Is there life elsewhere?

[LA-girl]

The Bible says God created Adam of his likeness and Eve was created from Adams rib. Very believable isnt it lol.

Take a look at this first:

Regenerating ribs
Adam and that ‘missing’ rib

Thoracic (chest) surgeons routinely remove ribs, and these often grow back, in whole or in part. A lot depends on the care with which the rib is removed; it needs to be ‘peeled’ out of its periosteum to leave this membrane as intact as possible. A major reason why the rib is the ideal situation for such regeneration is that the attached intercostal muscles provide it with a good blood supply.

In Genesis 2:21, referring to the creation of Eve, we read:
‘And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept.
And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath.’

Surprisingly, some Christians have grown up believing that men have one less rib than women. They have the same number, of course. Some anti-creationists have used the fact that men don’t have any missing ribs today to mock a literal Genesis.

For years before my accident, when asked about this, I would give a reply something like this: ‘If your father had lost his finger in a circular saw, would you really expect all his children to have one less finger, too? Or all of his sons, but not his daughters? Of course not. The DNA instructions that are passed on from parent to child are in the form of a code, like writing — removing a rib (or finger) would not change the instructions on the code, so all the offspring will have all their ribs (or fingers).’

While all that is still very true and pertinent, this information about rib regrowth adds a new and fascinating dimension. God designed the rib, along with the periosteum. He would certainly have known how to remove the rib in such a way that it would later grow back, just as ribs still do today — without requiring any sort of special miracle.5

Adam would not have had any permanent area of weakness in his rib cage, but would have had, for all of the hundreds of years of his life, the same number of ribs that you and I have today.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/ribs.asp

 

[Quixote]

Quixote said:

That's because they are probably direct descendants of the first wave of aliens who colonized the planet in ancient times. I've got a book with all the evidence, antique artifacts, written records, pictures of giant spacecraft landing in Manila etc...

I knew there will be response like yours Quixote! lol but i'm telling you, im no looney!!! Read Langbein's books and you will eventually find the truth.
What i meant with Lanbein giving facts, i wasnt saying he got photos and stuff lol but he gives logical explanations of it all, like the one stated above, about creation of Adam and Eve.

That's okay, mine was not really intended as a reply to your post, it was just a stupid joke in response to n1usjoe meaningful contribution to the debate. If I had been replying to your post, I wouldn't have used an "easy" joke like that one, it would have been like admitting that I had no good arguments.

Now, replying seriously, I don't find this theory much worth of trust as it doesn't seem falsifiable, in other words it doesn't make any predictions that could be used to prove it wrong. Building something that is consistent with reality ex post is simple, but it doesn't make a good scientific theory. For example, before the copernican theory about the motion of planets was thought of, astronomers kept using the old Tolemaic conception of the earth being the center of the universe. As new details were observed that did not fit into the scheme (such as the "inexplicable" behaviour of jupiter satellites if I remember right) they would simply "update" the tolemaic description by adding twists and swirls to the supposed paths of celestial bodies, so as to somehow incorporate the new observations. Working in that fashion, the old theory would probably still survive today!

Back to the aliens, I find that this Langbein proceeds in a similar way: he has this very open and generic "theory" (aliens created umans) that is too vague to be falsifiable, as it doesn't make any accurate predictions and can be "consistent" with anything that is found or not found. Is there any statement, call it statement "A", that can be logically linked to the aliens theory in such a way that "if statement A is proved wrong, the theory is proved wrong"? If there isn't such a possibility.... the aliens theory is not acceptable as a scientific theory

Wow that was long and boring. I apologize! I think If I keep writing in this self important manner it will be proven beyond doubt that I am nothing but a fool...

 

[LA-girl]

. Building something that is consistent with reality ex post is simple, but it doesn't make a good scientific theory. For example, before the copernican theory about the motion of planets was thought of, astronomers kept using the old Tolemaic conception of the earth being the center of the universe. As new details were observed that did not fit into the scheme (such as the "inexplicable" behaviour of jupiter satellites if I remember right) they would simply "update" the tolemaic description by adding twists and swirls to the supposed paths of celestial bodies, so as to somehow incorporate the new observations. Working in that fashion, the old theory would probably still survive today!

Just like the "modern" evolution scientists! :wink:

 

[Quixote]

. Building something that is consistent with reality ex post is simple, but it doesn't make a good scientific theory. For example, before the copernican theory about the motion of planets was thought of, astronomers kept using the old Tolemaic conception of the earth being the center of the universe. As new details were observed that did not fit into the scheme (such as the "inexplicable" behaviour of jupiter satellites if I remember right) they would simply "update" the tolemaic description by adding twists and swirls to the supposed paths of celestial bodies, so as to somehow incorporate the new observations. Working in that fashion, the old theory would probably still survive today!

Just like the "modern" evolution scientists! :wink:

Yes it's true, sometimes it looks like evolutionary theory has the same problem. But the fact is:
- There are no better alternatives around, meaning easily falsifiable ones. Evolutionary theory does make a lot of predictions, hard to falsify admittedly, but theoretically falsifiable.
- The theory of evolution, as a theory, may have these inherent faults, but the fact is does it make it any sense to still consider it as a theory when you can experimantally observe it as a fact? If you look at a colony of bacteria, which reproduce extremely quickly, you can actually see them evolving (the cause of most hospital infections, btw, as their evolution normally consists of becoming resistant to antibiotics)

 

[dzerklis]

LA-girl and Quixote, you're so smart, you should join Langbein's school and you would be saved when armageddon comes

La-girl that is intersting, about ribs, but that doesnt explain how a human can be created from a human rib?

Quixote, Langbein's theory is not a theory actually, because.. it is so true! lol all those facts, they cant be just coincidence. I know the word 'aliens' sound silly and childish to most people, and i wont use it anymore, but i could have written my posts without ever using this word and they wouldnt make less or more sense..

We all know that the Bible we can get in libraries nowadays is not the original Bible, it was cesored, and censored a lot, but even tho it was so there are some places left uncesored, example, in the beginning of the Bible there is a statement "Gods flied above waters". GodS, not God. So, what or who do you think THEY were? Birds, skydivers, flying frogs?..

Lets take very famous event descibed in the Bible, about Holy Ghost and Maria and Jesus. The Bible says Holy Ghost was a flying object, and holy lol so, practically, Maria couldnt get pregnant from him/it right? The truth is that Maria didnt become pregnant FROM it but IN it, she was artificially inseminated like many abductees in USA and some other parts of the world in 90s, and Jesus was God's son, not Holy Ghost's son lol he was a human-god hybrid, thats why he had those abilities he had. ok, i think its enough of the truth for today

 

[LA-girl]

Yes it's true, sometimes it looks like evolutionary theory has the same problem. But the fact is:
- There are no better alternatives around, meaning easily falsifiable ones. Evolutionary theory does make a lot of predictions, hard to falsify admittedly, but theoretically falsifiable.
- The theory of evolution, as a theory, may have these inherent faults, but the fact is does it make it any sense to still consider it as a theory when you can experimantally observe it as a fact?

------------------------------

K...first of all I have to admit that the first part of the following info is a repitition from one of my posts in the Religious DT.

But take a seriously look at this before you conclude with that the evolution theory are merely a fact rather than theory:

A big obstacle for evolutionary belief is this:

What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it—selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

Also, natural selection by definition is the survival of the fittest, meaning those who leave the most surviving offspring. Therefore it requires self-reproducing entities to start with. So it is powerless to explain the origin of the vast quantities of information of the first self-reproducing cell.

For evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information (the coded set of instructions which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blueprint’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next.

Naturally, such scrambling of information will often be harmful—thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited mutational defects. At best they may be neutral—having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying ‘the enemy is now attacking’, which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to ‘the enemy is not attacking’. The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to ‘tha enemy is now attacking’ would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result.

Evolutionists believe that occasionally, a ‘good’ mutation will occur which will be favoured by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.

The wrong type of change
Are there ‘good’ mutations? Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such ‘good’ mistakes are still the wrong types of changes to turn a fish into a philosopher—they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).

--------------------------------------------------------

If you look at a colony of bacteria, which reproduce extremely quickly, you can actually see them evolving (the cause of most hospital infections, btw, as their evolution normally consists of becoming resistant to antibiotics)

Antibiotic resistance

Some antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacterial population, as shown by specimens frozen before the development of antibiotics. So natural selection only selected from pre-existing variation. But nothing new was produced. Similarly, myxomatosis-resistant rabbits were already present in the population. When myxomatosis was introduced to Australia, non-resistant rabbits were selected against. But this processes caused the loss of information from the bacteria and rabbit population due to the loss of genetic diversity.

Also, a loss of information can cause bacterial antibiotic resistance, e.g. penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to a mutation causing a regulatory gene’s loss of control of production of penicillinase (an enzyme which destroys penicillin). The resulting overproduction of penicillinase increases resistance to penicillin. But in the wild (away from artificial environments swamped with penicillin), the Staphylococcus would be less ‘fit’ because it wastes resources producing heaps of unnecessary protein.

Another common cause of antibiotic resistance is mutational defects which hinder the bacterium’s ability to transport substances through its cell membrane. Such a defect means that the antibiotic is less readily absorbed, so it is less likely to kill the bacterium. But in the wild, it would be unable to compete with bacteria with properly working cell membrane pumps which take up nutrients into the cell.

Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme. This would be real evolution, but such has not been found. Sometimes bacteria have acquired resistance genes from other species via viruses or by direct transfer through tiny tubes, but this is not the addition of new information to the biosphere as a whole. Bacteria only produce bacteria ‘after their kind’, not a different type of creature.


Full article

 

[dzerklis]

LA-girl, yes, that proves that higher forms of life are created artificially

 

[Quixote]

Quixote, Langbein's theory is not a theory actually, because.. it is so true! lol all those facts, they cant be just coincidence. I know the word 'aliens' sound silly and childish to most people, and i wont use it anymore, but i could have written my posts without ever using this word and they wouldnt make less or more sense..

Dzerklis, I had no intention to dismiss your theory as "silly and childish" and that's why I wrote a rather long post in reply, bringing what seemed to me like good arguments...sorry if it sounded dismissive!

example, in the beginning of the Bible there is a statement "Gods flied above waters". GodS, not God. So, what or who do you think THEY were? Birds, skydivers, flying frogs?..

This is very interesting, but personally I'm more inclined to see it as a remnant of some very ancient times in which people in the area were politheistic. In fact, the notion of a single god is quite recent, so it would not be surprising given when the first versions of the bible were written...

 

[dzerklis]

Dzerklis, I had no intention to dismiss your theory as "silly and childish" and that's why I wrote a rather long post in reply, bringing what seemed to me like good arguments...sorry if it sounded dismissive!

Quixote, i wasnt thinking you had intention to dismiss Langbein's theory! it must be SP that makes me sound like im paranoid that everybody is against my views! or maybe they didnt give me the right meds yesterday :roll:

 

[LA-girl]

you should join Langbein's school and you would be saved when armageddon comes

Out of curiosity, does this Langbein theory mention an Armageddon like the Bible? What does he say it takes to be saved?

La-girl that is intersting, about ribs, but that doesnt explain how a human can be created from a human rib?

Ok, I have to admit that although the Bible teach a lot and all those statements made in the Bible written hundreds and hundreds of years ago, not to mention all the thousands of prophecies being fulfilled to the letter, there are matters that are not being explained in detail.
I will get back to scientific accurate statements and prophecies later on btw.

Also are these aliens good or bad? Loving or evil? And does he say whether they created the whole Universe, the earth or just humans??

 

[dzerklis]

Also are these aliens good or bad? Loving or evil? And does he say whether they created the whole Universe, the earth or just humans??

LA-girl, Langbein knows about aliens as much as it is said about them in the Hebraic Bible. They seem rather evil, at least some of them. Example, they destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah without remorses while there were hundreds and maybe thousands of people in them.. Langbein says in those places where those two cities were located radioactivity level today is thousands of times stronger than it should be, so we could conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were possibly destroyed using nuclear weapons. Of course, i havent been in those places and cant prove it, but the destruction description in the Bible sounds like that - sulphur rain and stuff..
Hebraic Bible tells only about creation of humankind, nothing about creation of Universe or Earth there..
Never mind about Armageddon! I dont know anything about it..

 

[LA-girl]

Also are these aliens good or bad? Loving or evil? And does he say whether they created the whole Universe, the earth or just humans??

LA-girl, Langbein knows about aliens as much as it is said about them in the Hebraic Bible. They seem rather evil, at least some of them. Example, they destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah without remorses while there were hundreds and maybe thousands of people in them.. Langbein says in those places where those two cities were located radioactivity level today is thousands of times stronger than it should be, so we could conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were possibly destroyed using nuclear weapons. Of course, i havent been in those places and cant prove it, but the destruction description in the Bible sounds like that - sulphur rain and stuff..
Hebraic Bible tells only about creation of humankind, nothing about creation of Universe or Earth there..
Never mind about Armageddon! I dont know anything about it..

Ok, Dzerklis, Thank you for clarifying that. So Langbeins theory is that these what you would call evil Gods (aliens) created humans as some sort of experiment, but you say it does not clarify how or by whom the universe was made, nor the earth. My second question is where does he say these aliens come from, another planet?

You also mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which the Bible mentions are set forward as an example of how God will on the day of judgement deal with the wicked. "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah --from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities --and also the vegetation in the land." Genesis 19:24, 25 NIV)

You said you had not been to those places, but here are a few people who have been there and documented what they found. Quite interesting don't you think?

Here is a picture taken from this beautiful, yet barren Dead Sea area, there is a mountain known as Mt. Sodom. It is adjacent to this area that the city of Sodom was located.

Hundreds of sulfur balls were found and collected. On two occasions, the investigation teams entered the cities after a rain fall. The glass surrounding the balls glistened in the light, the rain having exposed millions of the balls.

The balls themselves were composed of pressed pure powder sulfur. Checking with volcanic experts around the world confirmed that no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found.

If you want to see more pictures and hear more details click here.

You also mentioned that creation is not mentioned in the hebraic Bible, which I find hard to believe when the Old testament in its original language is in hebraic and arameic. (While the NT is in greek). I also must say i find it very doubtful that he has extracted much of his theory from the Hebraic Bible given that so many scholared people have been studying the Bible in its original version and the version they have used as a basis for all translations. Also again if his theory was so revolutionary and believable don't you think it's weird that his theory only excists in the german language?

 

[Quixote]

Ehm...I'm a bit late on the debate, I see it has been progressing, but answering LAgirl about evolutionary theory, it seems that the main point in that quoted article was that evolution works through selection, and selection consists of destroying pieces of information, so an increase in complexity (inpliying an increase in the amount of information) through evolution is impossible.

Well the fact is, selection destroys some useless mutations, with loss of "information" but then the new mutations themselves, continuously occurring in the selected individuals, could be seen as increasing the total amount of information, so that the balance is positive...maybe, I don't know

 

[dzerklis]

My second question is where does he say these aliens come from, another planet?

LA-girl, yes, another planet, from the Alpha Centauri system.

You said you had not been to those places, but here are a few people who have been there and documented what they found. Quite interesting don't you think?

Yes, interesting, thanks for the link!

You also mentioned that creation is not mentioned in the hebraic Bible, which I find hard to believe..

Actually i mentioned it before - Langbein says what is described in the Bible is creation of that laboratory, which was kinda universe for the creatures created in genetic experiments. I think this laboratory was Eden same time, and when Eve and Adam were kicked out from it they were kicked out in the 'real world' where they had to face many unpleasant things unlike Eden which was like a greenhouse for them, in which they were given food and all things, they didnt have to work and protect themselves from any threats there..

Also again if his theory was so revolutionary and believable don't you think it's weird that his theory only excists in the german language?

I dont think its weird,at all. Just that people are not ready for such extreme explanations. When we are born we are told there is God but few of us start questioning, most of us accept it as truth. When oceanians are born they are told there is God and he is a crocodile. So they are 100% certain that God is a crocodile during their lifetimes. Personally im not an atheist, i know there are higher powers and other dimensions we are not able to understand with our little minds simply because we are born only for this dimension we live in, but now i know what the Bible is talking about is not God but 'just' those gods that created us, not the earth and universe.

 

[LA-girl]

Dzerklis, I first want to emphacize that I have no problem with you believing this, but I think it is a bit extreme by this Langbein guy to claim that he has collected this information from the original hebrew Bible.

First of all the hebrew Bible is probably the most studied book in the entire history by a wide variety of people, christians as well as non-christians.

But just to make sure that I haven't been fooled, I checked it out and here is what I found.

The Hebrew original Bible/English translation: line by line.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

For instance you said that in the original Hebrew Bible they did not mention who created the world. Well, here is the proof that it does:

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. 2
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר. 3
And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

ד וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ. 4
And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

 

[dzerklis]

First of all the hebrew Bible is probably the most studied book in the entire history by a wide variety of people, christians as well as non-christians.

But just to make sure that I haven't been fooled, I checked it out and here is what I found.

The Hebrew original Bible/English translation: line by line.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

For instance you said that in the original Hebrew Bible they did not mention who created the world. Well, here is the proof that it does:

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. 2
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר. 3
And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

ד וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ. 4
And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

LA-girl, yes, that is what i wanted to talk about, about the 'credibility' of the Bible.
To Langbein (and to me too) the Bible is like an epos or something like that, that is, a tale with some sort of truth in it. But the difference is there are tons of facts in the Bible. Those people who wrote the Bible didnt have the knowledge people have today, so they used simple words to describe things, example, they called chromosomes ribs just because they didnt know any better. When i read those statements about creation of the world you posted above, i perceive them as statements about creation of, lets say, the little world that gods created to accomplish their experiments in.

 

[LA-girl]

Ok thanks! So just to sum up here. The original Bible are in essence the same Bible we have in our homes, translated into different languages.
But what Langbein did in his book was trying to explain his version of the Bible which to me seem far far off from the "traditional" way of reading and interpreting the Bible.

You also question the credibility of the Biblebecause it does not explain in details the exact scientific details for instance how God created Eve from Adams rib. But only because it doesn't give the exact details does not mean that there is a lack of credibility, i.m.o.

To me the Bible gives perfect sense and I find it very credible.
A new question, does his version include some kind of afterlife?

 

[dzerklis]

But what Langbein did in his book was trying to explain his version of the Bible.

To me, not "was trying to explain" but "explained" hehe

You also question the credibility of the Bible

LA-girl, I'm sorry but you got me wrong here, i dont question credibility of the Bible, its the other way around, but.. I will try to make a comparison. Imagine if a person from 10th century one day finds himself in our, 21st century, and is told to describe our world. How do you think, what his writing will look like? I bet it would be something like "Holy Spirits flying in the sky and running on the roads on four wheels, God's voice coming from rectangular artifacts" etc. The same happened when the Bible was written. When people saw a flying object they called it Holy Spirit because it was something godlike to them..

A new question, does his version include some kind of afterlife?

I don't know, but i doubt he believes in afterlife, he seems to be so rational hehe

I think its time i started asking about christians theory I'd like to know, what is afterlife like?

 

[LA-girl]

The biggest problem with the theory of Langbein is that it is so far off from what the Bible teaches and its message about salvation. That Jesus, was God coming down to earth as a human in order to save the human-race from dying. He becomes our atonement, and through Him we can have access to eternal life. My Bible also teach that God loves each one of us more than we can ever imagine and created us not to die but to live together with him forever on this earth made new.

Now you asked me what Christianity teach about afterlife. You probably have heard that pastors and preachers teach that the "good" christians ones go to heaven and the wicked to hell. And most teach that your soul will never die, but continue to excist forever either in heaven or hell.
And they picture heaven as a perfect place where everybody is happy and hell where everybody is completely miserable and they are burned and tortured forever and ever. 8O Shocking, I know! Now don't stop reading cause what I am about to tell you is that this picture is completely unbiblical.

First I want to tell you in short what the Bible in fact teaches about hell.

1. The Bible mention a hell, but it is not a place down in the center of the earth, it is an act going to happen on the surface of this planet. The purpose of this hell-act is to erase all sin, sinners, the devil and his demons forever. This is in order for God to make sure that sin and affliction will not arise a second time as sin and disobediance to God only leads to destruction.

2. The Bibel teaches us that the sinners will DIE, and NOT be tortured forever. "Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:15. "
But prior to the 2.death as the bible calls it He will have to punish the sinners according to their deeds. This is because God is just and has to punish people differently based on their bad deeds, and to make sure that dictators for instance will not get away without first paying for their wicked deeds.

3. This will be the sadest day in the worlds history, because everybody will be weeping, the unsaved, the saved, Gods angels and even God himself. Although sad and strange act for God (according to the Bible), as it is completely out of character for Him as it states "God is not willing that anyone should perish, but for all to come to repentance." and " God so loved the world (each and every humanbeing) that he gave his only begotten son (Jesus) so that whoever believes in Him should not die but have everlasting life" John 3.16.

For those reading this thinking this is something I am making up as probably everyone has heard that hell is a place of everlasting torture, I can tell you that this is in fact what the Bible teach and for those who needs Bible verses or a bible-study about this issue, do not be afraid to ask.

The teaching of an everlasting torture for the unsaved is not in the Bible and yet it has been used as a scare tactic for hundreds of years. God do not force anyone to follow Him, it is a free choice. Also God wants people to love Him back and love can not come from scaring or forcing someone...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now about HEAVEN, you know I have posted a very detailed, interesting i.m.o, article about heaven in the religious debate thread. I would advise you to read it.
P.S Heaven will be right here on earth, or this earth made new and perfect. And we will not just be spirits flying around, we will have real, immortal bodies just like Jesus had when he woke up from the dead, and do real things. And it will be a happy, beautiful place says the Bible with no tears, no pain, and last but not least no social phobia! :lol:

Click here:
WHAT WILL HEAVEN BE LIKE?
http://www.socialphobiaworld.com/postt8147.html

 

[Quixote]

To Langbein (and to me too) the Bible is like an epos or something like that, that is, a tale with some sort of truth in it. But the difference is there are tons of facts in the Bible. Those people who wrote the Bible didnt have the knowledge people have today, so they used simple words to describe things,

That's probably completely true, but why does this "truth" whose traces are left in the bible, have to be referring to aliens...I mean it could be anything! The universal flood could be in reality the formation of the caspian sea, the plural "Gods" could be as I said a remnant of politheism, the migration from egypt a historical fact...
Think of the Iliad, after 3000 years somebody took the trouble to investigate and found that there had been an ancient walled city in the location where Troy could be expected to be, and there had been a siege, probably by greek warlords, for the sake of controlling the narrow sea strait allowing ships into the black sea. Add some imagination and you have the Iliad. Couldn't the bible be simply a collection of such "pieces" of historical events, filtered through some imagination? Why taking the trouble of putting aliens into the picture?