-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Did God Create Fossils?
- Thread starter homohabilis117
- Start date
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi colter,
You make a good point. The Israelites, as a body of people, put the Lord to death. However, that was God's plan also and He used them to bring salvation to the world just as He used them to bring the truth to the world. You think that the Israelites were 'bad' because they put Jesus to death, but I don't think you fully realize or appreciate that what they did brought your salvation.
However, as regards the Scriptures, God didn't use the Israelites as a nation to deliver His Scriptures to us. He used a select few of the faithful children of Israel. He did raise up the nation of Israel to do His bidding, but He didn't trust all of Israel with the pearl of the Scriptures. He trusted a select few. Some 25-35 people in all the nation of Israel were charged with and given the blessing of writing the Scriptures.
So, I'm not so confident as you are in charging the Scriptures with error based on the fact that the Jews in general did orchestrate the death of my Savior.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
James Wilson
Newbie
- Aug 13, 2011
- 144
- 11
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What's this? A game of oneupmanship?
If I had the time to read further, I would have. You showed an interest and so I took a quick look to see something that might answer your question. Note that Arp used the key phrases: non-velocity redshifts and the picture associated with the quote I gave you shows two objects clearly tied together.
Don't throw in a red herring by concentrating on my level of expertise in astrophysics. Shall I give you a test in probabilistic risk assessment and have you explain why, for some reason, daughter-decay ratios of some radioactive species have to be manually corrected because we still don't have a full understanding of the original composition of newly created Earth?
Upvote
0
Riberra
Well-Known Member
Not at all. Your point was that Arp have analysed a pair of quasars where one quasar showed a redshift and the other showed NO redshift at all.I have pointed out to you that the article written by Arp demonstrate that both quasars have in fact a high redshift. It seem that you don't like having been politely corrected on that point.
Arp claims:
Source:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts
-The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.-
Arp propose that the two high red shifted quasars have been ejected by the galaxy with a lower redshift because he have a picture showing 3 objects which appear to be close together in the line of sight, and supposedly "connected" with the emission line of the galaxy ... Arp is convinced that he have discovered non velocity redshift....
-Arp is unable to explain how a Galaxy can eject 2 quasars like a pop corn machine ....
-Arp is unable to provide a mechanism explaining his intrinsic redshift theory.
Do you know that Arp have never promoted a 6,000 years old universe .
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't fully agree, Ted. Take the contradictions. If I had a nickel for every time someone pulled the old if-we-had-more-information-they'd-disappear argument, I'd be filthy rich. I simply view that as a totally bogus solution. I don't believe the Bible is at all an accurate geophysical witness and I don't believe it was ever intended to be. Nobody today holds with teh biblical cosmology, with its flat earth and geocentric universe. The same applies to Genesis, where actually we find two contradictory chronologies. I can send you more detail here if that is what you want. God is like a careful carpenter, God works with the grain, not over and against it. The biblical culture was a prescientific culture. Hence, it would be ridiculous to assume God imparted advanced scientific knowledge to them. He worked with Columbus, he did not give him a nuclear sub.
Is the Bible cobbled together? That depends on what you mean by cobbled. The Pentateuch represents the combination of at lest four sources, by later redactors.
I think it most unrealistic to assume that God dictated Scripture word-for-word to purely passive scribes. Indeed, the Bible makes no such claim. It's much more complicated than that. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of an ancient semi-barbaric, prescientific culture and therefore subject to those limitations.
Is the Bible cobbled together? That depends on what you mean by cobbled. The Pentateuch represents the combination of at lest four sources, by later redactors.
I think it most unrealistic to assume that God dictated Scripture word-for-word to purely passive scribes. Indeed, the Bible makes no such claim. It's much more complicated than that. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of an ancient semi-barbaric, prescientific culture and therefore subject to those limitations.
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi hoghead,
Well, I've always allowed that each believes what they have convinced themselves is the truth. My belief does not match with yours. I also think it unrealistic to assume that God dictated Scripture word-for-word, but that's not a position that I've ever supported. I've just always held that it's the truth. I'm likely just as befuddled as you when hearing the 'we just don't have enough understanding' reply concerning the explanation of supposed contradictions when I hear the 'the bibles not a science book' reply. Of course the Scriptures are not 'science' books, but something doesn't have to be a science book to be true.
The entire issue revolves around differing world views. You believe that the creation came to be through fairly naturalistic means and, therefore, view everything as having evolved to be what it is today by that process. Ages of time and chance. Even though no man has ever been able to take their science books and create life from any mixture of chemical catalysts, it's believed by those holding your world view that time and chance did bring life into existence. Even though we now live in an age where we have named every chemical that the earth has to offer and have the test tubes and ability to isolate and work with such chemicals in just about any mixture that can be made, we can't replicate this moment of creation of living organisms from such chemicals or their reactions. You believe man to be so very, very much wiser and knowledgeable about the workings of the natural order of things and so very, very much further advanced than the primitive, unscientific man of ages past, and yet with all that great knowledge and ability to work with the natural world through all of that great 'new' scientific knowledge, we can't replicate the beginning of life.
I, on the other hand, believe that we live in a created realm. An entire existence created by a God who loves and creates and cares for all that He creates just as the Scriptures that He caused to be written through the hands of men, unscientific and unknowledgeable as they were, tells us. That that God will, just as quickly as He created this realm in which man could exist and live and breathe, bring it all to a close.
For me, a piece of written material doesn't have to be categorized as 'scientific', whatever that might actually mean to you, to be the truth in what it tells. I can read that God created this realm in mere moments without it having to be broken down into E=mc2 or the hypotenuse equals such-and-such and this chemical compounded with that one, and still clearly and understandably believe that God created this realm in mere moments.
It's simply a matter of world view. The world view of what man says is true because he's now so much wiser and knowledgeable than unscientific and unlearned man vs. the world view of just simply what God says. For me, my understanding doesn't hinge on the knowledge and wisdom of man at any particular point in time, but what God has always known.
Finally, I take to heart what the Scriptures teach about the evolution of the thinking of man. The Scriptures, for me, seem to clearly explain that man becomes more and more wicked and rebellious towards God and not the other way around, despite our great scientific knowledge. Paul warned Timothy that a time was coming when men would not put up with sound doctrine. Not that a time was coming when men would be more apt to understand and follow sound doctrine. To me, your replies seem to be fairly clear that you're not going to put up with such sound doctrine, but instead you have surrounded yourself with a cloud of witnesses to tell you what your itching ears WANT to hear.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Well, I've always allowed that each believes what they have convinced themselves is the truth. My belief does not match with yours. I also think it unrealistic to assume that God dictated Scripture word-for-word, but that's not a position that I've ever supported. I've just always held that it's the truth. I'm likely just as befuddled as you when hearing the 'we just don't have enough understanding' reply concerning the explanation of supposed contradictions when I hear the 'the bibles not a science book' reply. Of course the Scriptures are not 'science' books, but something doesn't have to be a science book to be true.
The entire issue revolves around differing world views. You believe that the creation came to be through fairly naturalistic means and, therefore, view everything as having evolved to be what it is today by that process. Ages of time and chance. Even though no man has ever been able to take their science books and create life from any mixture of chemical catalysts, it's believed by those holding your world view that time and chance did bring life into existence. Even though we now live in an age where we have named every chemical that the earth has to offer and have the test tubes and ability to isolate and work with such chemicals in just about any mixture that can be made, we can't replicate this moment of creation of living organisms from such chemicals or their reactions. You believe man to be so very, very much wiser and knowledgeable about the workings of the natural order of things and so very, very much further advanced than the primitive, unscientific man of ages past, and yet with all that great knowledge and ability to work with the natural world through all of that great 'new' scientific knowledge, we can't replicate the beginning of life.
I, on the other hand, believe that we live in a created realm. An entire existence created by a God who loves and creates and cares for all that He creates just as the Scriptures that He caused to be written through the hands of men, unscientific and unknowledgeable as they were, tells us. That that God will, just as quickly as He created this realm in which man could exist and live and breathe, bring it all to a close.
For me, a piece of written material doesn't have to be categorized as 'scientific', whatever that might actually mean to you, to be the truth in what it tells. I can read that God created this realm in mere moments without it having to be broken down into E=mc2 or the hypotenuse equals such-and-such and this chemical compounded with that one, and still clearly and understandably believe that God created this realm in mere moments.
It's simply a matter of world view. The world view of what man says is true because he's now so much wiser and knowledgeable than unscientific and unlearned man vs. the world view of just simply what God says. For me, my understanding doesn't hinge on the knowledge and wisdom of man at any particular point in time, but what God has always known.
Finally, I take to heart what the Scriptures teach about the evolution of the thinking of man. The Scriptures, for me, seem to clearly explain that man becomes more and more wicked and rebellious towards God and not the other way around, despite our great scientific knowledge. Paul warned Timothy that a time was coming when men would not put up with sound doctrine. Not that a time was coming when men would be more apt to understand and follow sound doctrine. To me, your replies seem to be fairly clear that you're not going to put up with such sound doctrine, but instead you have surrounded yourself with a cloud of witnesses to tell you what your itching ears WANT to hear.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
Hi Ted,
I understand your point, it's a common teaching or speculation in the Christian religion that it was Gods will that God the Son incarnate so he could be sacrificed thus enabling a path for the Father to finally forgive man through this endless sin debt repayment deal. It was the theoretical ransom paid to the Satan God who had possession of man.
The original gospel that Jesus preached to the Jews, the gospel that he had hoped they would adopt, is the gospel they would be preaching today from Jerusalem had they not rejected their sacred calling and hence Jesus' saving message. The gospel changed after Jesus left as it was interpreted by the Pagan world who was found to be open to the modified version.
This is just another self evident example of the human inconsistencies of the concepts of the Bible books.
It is your theory, the theory of inerrancy, another speculation that God selected special holy men who dictated his Word....even when those dictations of the same story contradict each other giving way to endless rationalizations and excuse making for those inconsistencies.
Again, somewhere, somehow faith in the perfection of God has been transposed to faith in the perfection of Books about the doings of God. It's another Golden Calf.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
James Wilson
Newbie
- Aug 13, 2011
- 144
- 11
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Not at all. Your point was that Arp have analysed a pair of quasars where one quasar showed a redshift and the other showed NO redshift at all.I have pointed out to you that the article written by Arp demonstrate that both quasars have in fact a high redshift. It seem that you don't like having been politely corrected on that point.
Arp claims:
Source:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts
-The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.-
Arp propose that the two high red shifted quasars have been ejected by the galaxy with a lower redshift because he have a picture showing 3 objects which appear to be close together in the line of sight, and supposedly "connected" with the emission line of the galaxy ... Arp is convinced that he have discovered non velocity redshift....
-Arp is unable to explain how a Galaxy can eject 2 quasars like a pop corn machine ....
-Arp is unable to provide a mechanism explaining his intrinsic redshift theory.
Do you know that Arp have never promoted a 6,000 years old universe .
We're getting bogged down here.
First, when I mentioned the paired stars, I was quoting from an e-mail Dr. Arp had sent me years ago. I hadn't visited his site before you brought it up, but was merely quoting from that e-mail. Shortly after that, I wrote down my ideas of the implications of that conversation, so my writeups in this string are not based upon my recollection today, but that writeup that was contemporary with Arp's e-mail.
You asked me to find any evidence of the site to back up what I said. I took a few minutes to try to find something to back up what Dr. Arp told me in the e-mail. BTW, I received the e-mail many years ago and it was on a different e-mail system than I now use. I will try to go back in my records and resurrect that e-mail, but in the meantime, let's try to get back on point.
Dr. Arp published his original calculation that won him acclaim, based upon his assumption that red shift was associated with velocity of the object emitting the light. Later he withdrew his support for his work based upon what he found with paired stars with different red shifts. No matter how you interpret what he saw, he was convinced enough to go through the loss of a job and vilification of his peers.
No matter what else you determine really is going on at his site, he found a significant problem with dating the universe based upon red shift.
Now you say that he didn't believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I'm not trying to turn Dr. Arp into a creationist, but just showing that the date of the universe is not as certain as the old-earthers try to present.
Upvote
0
James Wilson
Newbie
- Aug 13, 2011
- 144
- 11
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You reject the Scripture as written, yet come up with 'evidence' that I've never seen:
1. An original gospel exists that isn't in the Bible
2. Jesus hoped they would accept this gospel
3. Had they accepted this gospel, the Jews would be preaching it today in Jerusalem
4. The pagan world changed the gospel of Jesus after He left
5. To believe in the Scripture as written in another golden calf
6. And it appears that the basis for some or all of this 'new gospel' is the Urantia Book
If Jesus had hoped they would accept a different gospel than He preached, changing all of Judaism, then He would be contradicting His own prophecy in Zechariah 12:10. According to Zechariah, "In that day" (when "all the nations are gathered against Jerusalem"), "I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn." (Zech. 12:10)
You say the pagan world changed this gospel, but that not possible: If all copies of the New Testament had been burned up as the pagan Romans attempted, we could still reconstruct all the entire content of the Majority Text from the writings of early Church fathers (not pagans) writing within 100 years of Jesus's death on the cross, except for 2 solitary verses. Note: the Majority Text is what the majority of Christians have used, in various languages, throughout history, until Westcott and Hort updated the King James to the new replacement Bible.
You sound like you have an inerrant source that is more reliable than the Bible. What is this amazing source of wisdom?
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
Jesus taught his original good news gospel of the kingdom of heaven openly to the Jews and all who would receive it 3+ years before the cross ever happened. That gospel was rejected, Jesus was killed, and the Jews un-chosen. The new, post cross speculative gospel was the theory that Jesus was a human sacrifice. The old gospel of salvation by faith and personal transformation was replaced by the Pagan theories of atonement. This new gospel began on the day of Pentacost when Peter began the proclamation of the death and resurrection of the savior, it replaced what they had been teaching and preaching before the cross.
The contradictions are right in plain sight in the scripture. There are what remains of Jesus' gospel in the red letters, then the new message of Peter and others. Enter Paul, almost all of the New Testament is based on Pauls personal opinions about Jesus who he never knew in the flesh. Jesus of the Damascus road. Pauls preaching of his atonement interpretations were well established by the times of the writings of the gospels. But the church of the Roman world revered Paul, he is who they heard about Jesus from. They would make Pauls words equal to Jesus' words.
The Christian religion became a religion ABOUT Jesus, it replaced the original religion OF Jesus. The original gospel slumbers.
So Christian theory has Jesus laboring in vain with a message that was a waste of time because all along he was going to be a human sacrifice anyway.
As for his death and self resurrection, Jesus had said that it would prove his authority to teach as he did, never did Jesus connect his rejection and murder to gods forgiveness, never was his betrayal and death the center of his gospel! Returning to heaven and the outpouring of his spirit was inevitable.
Central to the original gospel was the positive, triumphant faith life of Jesus, not his tragic death at hands of closed minded religion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
When it comes to Scripture, Ted, I work from the perspective of modern biblical scholarship. Also do not put words in my mouth. I did not state anything about how I viewed creation. Since you misrepresented me, let me put you straight. I think evolution necessitates God. In fact, I think that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization.
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi colter,
Yea, Isaiah was just making a wild guess when he wrote what he wrote about the coming servant. I get it. And of course, everyone knows that Jeremiah was just a drunk. You and I understand a different faith. I'm not sure where you've found in the Scriptures that Jesus' death was the 'theoretical ransom paid to the Satan god.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
Hi Ted, the "ransom" idea came from a quote attributed to Jesus and conceptually expanded upon by his disciples and apostles.
While looking up the verse I found this commentary which contains the many areas where the ransom idea occurs.
How is Jesus a ransom for many? What is ransom theory?
Subscribe to our Compelling Mail Newsletter:
Jesus is recorded in Matthew 20:28and Mark 10:45 referring to Himself as "a ransom for many," and Paul uses nearly identical verbiage in 1 Timothy 2:6, except that he uses a universal "ransom for all." The Greek words translated "ransom" in these texts indicate a price paid for redeeming or ransoming a slave or prisoner – a common practice in the time of the New Testament – or the price for a life, closer to what we might think of today in the context of kidnapping and holding a person "for ransom."
Closely related to these verses are passages that say Jesus "bought" us. One of these, Acts 20:28 (NIV), helps us understand how Jesus "paid" this ransom, for it says that the church was "bought with his own blood." First Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 both remind the reader that they "were bought with a price," and 2 Peter 2:1also uses "buying" terminology.
These passages led church father Origen (c. 185-c. 245 AD) to develop a theory of the atonement called "ransom theory." In this understanding, Adam and Eve became captives to Satan and sin at the fall, followed by all of their offspring – the entire world. In order to bring salvation to the human race, Jesus died to give Satan his due price of blood, buying back humanity. However, Jesus did not remain dead, in the clutches of Satan, but rose back to life, defeating Satan and the death he brings to the world. Ransom theory was widespread until the eleventh century, when Anselm argued against it strongly.
Today, neither the Roman Catholic nor most Protestants accept ransom theory in its original form. The concept of God being a debtor to Satan, or even Satan having a just claim for "owning" humanity is dubitable at best. However, it is interesting to note that C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe presents, allegorically, Aslan's slaying and resurrection as atoning for sin and breaking the power of evil in a manner very similar to the original representation of ransom theory. An altered version of ransom theory claims that it was God the Father who required payment for sin, which is far more coherent with biblical representations. This altered version continues to be acknowledged as a part or picture of Jesus' atoning work, though it is not believed, in Protestant and Roman Catholic circles, to be the primary source of or reason for our salvation. Most Protestants accept substitutionary atonement as the most complete understanding of Christ's work on the cross available to us.
It may be concluded that in the sense that Jesus paid a ransom to redeem us, it was paid with His blood to God the Father for sin. However, it should be remembered that this is not the totality of how our salvation comes about, nor are we likely to fully understand the incredible work of Christ that brought us salvation and into full relationship with God."
Upvote
0
James Wilson
Newbie
- Aug 13, 2011
- 144
- 11
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This is precisely how Higher Criticism started. In the beginning, they didn't have enough courage to attack Christ Himself, so they doubted the words of the words of the men around Christ.
But what you've begun is a long slippery slope that will evolve into questioning the Lord Jesus Himself.
I have no interest in what you're selling. May God have mercy on your soul.
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi colter,
Oh, I'm not questioning the word 'ransom'. What I'm questioning is the idea that the ransom was paid to the 'Satan god'. God doesn't owe Satan anything and Jesus wasn't traded for us to Satan. A ransom is given to the person who is demanding payment. Jesus was not given to Satan.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Oh, I'm not questioning the word 'ransom'. What I'm questioning is the idea that the ransom was paid to the 'Satan god'. God doesn't owe Satan anything and Jesus wasn't traded for us to Satan. A ransom is given to the person who is demanding payment. Jesus was not given to Satan.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
Thank you, you have demonstrated the reason people willingly accept things that are obviously contradictory and or are false. You fear a "slippery slope". Truth is never to be feared, if anything it destroys institutional pride. But the church more or less know theses disturbing facts but fear to reveal them to the people.
Higher criticism started when the church finally stopped killing people who asked legitimate questions.
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi colter,
And yet Jesus himself accused them of being children of Satan. He probably didn't know what he was talking about either.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
classicalhero
Junior Member
- Jun 9, 2013
- 1,631
- 399
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Liberals
Why do you think God reject Cain? Because h offered up an unsuitable sacrifice. God rejected him and as a result he got jealous of Abel and killed him. BTW Cain's wife was his sister, since the exclusion of such marriages doesn't happen until Moses, who comes after all these events. Even many evolutionists I talk admit that the first humans would have had to interbreed since that is the only option for them also. But here are two articles about scieintific evidence that points out some flaws in current scientific thinking. The fist one is about carbon dating and how many samples that should have no carbon 14 have plenty and many samples used as blanks, are not carbon 14 blank as they were assumed, but were assumed because they were hundreds of millions of years old, or so they believe.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
The second article is about the universe and the many assumptions used in tradition cosmology that are basically fudge factors and are useless in real science.http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html
The biggest problem with evolution is that death comes before Adam, which the Bible clarly states that sin and death came as a result of Adam's sin
Upvote
0
Similar threads
