When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Subduction Zone]

Well it's pretty obvious you don't understand Bible Literature. I suppose God looks like a door and has feathers too.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Wait a second, either you take it literally or you don't. The people that wrote it clearly believed that the Earth did not move. They may have believed the Flood myth and Adam and Eve myth too. The only way that the literal errors in the Bible can be excused is to make a claim as you just did.

 

[AV1611VET]

The people that wrote it clearly believed that the Earth did not move.

Actually one of the biggest problems with the educated is that they don't realize God wrote the Bible.

Are we unmoveable also?

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

How can we be both "unmoveable" and "always abounding" at the same time?

But let's assume you're right, and God's secretaries wrote about the earth being unmoveable because the earth was unmoveable.

In that case, the earth at the time of the writing was unmoveable and geocentric to the universe.

Then some time later, God simply reconfigured the universe ... possibly in Hezekiah's time.

If that seems too far-fetched for you, then maybe you should consider that the passages are not to be taken literally.

 

[46AND2]

Actually one of the biggest problems with the educated is that they don't realize God wrote the Bible.

Are we unmoveable also?

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

How can we be both "unmoveable" and "always abounding" at the same time?

But let's assume you're right, and God's secretaries wrote about the earth being unmoveable because the earth was unmoveable.

In that case, the earth at the time of the writing was unmoveable and geocentric to the universe.

Then some time later, God simply reconfigured the universe ... possibly in Hezekiah's time.

If that seems too far-fetched for you, then maybe you should consider that the passages are not to be taken literally.

What? The Bible does use metaphor? Say it ain't so!

 

[AV1611VET]

What? The Bible does use metaphor? Say it ain't so!

What tipped you off?

The fact that Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes are known as "books of poetry"?

 

[Jimmy D]

What tipped you off?

The fact that Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes are known as "books of poetry"?

You missed off Genesis 1

 

[AV1611VET]

You missed off Genesis 1

Genesis 1 is historical.

 

[46AND2]

What tipped you off?

The fact that Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes are known as "books of poetry"?

Genesis is written in poetic Hebrew also.

 

[Jimmy D]

Genesis 1 is historical.

In your opinion, not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis is written in poetic Hebrew also.

Really?

Which type?

Complimentary, contrastive, or constructive?

 

[46AND2]

Really?

Which type?

Complimentary, contrastive, or constructive?

There are plenty of studies of Hebraic poetry contained in Genesis you can find online. I recommend reading about it. It's actually pretty interesting how much of their poetry differs from what we are used to.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well it's pretty obvious you don't understand Bible Literature. I suppose God looks like a door and has feathers too.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

A literalist complaining that others are incapable of interpreting the Bible metaphorically. How funny.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh man you crack me up. [emoji1] That's funny no matter who you are! I guess I lost that argument didn't I. Hahahahahaha!

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I see that you can't counter the argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have similar feet to monkeys? Oh well that is definitely proof right there! And throw 98% DNA of monkeys and you have a case for sure. But that 2% difference makes all the difference in the world doesn't it. Makes us NOT monkeys.

There are monkey species that differ by way more than 2%, and yet they are still monkeys.

In fact, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas and orangutans. Chimps are more human than they are ape, by your definition. In fact, you could find monkey species that share more DNA with humans than they do with other monkey species.

Throw in all the other stuff and we definitely are not monkeys. Like I said when monkeys can build an automobile and learn algebra then I'll stand up and take notice.

There is a primate species that can do all of those things. That species is called Homo sapiens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually one of the biggest problems with the educated is that they don't realize God wrote the Bible.

Are we unmoveable also?

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

How can we be both "unmoveable" and "always abounding" at the same time?

But let's assume you're right, and God's secretaries wrote about the earth being unmoveable because the earth was unmoveable.

In that case, the earth at the time of the writing was unmoveable and geocentric to the universe.

Then some time later, God simply reconfigured the universe ... possibly in Hezekiah's time.

If that seems too far-fetched for you, then maybe you should consider that the passages are not to be taken literally.

But God did not write the Bible. People wrote the Bible, most Christians know this. But I see that you have a rather poor opinion of God. How do you do that and worship him at the same time?

By the way
AV, "abounding" has nothing to do with movement so I don't see why you think it might be a contradiction. Also ad hoc explanations not supported by either the Bible or by reality only make you look even worse.

Lastly perhaps you should realize that you can't pick and choose which verses to take literally if you don't have a valid reason for those differences. You seem to be going with science when it says that the Earth moves but you are anti-reality when it comes to evolution. Can you explain that?

 

[AV1611VET]

But God did not write the Bible.

Because He doesn't exist?

People wrote the Bible, most Christians know this.

You don't know the art of amanuensis, do you?

As I have said before, my wife is a secretary in a Fortune 100 company, and I have an AA in Business Administration.

One of the things we both learned is how missives from the CEO carry the weight of the CEO, even though the CEO's secretary (amanuensis) wrote it.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Every page of the Bible carries at least the weight of FROM THE DESK OF GOD on It.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because He doesn't exist?

That is only one reason. The Bible does not support this claim either.

You don't know the art of amanuensis, do you?

As I have said before, my wife is a secretary in a Fortune 100 company, and I have an AA in Business Administration.

One of the things we both learned is how missives from the CEO carry the weight of the CEO, even though the CEO's secretary (amanuensis) wrote it.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Every page of the Bible carries at least the weight of FROM THE DESK OF GOD on It.

There is one huge problem with this claim. God never signed his work or endorsed it in any way at all. You are once again back on circular logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't know the art of amanuensis, do you?

As I have said before, my wife is a secretary in a Fortune 100 company, and I have an AA in Business Administration.

You don't know the art of fiction writing, do you?

 

[rjs330]

Genesis is written in poetic Hebrew also.

Actually its not written poetically. Genesis was always understood to be prose not poetry. However, when science began to proclaim the age of the earth being really really old some interpreters began to try and find reasons why Genesis 1 was poetry and could not used as a literal interpretation of creation. Thus began the move to make Genesis poetry to try and make it fit what science was saying. Most scholars still believe Genesis 1 not being poetry, but some still do. It is an ongoing discussion. Most of the folks that like to convince you that Genesis 1 is poetry are progressive believers who are trying to reconcile what the bible says with what science says. They also usually have other interpretations of the scriptures which I won't go into here since it's not the place.

The other point is that other scriptures confirm what Genesis says about creation. God gave Moses the law and commandments and in that law he told Moses directly that he made the world and all that is in it in six days. Ex 20:11. Jesus confirmed that in the beginning of creation God "made them male and female" referring to the creation of man and woman and their role with each other.

These are things one cannot run away from. IF you want to buy the poetry idea go ahead. I don't believe it and I was taught by a well known and renowned Hebrew scholar.

 

[46AND2]

Actually its not written poetically. Genesis was always understood to be prose not poetry. However, when science began to proclaim the age of the earth being really really old some interpreters began to try and find reasons why Genesis 1 was poetry and could not used as a literal interpretation of creation.

One does not have to use poetry to make use of metaphor. So, there would be no reason to try to "force fit" poetry into the reading of Genesis, JUST to acquiesce to scientific dispute of a literal reading.

 

[rjs330]

There are monkey species that differ by way more than 2%, and yet they are still monkeys.

In fact, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas and orangutans. Chimps are more human than they are ape, by your definition. In fact, you could find monkey species that share more DNA with humans than they do with other monkey species.



There is a primate species that can do all of those things. That species is called Homo sapiens.

Still nonsense. We are not monkeys. Here is where we part ways with whats called common sense and reality. I can look at humans and what we have accomplished in the history of mankind. We have discovered some pretty amazing stuff that our ancestors were able to do without the technology we have now. And I look at the enormous advancements we have made in the technological era. Just incredible. And then I look at monkeys and see them sitting in trees throwing poo and I see reality. We were never them and they were never us. Not even from the beginning.

Evolutionists don't see reality. They see what they want to see and believe. They desparately want to believe that we came from monkeys. Fine believe what you want. See what you want. But there is enough difference in our DNA and all that it does and accomplishes in our bodies to differentiate us from monkeys.

https://www.icr.org/article/789

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/ape_vs_human.php

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-99-of-our-dna-with-chimps-claim-rises-again/

Are we similar? Heck yea. I don't need some scientist to tell me, "hey the monkeys kind of look like us." Cool. But similarity does not mean same. It does not mean we all came from the same thing. Evolutionists have to assume we did and have to suppose we did. But there is not empirical evidence that can be verified that we did indeed evolve from the same ancestor. We can guess, we can assume, we can suppose, but we cannot verify that we did in fact come from the same ancestor. I don't expect you to agree with any of what is in the links. But I found the last one very informative especially the comments where posters posted links to scientific studies and statements.

Bottom line is evolution is unverifiable. Always has been. It's assumption based upon a belief system. You can't verify it because it cannot be reproduced or tested. Its not real science.

We can verify gravity, we can verify the temperature at which water boils. We can verify all kinds of scientific hypothesis and find that the hypothesis is true. But we can't do that with evolution. Because you can't show a creature turning into another creature. You can't find a monkey turning into a human.