You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I agree with B of what god said but its up to individual people what they think just because someone thinks something different to me or anyone else that doesnt nessiceraly mean there a fool
(other than Mr T to him everyone is a fool) 
Viva la revolucion!
At one point I think you said science says that something cant be created out of nothing, I will point out you are wrong there if the big bang theory is correct which given that its the only good working theory other than believing the bible is a reasonable assumption for a scientist to make.
Also given that everything came from nothing it that theory the next logical step is that organic material combined and eventually became conscious (sentient) thus drawing the conclusion that everything evolved from an original creature most probably a single cell amoeba.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
God Spoke and Bang!
The Big Bang theory is also just a theory.
The only explanation based on observable, repeatable
processes would support the creation account.
As for the single cell amoeba, what evidence do you have
that would suggest a single cell amoeba could be produced from
nothing? In addition, what evidence is there to support a single
cell amoeba evolving into another creature?
Can you see examples of animals that were created after their
kind?
Please allow me to Blow your mind.
There is a theory detailing the extinction of dinosaurs that
is rejected because it has some Biblical data.
The extinction of dinosaurs has had many theories over
the decades. Many are based loosely on one fact that
is expounded upon to form a theory.
Look at the Facts that we have.
1) The earth was a lush rain forest.
2) Fossils of animals are found globally.
3) There is evidence of oceanic fossils in
deserts and on mountain ranges.
4) People used to live longer with less disease.
There may be more but this is the basic foundation for
the theory.
# The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.
# Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.
# There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.
# Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.
# Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".
-------------------------
The Theory
-------------------------
The earth originally had a canopy of moisture around it.
There was a layer of the earth's atmosphere that contained
a large amount of liquid.
The liquid prevented harmful radiation from reaching the
earth surface. Thus altering C14 results. Due to the lack of
harmful radiation, people lived longer and animals grew
larger. Increased levels of oxygen promoted growth
and intelligence.
One day the canopy fell. This could have been from any
number of events and it is not an issue. (There is ample
evidence to suggest it was a meteor or a solar flare.)
When the canopy fell it caused the world to flood.
(Evidence of a flood listed above) This flood cause
a world wide extinction of many species.
After the canopy fell, the earth was a very different place.
Now with less oxygen and a deluge of radiation animals
didn't live as long and didn't grow as large.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support
this theory. Most of this evidence is rejected by the scientific
community due to the fact that is was detailed in the Bible.
Again I remind you that I had studied this issue in depth
before I was a Christian. What I was being told by academia
did not match the evidence. One day I read the Bible and all
of the evidence I had gathered was placed into a context where
it made sense.
well lets put it this way which is more believable:
A: God created the world in 7 days, all the billions of different kinds of bugs, plants, organisms, sea creatures, land animals, mammals, the way they evolve, how the weather works, what the weather does, absolutely everything.
or...
B: It's all a matter of science and earth is created from billions of particles of matter and slowly the world forms and later creates an atmosphere which later on creates an environment for species of plants, animals, mammals and organisms to coincide and live on earth. Which later on these creatures evolve through millions of years of existing on this planet and adapting to its surroundings.
You would have to be a fool to prefer the first.
If God created everything he could do it in an instant.
And, can you give me one. Just one example of any
creature that had evolved from one creature to another.
Just one. It would only take one example to make your point.
If an amoeba could become something else we would see evidence.
Evidence has never been found to substantiate one species becoming
another. Like a dog becoming a cat.
usually the times most dna of animals changes is when incest occurs being tht this causes anomalies in dna but since you agree that species diversify then single cell amoebas repliate creating ecact copies of themselves, so surly seeing as they are all identical souldnt science(natrure) then force it to change. Also certain frogs can change sex male to female or visa versa this is something changing its dna.
Also the extintion of the dinorsaurs is mostly considered to be a meteor strike causeing an ice age from the resulting dirt/dust in the atmosphere seeing how darwain said we all come from the sea then this meteor strike would cause most land creatures to die.
Also one of the most interesting cases of evolution is that animals trapped in caves or under ice that are away from most thing turned out completely different from most other creatures.
Also radiation coming from the center of the universe sounding like a murmer is supposed to be the after resonance if you will of the big bang.
Another think is why would a god create a universe that is expanding, but the big bang being a explosion would cause that.
Also if you look at something people didnt believe for a long time think of dark matter which most scientists now accept is true.
Plus it is also widly accepted that anti-matter did exist for a fraction of time.
One theory i have heard is that a godlike creature could exist in the 5th dimension or above since the 5th dimension is widly accepted to be time and anything in any dimension above us would be able to see us and move throught time but as we exist in the 3rd dimension we can see and interprtate things in the 1st 2nd and 3rd dimensions.
If God created everything he could do it in an instant.
Another example of blind faith or complete retardedness.
Now your just contridicting the bible, the bible says god created earth in 7 days. Im no mathmatician but since when was an instant 7 days??
If God created everything he could do it in an instant.
Another example of blind faith or complete retardedness.
Now your just contridicting the bible, the bible says god created earth in 7 days. Im no mathmatician but since when was an instant 7 days??
unless hes just lazy and strectched it out :?
If God created everything he could do it in an instant.
Another example of blind faith or complete retardedness.
Now your just contridicting the bible, the bible says god created earth in 7 days. Im no mathmatician but since when was an instant 7 days??
The interjection of IF in my staement mean that one would
1st believe in God. The fact that a person would not believe
in God would point to he fact that they would reject ANY
time from even the inplication of an instant.
The 7 day plan was an example of work 6 rest one.
My comment is still valid. You reject all evidence due to
blind faith in what? what is it that you believe?
And isn't it strange that you choose a name based
on a deity that you do not believe in?
If you say that God does not exist,
you do not exist in this forum. lol
usually the times most dna of animals changes is when incest occurs being that this causes anomalies in dna but since you agree that species diversify then single cell amoebas replicate creating exact copies of themselves, so surly seeing as they are all identical shouldn't science(natrure) then force it to change. Also certain frogs can change sex male to female or visa versa this is something changing its dna.
This is speciation. Not evolution.
Adaptation or mutations do not change
one specie into another.
It has never happened.
Evolutionists claim that a creature formed from
nothing, then changed into many other animals.
No evidence.
So let's talk DNA.
DNA provides the information for the protein synthesis apparatus. Yet, it is the protein synthesis apparatus that provides the very proteins that are required for the DNA to exist. The protein synthesis apparatus also provides the protein phosphate compounds for the energy system. Yet, the energy system, mitochondria etc, provides the actual energy for the protein synthesis to function. The protein synthesis provides the proteins for the cell membrane. Yet, the cell membrane hold this entire protein synthesis apparatus in tact. In other words: everything is interdependent and codependent on everything else. There is no scientific possibility that the human cell could have evolved.
How much information is contained in the Human DNA? Some have estimated that it is several sets of encyclopedias of information. Not only is DNA a blue print for life, but is specifically designed for the life and function of each different kind of creature. Take the Ameba for example: not only does DNA specify all its needed proteins but is also equipped to deal with any possible factors within the environment that it lives. This is true for any living form on earth. Wherever they are found, we find that their genetic code has built in factors to deal with and adjust to the environment they find themselves in.
Yet these animals do not change from one animal to another.
Ever. Never has happened.
Adaptation or mutations do not change one specie into another.
You just described exactly what Evolution is...Adaptation and mutation to better suit the current environment.
Evolutionists claim that a creature formed from
nothing, then changed into many other animals.
No evidence.
The Bible claims god created a creature from nothing.....No evidence.
My comment is still valid. You reject all evidence due to blind faith in what? what is it that you believe?
And isn't it strange that you choose a name based on a deity that you do not believe in?If you say that God does not exist,
you do not exist in this forum. lol
Firstly your comment is not valid you cant twist you words around to make yourself look less of a moron especially when we can all tell that you are.
Secondly, my name is God because i am the God of my own world i dont need to worship some fake figure of worship that is based on lies and bullshit in the first place. And i do exsist on this forum because im typing this abusive reply back to you. Proof of my exsistance is here, where is the proof of your so called Gods once exsistance.
Secondly, my name is God because i am the God of my own world i dont need to worship some fake figure of worship that is based on lies and bullshit in the first place. And i do exsist on this forum because im typing this abusive reply back to you. Proof of my exsistance is here, where is the proof of your so called Gods once exsistance.
Based on this comment. You are legally insane.
You could be sent to a metal hospital for what you said.
From this point forward. Anything you say will be disregarded as
ramblings of a raving lunatic.
Good Day Sir.
You just described exactly what Evolution is...Adaptation and mutation to better suit the current environment.
Macro-Evolution
and
Micro-Evolution
are not the same.
Evolution is not Adaptaion or mutation.
Mutation NEVER produces a higher life form.
Mutation ALWAYS results in a lesser life form.
Mutational Evolution teaches that over time genes in animals were mutated and led to these animals being better able to compete for resources within their environment. Because this was true, they increased in number faster than previous life forms which, as a result, were displaced from those environments. These then became enhanced life forms. Over billions of years, many mutations have taken place which evolutionists believe have led to the many varieties of life forms which we see on earth today.
The current leading scholar concerning the genetic human genome is Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Francis Collins is a Creationist, but he is recognized world wide as the leading geneticist and he was originally the man in charge of structuring, analyzing and mapping the human genome. Based on this man’s research, Dr. Maddox, a genetic specialist, has stated on paper that science has now calculated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (.00000001) of a percent of an animals genome is relentlessly fatal!
The Bible claims god created a creature from nothing.....No evidence.
Fossil records show creaturs apearing on the fossil chart.
Poof! No gradual changes.
If an animal just shows up.
That would be concidered evidence.
Ignore it.
From this point forward. Anything you say will be disregarded as ramblings of a raving lunatic.
Your come back to a plausable answer is pathetic.
Ealkd !! asdlkjd ! toaster in the pink batts i ate my knife please mummy may i have another?!
Did anyone elso hear that fly buzzing through the forum?
Pesky Fly. I could barley tell it was even here.
Maybe next time we wont even notice.
I'm a pesky fly, fly fly fly. I am also an incest redneck that nobody respects especially on faldon because he is a newbie that doesnt kno shit.
Wow you hit the nail on the head there buddy.
Someone is trying to be a forum killer.
***poof*** Their Gone
"So, I've been praying to Joe for about a year now, and I've noticed something. Of all the prayers I used to offer to God and of all the prayers that I now offer to Joe Pesci, they're being answered at about the same 50% rate. Sometimes I get what I want. Sometimes I don't." - George Carlin
I don't have any beliefs or allegiances. I don't believe in this country, I don't believe in religion, or a god, and I don't believe in all these man-made institutional ideas.
-- George Carlin
Anti American, Anit God, Anti Education.
At least he is consistant.
No difference? seven hundred horsemen is a lot different from seven thousand horsemen.
The King James Version shows No difference. Like I said before.
Did you look in a Bible or did you just quote from a website?
I quoted the Bible word for word in my answer and there was No difference.As far as Josiah’s death, it can's get any clearer than "Josiah died at Megiddo" or "Josiah died at Jerusalem "
Semantics
If the bible is the word of god (god was their source as so claimed) there should not be any discrepancies what so ever. Discrepancies only serve to prove that this is their version (vision) of the events that transpired in that era, as told by them, not by god.
The fact that people who don't have a grasp on how to read that Bible are the ones saying aha! A discrepancy, does not invalidate it. Disciplined Bible study is necessary. All of the issues were answered in full and they were very easy to answer when applied with Hermeneutics.
-------------------------------
The following guide will help to address any contradiction that is assumed.
Hermeneutics
1) The rule of authorial intent
No reader has the right to impose his own ideas on the text. Scripture itself clearly teaches that the only meaning of a text is what the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired the human writer (2 Pet. 1:20-1). It follows that every text has only one correct interpretation. If two readers disagree on what it means, at least one of them is necessarily wrong. Perhaps both are wrong. How do we discover the one correct interpretation? We must consult the author Himself, the Holy Spirit. We must allow Him to teach us.2) The rule of univocal meaning
The basic sense of a passage is the single sense evident to any reader who allows the words their ordinary meanings and who expects the grammar and syntax to shape and combine these meanings in a normal fashion. (This rule should not be applied indiscriminately, without recognition that Biblical writers may sometimes propound a riddle or engage in word play. In either instance the words may bear more than one basic meaning.)3) The rule of context
The context of a passage may supply clues to the correct interpretation. Such clues may even clarify a passage that otherwise would be obscure. An example is the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31-2). Only by comparing it with the other parables in the same chapter (especially the first two, the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares) do we discover that it describes the future of the church. Its prediction that the church in its final stages would be corrupt comes to light only if we notice that the growth of the mustard plant parallels the spread of leaven in the next parable (in Scripture, leaven always represents sin), and only if we notice that the birds in the first parable of the series, the Parable of the Sower, represent workers of Satan (vs. 4, 19).4) The rule that Scripture explains itself
How do we know that leaven represents sin? We draw this conclusion from a comprehensive look at all the references to leaven in Scripture. In obedience to this fourth rule, we rely on Scripture to explain itself. That is to say, in the places where leaven is a symbol with obvious meaning, we expect that the meaning will be the same, and that this meaning will help us interpret the other texts referring to leaven.In consequence of this investigation, we find that Scripture consistently associates leaven with evil. Before celebrating Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the people of Israel were required to go through their houses and remove every trace of leaven (Ex. 12:15). This ritual depicted their need to remove sin from their lives before they sought fellowship with God. Paul explicitly identifies leaven as a symbol of malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:7-9).
In general, the New Testament explains the Old. Without the New, we could not be confident that the Old contains types and allegories, and we would scarcely know how to interpret them.
A type is a person or event that pictures a person or event in the future. The New Testament informs us that Melchizedek is a type of Christ (Heb. 6:20-7:3). That Joshua the high priest is a symbol of the Branch—that is, Christ—is made plain even in the Old Testament (Zech. 3:8; "wondered at" can be translated "of symbol"), but only from the perspective of the New Testament do we understand the significance of his name, Joshua (that is, Jesus). Other Old Testament figures who seem to be deliberate types of Christ are Joseph, Joshua (Moses' successor), and Hosea. Such figures as Pharaoh, Haman, and Antiochus Epiphanes (foreshadowed in Dan. 11:21-35) appear to be forerunners of the Antichrist. The New Testament teaches that the rites of Mosaic religion furnish types of Christ's redemptive work (Heb. 9:8-9).
A story in which each element represents something beyond itself is a common species of allegory. Israel's escape from Egypt is an allegory of Christian experience (1 Cor. 10:1-6), and the struggle within Abraham's family between Hagar and Sarah is an allegory of the conflict between law and grace (Gal. 4:21-31). Another type of allegory hides spiritual truth in a plain statement about something else. Paul encourages us to see allegories in minor provisions of the Mosaic law (1 Cor. 9:9-10).
The question that has always vexed expositors is this: Just how much liberty do we have to discover allegories? Some church fathers and many commentators during the Middle Ages carried allegorizing to extremes, even so far as to neglect the plain meaning of Scripture. To a modern student of the Bible, many of the allegories that they drew from Scripture seem far-fetched and arbitrary. In reaction against allegorizing, most Bible-believing expositors since Reformation times decline to look for any allegories besides those Scripture itself identifies—with one major exception. The Song of Solomon has traditionally been read as an allegory of Christ's love for the church.
5) The rule of literalism.
The Bible is to be taken literally unless it is using symbols or a figure of speech.
Well that is certainly a nice sermon, but you still failed to address the discrepency issue of the bible. You're even starting to contradict yourself:
A: Did you Read this in the Bible? What version?
From the KJV
(2 Sam. 8:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
(1 Chron. 18:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.
No Dif.
That is a direct quote from your post.
Is the bible the word of God, or is it the word of men who are allowed to engage in riddles or wordplay, which makes your rule #5 pretty much useless. If that is the whole point of the bible is "to reveal god's plan" with the sole purpose of getting men to believe in god and follow god, then why would god allow it to be so confusing and unclear, so that we have to put our trust in men to author it correctly and interpret it correctly for us, as opposed to trusting in god, or getting it directly from the source. This seems like a counterintuitive approach for such an all powerful, all knowing being.
No difference? seven hundred horsemen is a lot different from seven thousand horsemen.
The King James Version shows No difference. Like I said before.
Did you look in a Bible or did you just quote from a website?
I quoted the Bible word for word in my answer and there was No difference.As far as Josiah’s death, it can's get any clearer than "Josiah died at Megiddo" or "Josiah died at Jerusalem "
Semantics
If the bible is the word of god (god was their source as so claimed) there should not be any discrepancies what so ever. Discrepancies only serve to prove that this is their version (vision) of the events that transpired in that era, as told by them, not by god.
The fact that people who don't have a grasp on how to read that Bible are the ones saying aha! A discrepancy, does not invalidate it. Disciplined Bible study is necessary. All of the issues were answered in full and they were very easy to answer when applied with Hermeneutics.
-------------------------------
The following guide will help to address any contradiction that is assumed.
Hermeneutics
1) The rule of authorial intent
No reader has the right to impose his own ideas on the text. Scripture itself clearly teaches that the only meaning of a text is what the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired the human writer (2 Pet. 1:20-1). It follows that every text has only one correct interpretation. If two readers disagree on what it means, at least one of them is necessarily wrong. Perhaps both are wrong. How do we discover the one correct interpretation? We must consult the author Himself, the Holy Spirit. We must allow Him to teach us.2) The rule of univocal meaning
The basic sense of a passage is the single sense evident to any reader who allows the words their ordinary meanings and who expects the grammar and syntax to shape and combine these meanings in a normal fashion. (This rule should not be applied indiscriminately, without recognition that Biblical writers may sometimes propound a riddle or engage in word play. In either instance the words may bear more than one basic meaning.)3) The rule of context
The context of a passage may supply clues to the correct interpretation. Such clues may even clarify a passage that otherwise would be obscure. An example is the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31-2). Only by comparing it with the other parables in the same chapter (especially the first two, the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares) do we discover that it describes the future of the church. Its prediction that the church in its final stages would be corrupt comes to light only if we notice that the growth of the mustard plant parallels the spread of leaven in the next parable (in Scripture, leaven always represents sin), and only if we notice that the birds in the first parable of the series, the Parable of the Sower, represent workers of Satan (vs. 4, 19).4) The rule that Scripture explains itself
How do we know that leaven represents sin? We draw this conclusion from a comprehensive look at all the references to leaven in Scripture. In obedience to this fourth rule, we rely on Scripture to explain itself. That is to say, in the places where leaven is a symbol with obvious meaning, we expect that the meaning will be the same, and that this meaning will help us interpret the other texts referring to leaven.In consequence of this investigation, we find that Scripture consistently associates leaven with evil. Before celebrating Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the people of Israel were required to go through their houses and remove every trace of leaven (Ex. 12:15). This ritual depicted their need to remove sin from their lives before they sought fellowship with God. Paul explicitly identifies leaven as a symbol of malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:7-9).
In general, the New Testament explains the Old. Without the New, we could not be confident that the Old contains types and allegories, and we would scarcely know how to interpret them.
A type is a person or event that pictures a person or event in the future. The New Testament informs us that Melchizedek is a type of Christ (Heb. 6:20-7:3). That Joshua the high priest is a symbol of the Branch—that is, Christ—is made plain even in the Old Testament (Zech. 3:8; "wondered at" can be translated "of symbol"), but only from the perspective of the New Testament do we understand the significance of his name, Joshua (that is, Jesus). Other Old Testament figures who seem to be deliberate types of Christ are Joseph, Joshua (Moses' successor), and Hosea. Such figures as Pharaoh, Haman, and Antiochus Epiphanes (foreshadowed in Dan. 11:21-35) appear to be forerunners of the Antichrist. The New Testament teaches that the rites of Mosaic religion furnish types of Christ's redemptive work (Heb. 9:8-9).
A story in which each element represents something beyond itself is a common species of allegory. Israel's escape from Egypt is an allegory of Christian experience (1 Cor. 10:1-6), and the struggle within Abraham's family between Hagar and Sarah is an allegory of the conflict between law and grace (Gal. 4:21-31). Another type of allegory hides spiritual truth in a plain statement about something else. Paul encourages us to see allegories in minor provisions of the Mosaic law (1 Cor. 9:9-10).
The question that has always vexed expositors is this: Just how much liberty do we have to discover allegories? Some church fathers and many commentators during the Middle Ages carried allegorizing to extremes, even so far as to neglect the plain meaning of Scripture. To a modern student of the Bible, many of the allegories that they drew from Scripture seem far-fetched and arbitrary. In reaction against allegorizing, most Bible-believing expositors since Reformation times decline to look for any allegories besides those Scripture itself identifies—with one major exception. The Song of Solomon has traditionally been read as an allegory of Christ's love for the church.
5) The rule of literalism.
The Bible is to be taken literally unless it is using symbols or a figure of speech.Well that is certainly a nice sermon, but you still failed to address the discrepency issue of the bible. You're even starting to contradict yourself:
A: Did you Read this in the Bible? What version?
From the KJV
(2 Sam. 8:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
(1 Chron. 18:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.
No Dif.That is a direct quote from your post.
Is the bible the word of God, or is it the word of men who are allowed to engage in riddles or wordplay, which makes your rule #5 pretty much useless. If that is the whole point of the bible is "to reveal god's plan" with the sole purpose of getting men to believe in god and follow god, then why would god allow it to be so confusing and unclear, so that we have to put our trust in men to author it correctly and interpret it correctly for us, as opposed to trusting in god, or getting it directly from the source. This seems like a counterintuitive approach for such an all powerful, all knowing being.
All i got from you axle was that you have obviously been brainwashed, how the hell can u read that and think hey this has got to be true. There is so much blowing out of proportion with religion.
Im not saying there wasnt some kind of jesus, but to say that he had healing powers and could revive him self is propostious. Sure he might of been a healer of some sort maybe known some medicine. And maybe he was involved with rights and helpng people, but to belive in jesus or christianity is like beliving in santa.
You have a weak mind if you allow yourself to be brainwashed by such things.
Is the bible the word of God, or is it the word of men who are allowed to engage in riddles or wordplay, which makes your rule #5 pretty much useless. If that is the whole point of the bible is "to reveal god's plan" with the sole purpose of getting men to believe in god and follow god, then why would god allow it to be so confusing and unclear, so that we have to put our trust in men to author it correctly and interpret it correctly for us, as opposed to trusting in god, or getting it directly from the source. This seems like a counterintuitive approach for such an all powerful, all knowing being.
I meant to say one was a more detailed descrition of the entire event and one was talking about a certain class of people.
I can't expect any of you to first study the Bible and then History to
understand the simplicity of the non contradiction.
In addition, this minor issue does not change the overall message nor the context. It is just crossing hairs for anyone to say ahah that is why I don't believe. Just don't believe. If you want to just not believe.
This guy posting under the name God seem to be the most consistant athiest here. Kudos to God for keeping the, uhh, faith in non faith.
Bible is just a story book kthxbai.
Bible is just a story book kthxbai.
A story book of facts.
Currently installed 5 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.