© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-threshold-to-the-other-side/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
The phenomenon of near death experiences (NDEs) are as old as life itself, and to some people they are spiritual and moving tales that affirm a life after death, and interpreted as indisputable proof of the existence of god.
For any not already familiar, in the west most of the NDEs contain some basic points, where a person who dies floats out of the body, and looks back at the remains from a point above. The period of this external watching varies in time from a few seconds to more than an hour. There is a generally a feeling a weightlessness. Almost invariably the deceased succumbs to a second stage, of being drawn to a tunnel with a clear, white light at the end. Sometimes they are drawn in by a gentle, deep voice, sometimes by the beckoning of loved ones, and sometimes by an indescribable urge. Sometimes they reach the light, and sometimes they do not. There is often a period of watching the events of one’s own life as a panoramic, and some report conversations with god, usually Jesus. Then, inevitably in order to come back to life and tell the tale, the deceased must return to life. The means that turns them back is variegated, but some common examples include an angelic messenger turning them back because their time has not yet come, a previously deceased family member sending them back, or turning away from the light of their own accord for the love of those left behind.
In fact, among western cultures, stories of NDE so closely follow these lines most every time that at first examination, one might think there is outside power directing them along the same road. Studies in other parts of the world are starting to confirm that NDE in their regions also consistently follow a pattern … but that pattern varies depending on the culture involved.
A study was conducted in the 1970s in India, seeking and interviewing Hindus about NDEs. Forty-five people who had such experiences were found. Only one reported having seen his body from outside. Most insisted that they felt as though still in a physical body, and two “messengers” were escorting them along a path—some accounts insist this is the mafia form of “escorting” where the thugs get them by the elbows and drag them along. One, a man named Durga Jatav, tried to make a break for it, and his escorts cut off his legs prevent his escape. The messengers hauled the deceased into a field of white light, and to a desk, lectern, or similar which is manned by Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. Sometimes a charter of their life works were read off, but none reported the visual reliving of life as their western counterparts, and most reported a common means of being sent back to life, namely that of Yamraj pointing out that a mistake had been made. He was expecting someone of the same name in a different caste or town, or someone of the same description with a different name. Durga Jatav was allowed to pick his legs out a pile of discarded limbs, reattach them, then he, like the others, was escorted back and forced or pushed back into the body.
NDEs among Muslims differ from both the Hindu and Christian accounts. Several tenets of the Buddhist faith seem built on the act of death, and accordingly, their reports of NDE follow the faith for the most part. No two cultures have the exact same accounting of the experiences after death— though all share an allusion to a bright, clear light. Save that one common element, it would seem that the events that one encounters are more based on culture than on the machinations of an actual post-mortem process.
But this outlook fails to take into account the really weird stuff: people who report the passing of time while they were confirmed brain-dead, blind people seeing while dead and reporting back their sights in detail, and people accurately describing things that happened while they were dead, including details of the surgery to save them, and people who see others on the far side of life who have also just recently passed away. In the case of Durga Jatav, who was removed from his legs to prevent flight, soon after resuscitation he developed folds of skin and reddish marks where his spirit legs had been severed. There was no known medical cause, nor a ready explanation. Whether real or a manifestation of an suffering brain, near-death experiences seem to have a profound effect on those who have them.
So what is the mechanism that allows these NDEs to occur? According to new research, NDEs are tied to the ability to remember dreams. Specifically, those who slip into REM or hypnosis easily are far more likely to experience an NDE than those who cannot—in fact 55% of people having NDE reported having dream states intrude on waking at other times in their lives. These experiences tend to belong to those for whom the world and dreams intermingle.
Historically, science has spurned the NDE; nothing useful is ever returned from a brush with the unseen world. For a long time many thought that it could never be proven or disproven that these events even occur, and now, for the first time, neuroscience is edging in on understanding the NDE. Does this prove that there is no next life that people can sometime see? Maybe near-death experiences are hallucinations brought on by asphyxiation, and maybe people only remember dreams when they are attuned to the spiritual. The study provides no solid answer, but it’s step toward understanding.
Further reading:
Near-death.com
Study linking NDE to dreams
© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-threshold-to-the-other-side/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
“Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel
Is just the freight train coming your way…”-Metallica
“But the memory remains…….”
Huhuhu….
I wonder what it feels to experience near-death. And I wonder if it’s true…
I just watched a documentary about how people in shamanic trances, in various parts of the world, have the same images of grids, coloured blobs and white lights, and their art, which expresses what they see in trances, will often be very similar despite them not being geographically close. And people under heavy hypnosis, with no outside influence (no asking them to act like chickens) will have these visions too. In fact the same patterns are present in cave paintings from 25,000 years ago. These are similar visions to those experienced in near death experiences and so are just common in people’s deep sub-concious. They must only be made apparent when a person is in a deep state of unconciousness and a near death experience is just that. Even if someone has stopped breathing and has no heartbeat their brain may still be active for a short time. If this was not the case and they were truely braindead then ressucitating them would be pointless.
Regarding the sentence that begins: “Several tenants of the Buddhist faith…”, I believe the correct word is “tenets”, not “tenants”.
I watched this ep. on Discovery Channel and as Stuart said, people from different geographical locations had the same visions. They even interviewed these astronauts who went into this (can’t think of the name) machine turns around really fast in a circle to imitate the immense forces of traveling through the atmosphere. Well, some of the test pilots passed out because of insufficent blood flow to the brain and they recalled the same visions as someone who had a near-death experience.
The article says that people reported having these experiences while brain-dead, which is impossible. If you’re brain-dead, you’re dead. You can’t come back.
I like the NDEs in Flatliners… great movie…
There are strong similarities between NDEs and OOBEs (out of body experiences/astral projection), the latter of which some people have learned to induce, and perhaps also to the experience people interpret as alien abduction. By definition, as well, these experiences are subjective (i.e. they cannot be observed or experienced simultaneously and/or reproduced identically by a second person) therefore they cannot be proven empirically, therefore they cannot really be brought under the science tent (unless you want to reduce them to externally observable fluctuations in neural activity). Perhaps that’s why they fascinate us so much, because in a world where reductionism-by-science is the norm, they remain mysterious and exquisitely personal . . .
From the article: “Then, inevitably in order to come back to life and tell the tale, the deceased must return to life.“
Wow, what an insightful observation. :-P
Just to join in with the crowd picking on your writing, Jason, God should be capitalized, especially when you’re using it to refer to the Christian God. Ex: “..and some report conversations with god, usually Jesus.” If you aren’t referring to the Christian God and just a god in general, you need an article in front of the word ‘god.’ Ex: “… and interpreted as indisputable proof of the existence of god.” Put an ‘a’ in front of god, and you’re all set.
sparklemomma said: “Just to join in with the crowd picking on your writing, Jason, God should be capitalized, especially when you’re using it to refer to the Christian God. Ex: “..and some report conversations with god, usually Jesus.” If you aren’t referring to the Christian God and just a god in general, you need an article in front of the word ‘god.’ Ex: “… and interpreted as indisputable proof of the existence of god.” Put an ‘a’ in front of god, and you’re all set.”
Good lord you’re technical! lol I agree about the difference between God and god though, just wanted to share :)
Interesting articles on this site, btw!
omg god sucks
I once saw something on the Discovery Channel about NDE’s. One theory put forth by science is that the bright light or white light (take your pick) could actually be the brain’s chemical reaction to dying. Also, seeing loved ones and views of your life is possibly a result of synapses firing all over the place and possibly triggering the part of the brain where memories are stored in a sort of information dump. If this is so, it’s a very depressing thought…
Interesting note about the cultural differences. Wonder what kind of NDE an atheist would have, and what the cultural differences would be – i.e. between an American atheist and an Indian, Chinese, Russian, or African atheist…
@Chad: you are correct. I feel ungrateful and like a participatory media poseur when I mention it, but sometimes the absence of editorial review makes me cringe. Mrs. Hampstead, now I understand.
@Lazyass: also correct: “brain death” is defined by its irreversability. If EEG activity returns after flatline, it was just a hiccup. Brain death is the qualification for legal “death”, but signs of physical “life” can still be present (e.g. heart beating, etc).
If the grids and blobs and white lights were depicted 25000 years ago, does that not prove that i has nothing to do with cristianity?
No, it does not prove that you have (not has) nothing to do with Christianity.
One thing I’ve always noticed about reported NDEs: Nobody has ever reported seeing anything similair to hell, yah know: “I see my body, then I’m in an elevator going down and it’s getting awfully warm!” But then again, if I had that experience I doubt I’d share it…
Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever come across so many people in one place who pride themselves with being such experts on spelling and grammar. I guess everyone has to find pride somewhere.
The NDE descriptions sound pretty consistent with an altered state of the brain. Migraine sufferers commonly report similar visions of light. And pretty much the whole bunch of these experiences and more (NDEs, OOBEs, deja vu, jamais vu, shrinking, expanding, floating, sleepwalking) occur in TLE (temporal lobe epilepsy) siezures. This isn’t surprising given how the temporal lobe governs consciousness and memory.
For even more insight into this, you might look into TLE, and how it is associated with unusual personality traits like hyper-religiousness, hypergraphia, stickiness, and hypo- and hyper-sexuality.
Actaully, I have heard a lot about NDE’s while my brother was in hospital for a couple of months. When they involve someone who is in hospital for operation, NDE’s happening can have a lot to do with incorrect mixes of anesthesia. When they ‘put you under’ there is a mix of paralysis drugs and knocking-out drugs I guess you’d say; anyway so if the anethesist gets the mixture wrong and give you too much paralysis grug and not enough knock-out then it causes you to come back to conciousness without being able to move or signal that this is happening; NDE can ensue.
Another thing that I have read about is how suseptible to suggestion we are when under hypnosis. I think it was in a ‘Scientific American’ article, and they put something like 1000 people under hyponosis and one of the questions they asked was whether the patient had seen Bugs Bunny at Disney Land when they’d gone (apparently all participants had gone at some time). The result was that 55% claimed that they had seen him there, when in fact Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character and therefore would NEVER be at Disney Land.
Make of this two things what you will, but I do think they have some bearing concerning articles like this… How much do we imagine and how much actually happens?
I just thought I’d comment on the two 55% statistics on this page:
“in fact 55% of people having NDE reported having dream states intrude on waking at other times in their lives.”
This simply suggests to me that its likely for a person to have NDE’s if they’ve been susceptible to waking/lucid dreams in their lives, despite the fact that many of the people interviewed may not remember having dreams.
But these 55% statistics don’t seem to help a report much, as practically half a population doing somethign as opposed to the other half of the same population doesn’t prove much at all!
I’d also be interested to see what percentage of people would say they’d seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland if asked in a normal conversation (as in not under hypnosis). Now, I think about it, I know full well Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros Character, yet I almost gaurantee without thinking about it, I would have answered yes to the original question.
I wonder how many people in Bugs Bunny t-shirts walking around Disneyland would it take to make people believe they’d seen Bugs Bunny in Disneyland, and as such believe that he is a Disney character.. The conspiracy.. OOOoooh
WCASD said: “… They even interviewed these astronauts who went into this (can’t think of the name) machine turns around really fast in a circle to imitate the immense forces of traveling through the atmosphere…”
I think the word for that machine is a Centrifuge. Also known as “The Wirly Bird”, “The Tilt-a-Wirl” or “The Vomit Commet”* to you carnival goers.
*(no relation to the plane that simulates zero gravity by taking a nose dive)
Xoebe said: “Interesting note about the cultural differences. Wonder what kind of NDE an atheist would have, and what the cultural differences would be – i.e. between an American atheist and an Indian, Chinese, Russian, or African atheist…”
As an atheist I would imagine if I ever had an NDE it would be the same as if I believed in a god in that it would just be a series of coloured blobs and maybe flashes of memories from my life. Ok, so the memories would be unlikely to include as many images of a god as a religous person, but that would probably be because I’ve not been to a church in 10years and so my memory isn’t full of god. In my opinion when people say they’ve met jesus or something in a NDE its no more significant than if they’ve met Sgt. Bilko. I just think its their mind flashing them random memories of things they’ve seen or heard about and them then interpreting it to be a religious experience.
Prince said: “If the grids and blobs and white lights were depicted 25000 years ago, does that not prove that i has nothing to do with cristianity?”
The very fact there 25,000 year old cave paintings or in fact 25,000 year old anything contradicts christianity.
It is interesting about the cultural differences in NDE’s. Could the differences be attributed to the individual’s spiritual state at the time of death? eg: an adherent to the Christian faith sees God, whereas a Muslim or Hindu sees the manifestation of the demon(s) that they will answer to in the afterlife.
It just seems that most Westerners have a Christian background, and see similar things in a NDE; that could lend some credence to Christian teaching having some factual basis, no? As for those with negative experiences in a NDE, I’ve heard stories about people being “scared straight” following such an experience, making a dramatic turnaround in how they live. As if they got a first-hand experience of what hell might be like, and decided they really didn’t want that.
“people who report the passing of time while they were confirmed brain-dead, blind people seeing while dead and reporting back their sights in detail, and people accurately describing things that happened while they were dead, including details of the surgery to save them, and people who see others on the far side of life who have also just recently passed away.’
CONFIRMED brain-dead? Makes one wonder… And how would someone blind their entire life describe colors in detail? Anyone? …I’m just not into the supernatural…
A few comments, in no particular order;
a) There is a whole lot about consciouness that we just don’t understand.
b) Having been “dead” on one occassion as a result of being on the losing end of a battle between a motorcycle and a full-sized SUV that I can remember, and being informed that I was on two other occassions, I can tell you that the normal sense of perception that we experience in the normal day to day does not apply when you no longer have a physical form to attach it to. try to picture awareness without reference points from any of the “normal” physical senses. It becomes difficult to explain in rational terms because we describe our experiences in relation to our surroundings. (Which of course begs the question, what is real? =) )
c) There are records of NDE’s from people who went to “hell”. Most are quite disturbing at that.
d) The argument about 27,000 year old cave paintings is moot if you simply question how they are dated. We don’t know how old they are. There is only about 5,000 years of written history that we can realistically apply to a time line. Carbon dating, despite it’s hype, is only effective (presuming that conditions have remained identical over all those centuries, which is doubtful at best) for about 25,000 years. But that is a whole other story. You cannot date the rock either, simply because hey– it’s ROCK.
e) The cultural differences simply attest to the notion that we have a different way of relating and interpreting experiences. I find it amazing that we agree on anything sometimes. Pick any incident and ask ten people that watched the same incident what happened. Invariably, you will get ten different stories about the same incident with several common themes. The only conclusion and rational deduction is that “something happened”. To try and deduce the ‘truth’ of the matter is speculative at best. In many ways, I wonder if our experience of reality is simply a culmination of mutual agreements about the nature of things.
When Canadians are going through a NDE, I bet they see a bright light coming from a giant maple syrup container.
Been “there” (not hell, not heaven, just beyond) when i was 3, came back for some reason or another. I remember it quite well.
I have rarely seen anyone deal with NDEs in the elderly — that is, people who are experiencing the “normal” death process, rather than a sudden, cataclysmic event. Shortly after my mom died, I read “Final Gifts : Understanding the Special Awareness, Needs, and Communications of the Dying” by Maggie Callanan and Patricia Kelley. It is an awesome book. My mom had related to us some of the same experiences that I read about in the book, but I did not understand at the time what she was experiencing.
Specifically, at a point when she had been unable to walk for quite a few days, my mom insisted that a man had guided her through five rooms. She did not know who the person was. The rooms were, “Quiet, very quiet, not even any music.”
We tried to convince her that it had not happened, since we knew she couldn’t walk, but she was adamant. Later the same day, a Reiki practitioner visited her. When he left, he told us, “Your mom is very close. She has already been through five of the seven chambers.” Turns out this is a Buddhist death belief. Mind you, my mom was a non-practicing Protestant, with NO spiritual inclination at all. When we returned to her room after the Reiki man left, she said, “That was a nice man. HE knew all about the rooms!” (Her clear implication was that we were a couple of doubting bozos!)
Later, she spontaneously said, “If you know you have to go anyway, it’s not such a bad place.” I hope she made it through the remaining chambers, and entered the peace and quiet.
What struck me about “Final Gifts” is that there is such a huge variety of experiences. Which, I think, makes sense. Remember the story of the seven blind men describing an elephant! We all experience even material reality differently — why would we not focus in and experience different aspects of death differently?
Anyway, I think we as a society tend to discount the experiences of the dying elderly, as we do most everything else about the elderly. I don’t know how many of you have gone through advanced aging and death with a loved one, but at some intangible point, their life, knowledge, wisdom and experiences just stop having any meaning to others. I suppose people need to separate emotionally from the dying, but it is a sad process.
For those interested in NDEs, I highly recommend “Final Gifts.”
As an archaeologist, I cannot keep quiet about the dating of rock. There are more ways to date material than Carbon-14 dating. In fact, Carbon-14 is completely useless for certain time periods and materials. That is why we use many other forms of chemical dating. So, saying you CANNOT date “rock” is just flat out wrong.
Well said sherasi. Although I wouldn’t be supirised if what you’ve just wrote isn’t partially quoted, to change its meaning, and then used by creationists as evidence for their cause: “One archeologist sherasi says, “In fact, Carbon-14 is completely useless for certain time periods and materials,” so the scientists are wrong and the bible is right.” It pretty much standard practice for christians to selectively take scientific evidence they think supports their beliefs and ignore all the evidence that disproves it.
sparklemomma said: “Just to join in with the crowd picking on your writing, Jason, God should be capitalized, especially when you’re using it to refer to the Christian God. Ex: “..and some report conversations with god, usually Jesus.” If you aren’t referring to the Christian God and just a god in general, you need an article in front of the word ‘god.’ Ex: “… and interpreted as indisputable proof of the existence of god.” Put an ‘a’ in front of god, and you’re all set.”
Excellent point. John 1:1 In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. “a” god “a” god “a” god
Following is lengthy and perhaps the information that comes to the next subheading of John 8:58 would be enough, but there is a lot about this scripture with the Greek language, context, comparrisons to other Bibles and scholars as well as original documents.
*Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used
If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.
John 1:1, 2:
RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”
Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.-Heb. 1:3.
Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.'” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os´ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”
John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.'”-(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ‘elo·him´; Greek, the·oi´, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1579.
John 8:58:
RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·go´ ei·mi´].'” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.)
Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·go´ ei·mi´ as a title to the holy spirit.
Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi´] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go´ ei·mi´] (Jo. 8:58).”-Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.
Acts 20:28:
JB reads: “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.” (KJ, Dy, NAB use similar wording.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “the blood of his own [Son].” (TEV reads similarly. Although the 1953 printing of RS reads “with his own blood,” the 1971 edition reads “with the blood of his own Son.” Ro and Da simply read “the blood of his own.”)
Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.
Romans 9:5:
JB reads: “They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.” (KJ, Dy read similarly.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB, Mo all use wording similar to NW.)
Is this verse saying that Christ is “over all” and that he is therefore God? Or does it refer to God and Christ as distinct individuals and say that God is “over all”? Which rendering of Romans 9:5 agrees with Romans 15:5, 6, which first distinguishes God from Christ Jesus and then urges the reader to “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? (See also 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3.) Consider what follows in Romans chapter 9. Verses 6-13 show that the outworking of God’s purpose depends not on inheritance according to the flesh but on the will of God. Verses 14-18 refer to God’s message to Pharaoh, as recorded at Exodus 9:16, to highlight the fact that God is over all. In verses 19-24 God’s superiority is further illustrated by an analogy with a potter and the clay vessels that he makes. How appropriate, then, in verse 5, the expression: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen”!-NW.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1580, 1581.
Philippians 2:5, 6:
KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)
Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”-John 14:28.
The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa´zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon´] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.'”-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.
Colossians 2:9:
KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the·o´te·tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)
Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”
Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”-See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.
According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o´tes (the nominative form, from which the·o´te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.
Titus 2:13:
RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)
Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.
Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”-(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1581, 1582.
Hebrews 1:8:
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.'” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [‘Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'”-The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
1 John 5:7, 8:
KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”-A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.
See also footnote on these verses in JB, and NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.
Other scriptures that are said by Trinitarians to express elements of their dogma
Notice that the first of these texts refers to only the Son; the other refers to both Father and Son; neither refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and says that they comprise one God.
John 2:19-22:
By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection.
Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”-(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.
John 10:30:
When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.
In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?
It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. (See the preceding pages.) It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not “true worshipers.” To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'” (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.
Regarding the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.” Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS) Do you really know the God you worship?
Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44) But, as Jesus said in earnest prayer to his heavenly Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NW) And Psalm 144:15 truthfully states: “Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!”-NW.
When Someone Says-
‘Do you believe in the Trinity?’
You might reply: ‘That is a very popular belief in our time. But did you know that this is not what was taught by Jesus and his disciples? So, we worship the One that Jesus said to worship.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘When Jesus was teaching, here is the commandment that he said was greatest . . . (Mark 12:28-30).’ (2) ‘Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. He said . . . (John 14:28).’ (3) ‘Then what is the origin of the Trinity doctrine? Notice what well-known encyclopedias say about that. (See pages 405, 406.)’
Or you could say: ‘No, I do not. You see, there are Bible texts that I could never fit in with that belief. Here is one of them. (Matt. 24:36) Perhaps you can explain it to me.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘If the Son is equal to the Father, how is it that the Father knows things that the Son does not?’ If they answer that this was true only regarding his human nature, then ask: (2) ‘But why does the holy spirit not know?’ (If the person shows a sincere interest in the truth, show him what the Scriptures do say about God. (Ps. 83:18; John 4:23, 24)’
Another possibility: ‘We do believe in Jesus Christ but not in the Trinity. Why? Because we believe what the apostle Peter believed about Christ. Notice what he said . . . (Matt. 16:15-17).’
An additional suggestion: ‘I find that not everyone has the same thing in mind when he refers to the Trinity. Perhaps I could answer your question better if I knew what you mean.’ Then perhaps add: ‘I appreciate that explanation. But what I believe is only what the Bible teaches. Have you ever seen the word “Trinity” in the Bible? . . . (Refer to the concordance in your Bible.) But is Christ referred to in the Bible? . . . Yes, and we believe in him. Notice here in the concordance under “Christ” one of the references is to Matthew 16:16. (Read it.) That is what I believe.’
Or you might answer (if the person draws particular attention to John 1:1): ‘I am acquainted with that verse. In some Bible translations it says that Jesus is “God,” and others say that he is “a god.” Why is that?’ (1) ‘Could it be because the next verse says that he was “with God”?’ (2) ‘Might it also be because of what is found here in John 1:18?’ (3) ‘Have you ever wondered whether Jesus himself worships someone as God? (John 20:17)’
‘Do you believe in the divinity of Christ?’
You might reply: ‘Yes, I certainly do. But perhaps I do not have in mind the same thing that you do when you refer to “the divinity of Christ.”‘ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Why do I say that? Well, at Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is described as “Mighty God,” but only his Father is ever referred to in the Bible as the Almighty God.’ (2) ‘And notice that at John 17:3 Jesus speaks of his Father as “the only true God.” So, at most, Jesus is just a reflection of the true God.’ (3) ‘What is required on our part to be pleasing to God? (John 4:23, 24)
*Reasoning from the Scriptures Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. 1989
You are probably right, Stuart. I see it happen all the time, which is unfortunate. And those same people will probably ignore this comment: C-14 dating works quite well in many cases too. It is all about using the right method for the conditions.
At this point, I BARELY remember the original story. : ) Anyway, as far as using C-14 or other methods of dating rock, I believe you can get correct dating especially now when scientists are much better at understanding all the variables and so on. For the record, the Bible does NOT conflict with the findings of the Earth being here millions/billions of years and the same for the Universe. God has a “day” that has nothing to do with our day and time. Creative days were no doubt, millions, possibly billions of years. However, where the Bible parts with science is usually with Evolution/some time frames and so on. The truth is, you “can” use science in support of the Bible. However, true faith in the Bible does not require it.
I know that last sentence may be scoffed at, but that is what faith in something is. As for drawings ON Rock, well, the Bible has such a well kept record of lineage and time frames that it is, by some, acknowledged that man was created just over 6,000 years ago.
I love this site. I know I learn a lot from the articles AND those commenting and appreciate when people strongly disagree. Lobbing insults I hope I have not done but instead offered input I believe in and the facts and information that have lead me to those beliefs; even faith.
JustAnotherName said: “I know that last sentence may be scoffed at, but that is what faith in something is. As for drawings ON Rock, well, the Bible has such a well kept record of lineage and time frames that it is, by some, acknowledged that man was created just over 6,000 years ago.”
Who says that man was only created 6000 years ago?
AKALucifer said: “Who says that man was only created 6000 years ago?”
Christians who believe in the literal truth of the bible have dated the creation of the world as about 6000years ago. They did this by looking at the ages of various people in the bible and producing a chronology of the bible that gave this age. One of the most famous people to do this was James Usher who said the Earth was created at nightfall preceding 23 October, 4004 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
While the exact date has been debated by christians most fundamentalists believe that 4000BC is approximately right. Since they also believe that god created humans at this same time then this would place the human race as also being 6000years old. Complete bullshit in my own opinion but it is what some people believe.
But this outlook fails to take into account the really weird stuff: people who report the passing of time while they were confirmed brain-dead, blind people seeing while dead and reporting back their sights in detail, and people accurately describing things that happened while they were dead, including details of the surgery to save them, and people who see others on the far side of life who have also just recently passed away. In the case of Durga Jatav, who was removed from his legs to prevent flight, soon after resuscitation he developed folds of skin and reddish marks where his spirit legs had been severed. There was no known medical cause, nor a ready explanation. Whether real or a manifestation of an suffering brain, near-death experiences seem to have a profound effect on those who have them.
I am surprised that everyone here seems to be taking the preceding paragraph on faith (pardon the pun). This is a problem with authoritative-sounding writing online – folks tend to assume it is true.
In fact, there are NO verified cases of any of these supposed “unexplainable” phenomena on record. There are no “accurate descriptions” of surgery; in at least one prominent hospital right here in Boston, there is a laptop displaying a randomized image on a high shelf above an operating table, and a standing, LARGE reward offered to anyone who experiences a “NDE” floating above themselves who can describe what is on the screen at the time. No takers, of course. There are no blind people who magically report on things they see “when dead”, only formerly sighted folks who lost their sight and can remember images. As for people “seeing” the recently departed…please. You don’t need an NDE for that–there are folks making a good living pretending to talk to the dead on TV and at every county fair. As for the alleged marks on the guy’s legs? Believers manifest stigmata, too – I suppose that is evidence of metaphysical crucifixion, but the same logic. Wooh, magic!
This site generally has much more rigorous researched writing than this editorializing article. There is no middle ground when it comes to the facts. There is certainly room for competing interpretations, but misstatements of fact have no place here.
Believe what you want, but don’t invent “facts” to support them. Leave that to creationists and the Bush administration.
Gee, when I died it just seemed like I took a nap. I woke up as they were putting me into the ambulance. Good thing I did a good job teaching CPR a week earlier to the two other lifeguards who restarted my heart. Still miffed I spent more than 2 minutes at the bottom of the pool before anyone noticed and jumped in to retrieve me (lifeguards are not supposed to drown – this was how I discovered I was having seizures due to a head injury from years before).
I wouldn’t call it a very credible source, but if you want stories of NDEs where people do claim they went to hell, look up the old 1970’s-era movie “Beyond and Back”. I believe it was made by the same folks who brought us their benchmark classic “Hangar 18”.
On a related note (to the artice, not my experience above), I recall reading about how one reasearcher was able to induce experiences of alien abduction by having volunteers wear a helmet that induced an intense magnetic field through the brain – more or less all the volunteers reported the appearance of “wax people” who entered the room and did things with them, despite being under observation the entire time and no such thing was evident to the observers.
“Maybe near-death experiences are hallucinations brought on by asphyxiation, and maybe people only remember dreams when they are attuned to the spiritual” – from article
i’m so sick of science’s attempt at “disproving” the subjective experience. where did THEY miss the point? science is good for subjects studying objects but even there it gets a little wavy due to the nature of perception. what is a hallucination? our inner realities are not valid according to one half of the equation, but that one half thinks there is no other half and this has been the rant of every opinion on this blog. take a side and you’re missing the other half. aren’t people wise enough to know that truth lies somewhere in the middle and that everybody is right in some way.
i guess we blurt out opinions and react just for entertainment sake. i really hope no one believes that they have a monopoly on truth. what limited mundane world they must live in.
indra c says:
Been “there” (not hell, not heaven, just beyond) when i was 3, came back for some reason or another. I remember it quite well.
I have too, while I was having a seizure at age 9. No medication, no asphyxia, no bright lights, blobs, grids, or tunnels. I did have a guide, who I supposed later was my little brother. I did see my body on the ground for a brief moment. We did some flying around, but I didn’t go to heaven or hell. I don’t recall any spoken word, though my guide and I did communicate.
The experience was very pleasant while I was there, until I saw my “viewing” and how my mom would be affected should I stay. I started to cry, then immediately awoke to my family standing around me staring. One of my brothers shook his head and yelled, “You are SUCH a faker!” while another demonstrated the strange things I’d been doing for the past several minutes. Realizing what had happened was really frightening for a nine-year-old. I sat shivering on the couch for almost three hours afterward. We went to the doctor the next day, and as far as he could tell, nothing was wrong. I didn’t tell anyone about the experience for years.
In hope to aid the scientists here: I have my interpretations of what happened in my experience, but was careful to leave out any post-experience conclusions (except for the identification of my guide, which I was careful to clarify as an assumption).
I do remember almost all of my dreams and real life vividly, I do experience deja-vu now and then, and have had an eerie experience with that (a story for another day maybe). I have slept-walked, talked, sang.. played piano — even written in my sleep (that was an odd journal entry, believe you me!), and have on occasion believed a dream to still be true for up to a half hour after I was awake. I have not had another seizure that I’m aware of. If so it wasn’t the kind where I passed out and convulsed.
I have been told by several people that I am ‘psychic’ and I disagree with them. Only twice in my life have I had dreams (or at least dreams that I remember) where I was “on the other side” – both were entirely different from this experience.
I am religious, I enjoy science, and I do not find the two incompatible. In fact, though I have no problem with non-religious people, I do have a hard time with either side of that debate attacking the other. Negative feelings tend to obscure fact.
For what it’s worth,
-V
sherashi and Stuart: Half-quotes are unfortunately used by both sides of the Science vs. God debate, and in any debate for that matter, but hopefully anyone interested in the truth will check the source before believing. Half-observations are the bigger problem. :)
Amazing how we can just comment the first thing that comes into our heads without examining valid data.
Studies have been conducted in which other people in a room can ‘see’ what a person dying is ‘seeing’. And quantum physics is doing away with all of man’s skepticims. If you have read about it and are not astounded, then you did not understand it.
Men who dared the scientific community, men of great education, were victimized by ad hominem attacks to stop them from speaking. Do we dare investigate with an open mind and try to assess what is really going on? We love to point a finger at this kind of events and claim religous people have a dubiously healthy personna and are behind these ideas, but nothing could be further from the truth. Even if religionists would love to see this proven for their own egotistical motives, the simple fact is that sane men and women with
an interest for truth have devoted their life towards credible data on life after death. Are we really so sure to dismiss what happens to us when we ‘die’??
A few links to assist our opinions from non religious sites and from scholars studying NDE’s.
http://www.victorzammit.com An Australian lawyer, a man whose challenge has not been met.
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies Dr. Ian’s Stevenson’s studies
http://www.iands.org/
http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm
If we only believe that which you can see with your brains, then germs and viruses definitely do not affect us.
Brain death is the qualification for legal “death”, but signs of physical “life” can still be present (e.g. heart beating, etc).
In that case half the pop of the country is actually dead. There really are zombies.
The bible, IMO is certainly not a good reference for such a topic. Religion is nothing more than begging the question. I do concede that science doesn’t exactly have “all the answers” but i am more inclined to believe them then someone who proposes that they DO have ALL the answers.
Stuart said: “The very fact there 25,000 year old cave paintings or in fact 25,000 year old anything contradicts christianity.”
I’d hate to make this into a religious discussion, but not all Christians believe the world is five thousand years old or whatever. You really shouldn’t use blanket statements when refering to Christianity, since there are so many different branches.
And thank you to Alma65us- you can be religious, or non-religious, and have a healthy interest in both sides of the God vs. science debate.
As for NDEs- it’s a Damn Interesting article, and a damn interesting subject, too.
“All signs of superhuman nature appear in man as illness or insanity.” — Friedrich Nietzsche
Does purgatory take medicare?
I’m curious, how do you date a rock? Is it the age in which it formed into rock from sand (sandstone style rocks), or when it cooled off and solidified? If so, how woul that show the age of the drawing? Wouldn’t that just mean the rock is X billion years old, not the art? I’m just curious. I’m a software trainer, not a scientist or archaelogist (spelling?).
This is a fairly biased and inflamitory remark. It might be standard practice for some people to do this (ignore evidence that disagrees with personal belief), including yourself. It might just be that a good portion of religious people like science (as I do) and/or don’t feel like arguing with inflamitory people. This means that those who DO will stick out to you. Many are those who follow “Science” as a religion. This comment of yours firmly puts you in the category of someone who follows science as a religion. You worship your scientific observations (before you argue the point, please look up the definition(s) of worship) and then you are as guilty as the Bible thumpers for using your science to bludgeon people with. If we did not dismiss something as false, then we must believe everything present to us as fact. There are plenty of papers, speakers, scientists, etc that support all sorts of views. Supporters will accept documents that support their view and reject those that don’t. If we didn’t then we’d all believe that 911 was a conspiracy AND believe that it wasn’t. Theres “evidence” for both.
1) science is continually discovering (measuring/observing) things that revise much of what we take as “fact” hence science “proves” nothing unless verifying our ability to accurately measure observed behaviour is “proving” something.
2) true “science” is not about proving or disproving religion.
3) true “religion” is not about proving or disproving science.
I firmly believe that when mankind reaches 100% Physical knowledge (science) and 100% spiritual (religion) that the two will be one continuous spectrum of knowledge without disparity or unexplained difference.
Val. Def. (I could not abreviate to V.D. :),
I enjoyed your comment and post. As per 1), we humans get real egotistical about that one. When we “discover” something we try to explain it as it is a new concept when in some cases, it has actually been or been going on for ages… It is amazing how when we are historically mistaken about something “Scientific”, it is retyped and we now we seek to embrace the “newly discovered truth”… When was the last time you read an article on Sponaneous Generation or have any idea who adopted the practice?? How about the inventor and reasoning of the old world is flat routine; or our current flock to Global Warming legend
or engineered food is dangerous or the galaxy is for ever moving apart from itself, all very Scientific and mostly all wrong, depending on proof and context used. Yet, there exist many “truths” that are benifical and have alot of merit.
Well when you get it for the date, give it some candy. Rock candy, or if your really adventitious, Pop Rocks. Then take it to the Hard Rock Café for dinner and order Rock Cod and be sure to specify no ice, have them use Nordic Rock Stone Ice Cubes. Because rocks have such a dislike to frozen ice, it seems to crack them up. Be sure that they play something from the Rolling Stones or perhaps Rock Lobster by the B-52s.
Then take it to a movie, something with Sharon Stone, or the Dwane ‘TheRock’ Johnson would work. Complete your date with a sweet treat from the Stone Cold Creamery. ;)
Okay in all seriousness…
In a nutshell it depends on the material being dated. Certain isotopes will decay into simpler elements. For instance Uranium will decay into Lead (very simplified to keep it understandable) or for a biological decay we have Carbon that decays into Nitrogen. So by measuring the amount of Uranium and the amount of Lead in the material, since the decay is basically linear, we have an atomic clock that can be traced back to the creation of that rock, or the paint on the rock.
For a few examples we have the following:
Uranium 235 takes 704 million years to decay into Lead 207
Uranium 238 takes 4.47 billion years to decay into Lead 206
Carbon 14 takes 5,730 years to decay into Nitrogen 14.
Now understand that the minerals, which contain radioactive isotopes, are in igneous rocks. The dates they give indicate the time the magma cooled.
With Carbon-14 dating you have a biological entity. Carbon-14 is created when cosmic rays strike Nitrogen-14 atoms in the atmosphere. These in turn combine with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide.
Plants absorb the radioactive carbon dioxide and use it. This puts the material into the food chain where it is absorbed and resides in all living things. All living things contain a balance of Carbon-14 (1 in a trillion) to Carbon-12. The Carbon-14 is constantly turning back into Nitrogen-14 but is replenished as the organism lives. Once an organism dies it stops ingesting Carbon-14, but what is in the tissue still continues to decay back into Nitrogen-14. To measure the age of the biological entity, a comparison of the remaining Carbon-14 in the tissue to Carbon-12 is made.
I hope this helps.
The Don.
When your brain “knows” its going to die the pineal gland located in the center of your brain releases copious amounts of a substance known as N-Dimethyltryptamine, I dont know why, but my guess would be to ease passing. DMT is responsible for dreaming. So NDEs, in my opinion, are just really crazy ass wake-induced lucid/non-lucid dreams.
DMT can be synthesized from the root bark of a tree in South America known as Mimosa hostilis. If one can go through with the laborous task of extracting DMT from said plant, he/she can roll it into a cigarrette and smoke it. When the substance is inhaled, within the first 60 seconds of inhalation the subject becomes immersed in a world unlike any we can even begin to imagine. Many often undergo profound, life-changing experiences. Subjects, while nonresponsive and dissociated in the “real world”, embark on intense spiritual journeys that one could easily confuse for an NDE [meeting dead relatives/friends, OOBEs, reliving past lives, life flashing before one’s eyes, etc.]. Experiences between persons vary from joyous to distressing, heavenly to hellish, or just plain trippy.
Some people associate the pineal gland with the Third Eye, as it is located in the middle of of every human beings forehead. It has also been proven that in some reptiles it even has a cornea, retina and lense! Pretty intriguing information.
Damn Interesting article, if I do say so myself!
Never underestimate the power of the brain. It is frequently underused, but it can still pull off amazing things. I have memories that seem to take place outside my body. False memories, but my brain still recreates the environment as if the perspective were from outside my body. From what else I’ve heard of the brain’s power, it could produce physical effects based on mental experiences or stress. In addition, the conscious experience is only a fraction of the brain’s activity. It is not inconceivable that in the event of an emergency it takes a backseat to other functions at work and gets barraged by extraneous sensations, memories, or anything else mixed up in the shuffle. Each person would likely experience things in accordance with their beliefs or something else within their knowledge or imagination.