hearts and minds
1 Kings 8:39 - then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,
Psalm 44:21 - Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.
Acts 15:8 - And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us
What purpose do you suggest is being served by God allowing helpless children to be sexually molested by wicked men? What value and meaning is there is such an attrocity?
Yep it's an appalling story. What kind of twisted individual/entity would ask a parent to go kill their own child? It's sick.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
The stories are at least in part allegorical not literal. Do you really believe in talking snakes? How about the flying spaghetti monster?
Right and wrong can not apply to a form of energy. The universe doesn't care one jot about your concept of right or wrong. Right now somewhere out there a star is going supernova and destroying all the planets in that star system and all life on those planets. The universe doesn't care. God, the life force, doesn't care. It just is.
It was written by humans. It is what it is.
Last edited:
The only "true" Bible is the original autographs, which have since been lost to time.
Scripture was scripture the moment it was written, not when it was later compiled.
That being said, the copies we have are virtually identical to what was originally written (for example, compare the Old Testament to the Dead Sea Scrolls).
There will always be variance when translating from one language to another, and the Bible (written in Hebrew, Greek, and a small amount of Aramaic) is no exception, simply due to the differences between the original language and the one into which it is being translated.
There are also different translation methods, which I won't get into here, other than to say that versions that are formal equivalence translations are the closest to the original language while still being readable (with literal translations, such as interlinears, being 1:1 translations, though not very readable). The NKJV is one such version that uses formal equivalence, and is the version I prefer to use, while still recognizing that there are some places within it that could have been translated better.
Uh, yes, it does.
Have you not read it?
28 Biblical Passages Which Explicitly Teach There is Only One God | Monergism
Article content used with permission from the Institute for Religious Research. We help you find truth and share it with love. www.IRR.org1. Deuteronomy
www.monergism.com
God stands in the congregation of the mighty;He judges among the gods.
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82:1 - New King James Version
A Plea for Justice - A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods.
There is a footnote in the NKJV (one of the reasons I like it) for "gods" here. (Footnote b)
It reads:
| Judges; Heb. elohim, lit. mighty ones or gods |
It's not referring to actual gods, but of mighty men, judges.
Except it's not.
If it were so, then you have no means by which to judge God, because you think He is unjust, but I think He is just.
Who’s right? You or me?
How can you know?
There must be an objective standard somewhere.
My answer depends on your answer to my question.
Except it's not just a simple yes or no question.
Again: Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?
God does not intervene because doing so would cause more harm than good.
Obviously, the parent should intervene. That would be the loving thing to do. (Keep reading before responding, my thought isn’t finished yet.)
And a society where such is common is the result of inaction on the part of the government, whom God has given the authority and responsibility to deal with such things, to serve as a deterrent against such crimes. To the extent that such crimes occur, to that extent the government has failed.
So again, I ask you, should men not face the consequences of their actions?
Please don't avoid my question again, as it is foundational to the answer to yours.
Indeed.
And who gave parents that responsibility?
Do you think that the One who gave them that responsibility should be held accountable when those parents forsake that responsibility? Or how about when the government fails in its responsibility to punish criminals appropriately, so as to deter them from such crimes, should then the One who gave the government the responsibility to do so be held accountable for their failure?
Supra.
I have made ZERO excuses for anyone. All I did was ask a question. One which, so far, you have not answered.
You seem to be making excuses for lots of people, though.
What does that say about you?
Begging the question.
Rulers, kings, queens throughout history have been toppled or killed because they behaved well, too.
So what?
Indeed.
Of course, if that standard is not objective, then anyone could frame any ruler they don't like as a "total uncaring tyrant," when they might not be.
Like you, here, have done to God.
Try the God of the Bible, instead.
Reality around us every day demonstates admirably that God exists.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Bible is not a book about alchemy.
You're just in denial.
I already gave you the reason He said to eat His flesh and to drink His blood, when He spoke about eating bread and drinking wine.
Just because you reject that reason doesn't mean there isn't a reason.
Yeah, no.
It doesn't mean what you said is right either.
Indeed, which is why I made the argument for what I said, instead of just saying it. Try addressing the argument I made.
Supra.
Yeah, no.
Capability, not power.
Capability, not power.
Capability, not power.
Capability, not power.
More powerful than anything in the universe, but not "all powerful" (omnipotent).
"Beyond measure" does not mean "omnipotent."
None of those verses state that God is "all-powerful."
Because He literally died for you.
"Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends."
If giving up one's life for you is not worthy of your respect, then nothing is, and it's no wonder you reject Him.
He wants to call you "friend." But you keep slapping His hand away.
Eventually, it will be too late. Repent now, while you still can.
Look at the context.
This is a prayer by Solomon.
Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven; and he said: “Lord God of Israel, there is no God in heaven above or on earth below like You, who keep Your covenant and mercy with Your servants who walk before You with all their hearts. You have kept what You promised Your servant David my father; You have both spoken with Your mouth and fulfilled it with Your hand, as it is this day. Therefore, Lord God of Israel, now keep what You promised Your servant David my father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man sit before Me on the throne of Israel, only if your sons take heed to their way, that they walk before Me as you have walked before Me.’ And now I pray, O God of Israel, let Your word come true, which You have spoken to Your servant David my father. “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built! Yet regard the prayer of Your servant and his supplication, O Lord my God, and listen to the cry and the prayer which Your servant is praying before You today: that Your eyes may be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that You may hear the prayer which Your servant makes toward this place. And may You hear the supplication of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. Hear in heaven Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive. “When anyone sins against his neighbor, and is forced to take an oath, and comes and takes an oath before Your altar in this temple, then hear in heaven, and act, and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked, bringing his way on his head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness. “When Your people Israel are defeated before an enemy because they have sinned against You, and when they turn back to You and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication to You in this temple, then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your people Israel, and bring them back to the land which You gave to their fathers. “When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You, when they pray toward this place and confess Your name, and turn from their sin because You afflict them, then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your servants, Your people Israel, that You may teach them the good way in which they should walk; and send rain on Your land which You have given to Your people as an inheritance. “When there is famine in the land, pestilence or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers; when their enemy besieges them in the land of their cities; whatever plague or whatever sickness there is; whatever prayer, whatever supplication is made by anyone, or by all Your people Israel, when each one knows the plague of his own heart, and spreads out his hands toward this temple: then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know (for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men), that they may fear You all the days that they live in the land which You gave to our fathers. “Moreover, concerning a foreigner, who is not of Your people Israel, but has come from a far country for Your name’s sake (for they will hear of Your great name and Your strong hand and Your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this temple, hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, that all peoples of the earth may know Your name and fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this temple which I have built is called by Your name. “When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, wherever You send them, and when they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the temple which I have built for Your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause. “When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin), and You become angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and they take them captive to the land of the enemy, far or near; yet when they come to themselves in the land where they were carried captive, and repent, and make supplication to You in the land of those who took them captive, saying, ‘We have sinned and done wrong, we have committed wickedness’; and when they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who led them away captive, and pray to You toward their land which You gave to their fathers, the city which You have chosen and the temple which I have built for Your name: then hear in heaven Your dwelling place their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You, and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You; and grant them compassion before those who took them captive, that they may have compassion on them (for they are Your people and Your inheritance, whom You brought out of Egypt, out of the iron furnace), that Your eyes may be open to the supplication of Your servant and the supplication of Your people Israel, to listen to them whenever they call to You. For You separated them from among all the peoples of the earth to be Your inheritance, as You spoke by Your servant Moses, when You brought our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord God.”
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Kings 8:22-53 - New King James Version
Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication - Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven; and he said: “Lord God of Israel, there is no God in heaven above or on earth below like You, who keep Your covenant and mercy...www.biblegateway.com
It's not an absolute statement.
It's an observation of what has already occurred.
The verse literally says "would not God find this out?"
What is there for God to "find out" if He already knows everything?
Note that this is in the context of Paul witnessing to the Gentiles, the immediate context being the Jerusalem Council.
Do you think God would be involved to some extent when His gospel is being preached among the Gentiles?
Who said there was some purpose or value or meaning when such happens?
Not us.
Your contention is with Calvinism, not Christianity.
Only when you ignore the fact that God is the Creator, and thus has the right to demand such actions.
You didn't answer my question, though.
What did God say after He stopped Abraham?
Right back at'cha!
No one said there is no allegory in the stories of the Bible.
But simply rejecting them as having happened in the first place is too far in the other direction. There is no reason to do so.
A talking serpent in the Garden of Eden?
Yes. Because the serpent was Lucifer, the angel of light.
And a donkey given the ability to speak by God in order to rebuke his master, later.
You mean the made-up creature created by atheists to mock God?
No, of course not.
God is not "a form of energy."
Right and wrong (let alone the universe itself) does not exist without God.
The universe doesn't have a mind TO BE ABLE to care.
God is life. Not some "force."
Because you say so?
The Bible says He knows the stars by name.
How much more does He care about human beings?
Is what?
Indeed. 40 humans across a period of 1600 years, yet it tells a consistent and coherent story.
Have you ever tried writing a story with someone else? How about if you've never met them? And how about if they were separated from you by over a hundred years? How could you hope to have two stories that not only agree with each other, but that are consistent with a greater story that is yet unfinished?
I assert such a thing is not possible without divine inspiration.
Whatever that's supposed to mean.