Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[Emmy]

Dear BobRyan. The Bible is God`s Word to Man, and we should remember that, when we discuss the Bible. We should also remember Galatians 6: 7-8: " Be not deceived, God will not be mocked, for whatever man sows, he will also reap!" In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40, we are told:
" on these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." God is Love and God wants loving sons and daughters. ( neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friend or not friend) God wants our love, and God wants us to treat our neighbour as we would love to be treated. That might not come to us easily, but God wants it, and love is very catching and love will change us into the men and women which God wants us to be. Soon we will find that we are gradually changing, love changes everything for the better.
In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " Ask and you shall receive," we ask God for Love and Joy, then thank God and share all with our neighbour. God will approve and Bless us. The Bible tells us to repent: give up our selfish wishes and wants, and be loving and caring, kind and use always friendly words to all we meet. Love changes us slowly, and surly. The Holy Spirit will guide and help us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY.
We might stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us and carry on being loving and kind.
Let us all try and be the men and women which God wants us to be, and let Love rule us. Once started it will be all the way, LOVE GOD AND LOVE OUR NEIGHBOUR, those are the two Commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets, and God is Love and God wants loving sons and daughters. I say this with love, BobRyan. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

devotees to evolutionism have an endless "guessing game" about ages and dates. A great example is in ignoring the river deltas and just "aging the rivers" based on "mountains they pass by".

Endless aging games of the evolutionist.

Meanwhile they end up as "science deniers" - denying observations in nature showing that 50,000 generations of evolutionism result in NO CHANGE from one species to another - as seen with bacteria. This is TEN TIMES the number of generations for humans in which they supposedly "evolved".

Science deniers and Bible-denier combined into one - as we have seen.

• from; http://creationtoday.org/evidence-from-earth/
  
  
• The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions(1,p.157;2,p.27;3,p.20;5,p.23;6,p.42;9,p.25; 10, p. 38; 11, p. 32, 80;12, p.91).
• The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while “the fountains of the deep were broken up,” most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly (1, p. 156; 11, p.26).
• Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42; 11, p. 26).
• The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 11, p. 25; 12, 83-84).
• The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 pp 356- 374; 11, p. 31, 79; 12, pp. 88-90).
• Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation (6, p. 38; 12, p.94).
• Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (4 – 7 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 8,400 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-and-a-half-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7;12, pp. 48-49).
• The rock-encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24;5,p.24;6,p.37;7;11,p.26).
• The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4,400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7).
• The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the “billions of years” called for by the theory of evolution (3, p. 25; 7).
• A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7; 11, p.31; 12, p.90).
• The largest stalactites and flow stone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4,400 years (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7). 25. The Sahara desert is expanding. It is about 4,000 years old. See any earth science textbook (7—Part 1B). 26.
• The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now (7; 9, p.26; 10, p. 37;12, p.85-87). 27.
• Ice accumulation at the poles indicates less than 5000 years (7).

 

[BobRyan]

Dear BobRyan. The Bible is God`s Word to Man, and we should remember that, when we discuss the Bible. We should also remember Galatians 6: 7-8: " Be not deceived, God will not be mocked, for whatever man sows, he will also reap!" In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40, we are told:
" on these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." God is Love and God wants loving sons and daughters. ( neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friend or not friend) God wants our love, and God wants us to treat our neighbour as we would love to be treated. That might not come to us easily, but God wants it, and love is very catching and love will change us into the men and women which God wants us to be. Soon we will find that we are gradually changing, love changes everything for the better.
In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " Ask and you shall receive," we ask God for Love and Joy, then thank God and share all with our neighbour. God will approve and Bless us. The Bible tells us to repent: give up our selfish wishes and wants, and be loving and caring, kind and use always friendly words to all we meet. Love changes us slowly, and surly. The Holy Spirit will guide and help us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY.
We might stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us and carry on being loving and kind.
Let us all try and be the men and women which God wants us to be, and let Love rule us. Once started it will be all the way, LOVE GOD AND LOVE OUR NEIGHBOUR, those are the two Commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets, and God is Love and God wants loving sons and daughters. I say this with love, BobRyan. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

All this is true. Christ said "you hypocrites and vipers" in Matt 23 - but he said it in love. In Mark 7 Christ said "in vain do they worship Me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" -- but he said it in love.

Christ spoke plainly when condemning error - but he said it in love.

It is not loving to tell someone who is trashing the Bible and choosing the love of a false religion like blind-faith-evolutionism that "all is well" or that "that idea is every bit as good as accepting faith in the Bible". Rather as Christ said in Matt 7 and as Paul states in Col 2 -- when someone appeals to the "commandments and traditions of men" or vain speculation against the Word of God - we do not portray that as "just as good" or "not so bad" or "pretty much what is popular but I just don't happen to choose it". Rather we say 'hmmm - that house is on fire! shall we mention it?". In fact Paul says in 2Cor 5 "we beg you on behalf of Christ - be reconciled to God". It is an strong emotional appeal calling people out of that burning building. So speaking plainly is not at all to be avoided.

Consider this -

Evolutionists on these boards adopt a religious conviction that is one of two forms -- either it is the by-faith-alone claim that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

Such a religion as that is ideal for an attack on the Bible.

Or they adopt the "tiny amoeba" version of that same doctrine on origins.

"An amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba ... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".


On these creation-vs-evolutionism threads two of the more consistent posters are Colter and Hoghead1 which means there is ample opportunity for any Christian to post a response that exposes the error of blind-faith-evolutionism (that overtly admits to trashing the Bible) but does so in a loving and kind way.

I think we all welcome such posts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You have that a little confused, science isn't trying to assail the Bible,

I never say it is. Rather I claim that actual science is completely in harmony with the Bible.

But junk-science that ignores the science observations "in nature" if those observations are not flattering to blind-faith-evolutionism - will often go on wild-guessing sprees whose only purpose is an attack on the Bible.

Y
it's emancipating mankind from the stunting effect of superstitious ignorance.

Which is how you characterize the Bible writers. Sadly - such bible denying statements go hand-in-hand with the science-denying position of blind faith evolutionism. Evolution consists of "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" according to your own atheist evolutionists.

They weren't writing for a science journal. But unfortunately the western world was negatively effected by the errors of the Biblical worldview as the church quashed science for as long as possible.

That is pure error - but you have free will and can choose error over truth all day long if you wish.

In the end there is the Rev 20 "Lake of Fire" to be considered -- a high price to accept for such an evolutionist religion of "guesswork".

 

[BobRyan]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

 

[BobRyan]

Outright confession –

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.


"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.
============================

How could a 50 year fraud be accepted as IF it is an "observed sequence in nature" when in fact "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".

It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers.

I see.. "lamentable" and "never happened in nature" - but not "junk-science" to true believers -- and your argument is that they are "truth seekers" doing that.

Why hijack real science with junk science? As if "real science" is to blame for all of that "it never happened in nature" and is "lamentable".

Is this a description of junk-science? or real science -- "I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."

That is not ME saying that - it is atheist evolutionist scientists themselves!!

You just disparage the facts of scientific research because it conflicts with something you believe.

That is not ME quoted as saying "it never happened in nature" and saying "I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories??] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. "

That is your own atheist evolutionist scientist -

It is a fact that the fossil record deposited over many different ages show signs of diverse life that lived at different times. That alone, without evolutionary speculation contradicts the Hebrews guesswork in Genesis.

Thank you for admitting - again - that belief in evolutionism drives toward "downsizing" and "dismissing" the Bible as nothing more than "Hebrews guesswork in Genesis"

HERE there can be no doubt at all - that we are really addressing hard-core details in OP -- in fact in the first two posts.

 

[BobRyan]

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981


--------------------- Patterson said -
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

"I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."

==========================

That is how a diehard atheist evolutionist scientist lamented the religion that he is 'stuck with' as an atheist.

It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers.

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."

 

[BobRyan]

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================
“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

============================

It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers. ..
It is a fact that the fossil record deposited over many different ages show signs of diverse life that lived at different times. That alone, without evolutionary speculation contradicts the Hebrews guesswork in Genesis.

I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

 

[BobRyan]

hence I argue that we "believe the BIBLE -- instead of junk-science" --

A lot of good science in observable biology, in chemistry and physics does not require junk-science-belief about amoebas "turning into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a long and sufficiently talented period of time - filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy-enough-to-tell"

 

[Colter]

I never say it is. Rather I claim that actual science is completely in harmony with the Bible.

But junk-science that ignores the science observations "in nature" if those observations are not flattering to blind-faith-evolutionism - will often go on wild-guessing sprees whose only purpose is an attack on the Bible.



Which is how you characterize the Bible writers. Sadly - such bible denying statements go hand-in-hand with the science-denying position of blind faith evolutionism. Evolution consists of "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" according to your own atheist evolutionists.



That is pure error - but you have free will and can choose error over truth all day long if you wish.

In the end there is the Rev 20 "Lake of Fire" to be considered -- a high price to accept for such an evolutionist religion of "guesswork".

Jesus was divinely diplomatic, he wasn't here to reform the errors of the Bible or reform Judaism, he came to establish the kingdom of heaven which he preached in his original gospel.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus was divinely diplomatic, he wasn't here to reform the errors of the Bible or reform Judaism, .

He preached "from all of scripture" -- "beginning with Moses" according to the actual Bible in Luke 24:27.

He preached about the reality of the Genesis account and origin of Marriage.

And He preached about hell - the Rev 20 "Lake of Fire" even more than heaven.

Your statement indicates that you are not reading the Bible that you so freely condemn.

The Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit according to 2Peter 1:19-21.
Christ says that we are not to attack the Holy Spirit in Matt 12.

It is the only link between us and the Gospel according to John 16 and John 3 - because it is the "Spirit of Christ" the one He sends to reach the soul.

Warfare against the Holy Spirit is like the drowning man choosing to cut the rope from the life saver that was tossed out to him.

When you say "original gospel" you mean "made up urantia-gospel that is in opposition to the one that we find in the Bible".

Even you will admit to this Urantia-not-the-Bible choice you are making.

 

[Colter]

He preached "from all of scripture" -- "beginning with Moses" according to the actual Bible in Luke 24:27.

He preached about the reality of the Genesis account and origin of Marriage.

And He preached about hell - the Rev 20 "Lake of Fire" even more than heaven.

Your statement indicates that you are not reading the Bible that you so freely condemn.

Nope! You are imagining things, Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah and he left and went back home. The original gospel will one day be preached to all the world.

 

[Colter]

devotees to evolutionism have an endless "guessing game" about ages and dates. A great example is in ignoring the river deltas and just "aging the rivers" based on "mountains they pass by".

Endless aging games of the evolutionist.

Meanwhile they end up as "science deniers" - denying observations in nature showing that 50,000 generations of evolutionism result in NO CHANGE from one species to another - as seen with bacteria. This is TEN TIMES the number of generations for humans in which they supposedly "evolved".

Science deniers and Bible-denier combined into one - as we have seen.

• from; http://creationtoday.org/evidence-from-earth/
  
  
• The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions(1,p.157;2,p.27;3,p.20;5,p.23;6,p.42;9,p.25; 10, p. 38; 11, p. 32, 80;12, p.91).
• The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while “the fountains of the deep were broken up,” most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly (1, p. 156; 11, p.26).
• Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42; 11, p. 26).
• The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 11, p. 25; 12, 83-84).
• The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 pp 356- 374; 11, p. 31, 79; 12, pp. 88-90).
• Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation (6, p. 38; 12, p.94).
• Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (4 – 7 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 8,400 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-and-a-half-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7;12, pp. 48-49).
• The rock-encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24;5,p.24;6,p.37;7;11,p.26).
• The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4,400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7).
• The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the “billions of years” called for by the theory of evolution (3, p. 25; 7).
• A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7; 11, p.31; 12, p.90).
• The largest stalactites and flow stone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4,400 years (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7). 25. The Sahara desert is expanding. It is about 4,000 years old. See any earth science textbook (7—Part 1B). 26.
• The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now (7; 9, p.26; 10, p. 37;12, p.85-87). 27.
• Ice accumulation at the poles indicates less than 5000 years (7).

Will just pick one of these silly quack scientist claims.


Bob said:

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (4 – 7 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 8,400 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-and-a-half-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7;12, pp. 48-49).

Scientist, real scientist, know that Niagara Falls in it's present geological state was created by the Wisconsin Glacial episode.

"The Wisconsin Glacial Episode, also called the Wisconsinan glaciation, was the most recent major advance of the North American ice sheet complex. This advance included the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, which nucleated in the northern North American Cordillera; the Innuitian ice sheet, which extended across the Canadian Arctic Archipelago; the Greenland ice sheet; and the massive Laurentide ice sheet,[1] which covered the high latitudes of central and eastern North America. This advance was synchronous with global glaciation during the last glacial period, including the North American alpine glacier advance, known as the Pinedale glaciation. The Wisconsin glaciation extended from approximately 85,000 to 11,000 years ago, between the Sangamon interglacial (known globally as the Eemian stage) and the current interglacial, the Holocene. The maximum ice extent occurred approximately 25,000–21,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum, also known as the Late Wisconsin in North America."


And Noah's flood was disproven long ago.

 

[Colter]

He preached "from all of scripture" -- "beginning with Moses" according to the actual Bible in Luke 24:27.

He preached about the reality of the Genesis account and origin of Marriage.

And He preached about hell - the Rev 20 "Lake of Fire" even more than heaven.

Your statement indicates that you are not reading the Bible that you so freely condemn.

The Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit according to 2Peter 1:19-21.
Christ says that we are not to attack the Holy Spirit in Matt 12.

It is the only link between us and the Gospel according to John 16 and John 3 - because it is the "Spirit of Christ" the one He sends to reach the soul.

Warfare against the Holy Spirit is like the drowning man choosing to cut the rope from the life saver that was tossed out to him.

When you say "original gospel" you mean "made up urantia-gospel that is in opposition to the one that we find in the Bible".

Even you will admit to this Urantia-not-the-Bible choice you are making.

An honest man knows that Jesus chose 12 apostles and preached a gospel for 3+ years before being apprehended by religious authorities. The cross, which had not yet happened, was not the center of the original gospel.

But then again, I'm not dealing with an honest man.

 

[4x4toy]

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981


--------------------- Patterson said -
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

"I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."

==========================

That is how a diehard atheist evolutionist scientist lamented the religion that he is 'stuck with' as an atheist.

Bob , thy shalt not kill .. He's had enough .. LOL

 

[lismore]

The church brutally suppressed, disfellowshipped and even burned at the stake it's critics.

The church didn't burn anyone at the stake. It was the secular authorities.

 

[BobRyan]

An honest man knows that Jesus chose 12 apostles and preached a gospel for 3+ years before being apprehended by religious authorities.

How do you know that? From the Bible? Are you saying you trust what the Bible says?

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus was divinely diplomatic, he wasn't here to reform the errors of the Bible or reform Judaism, .

He preached "from all of scripture" -- "beginning with Moses" according to the actual Bible in Luke 24:27.

He preached about the reality of the Genesis account and origin of Marriage.

And He preached about hell - the Rev 20 "Lake of Fire" even more than heaven.

Your statement indicates that you are not reading the Bible that you so freely condemn.

The Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit according to 2Peter 1:19-21.
Christ says that we are not to attack the Holy Spirit in Matt 12.

It is the only link between us and the Gospel according to John 16 and John 3 - because it is the "Spirit of Christ" the one He sends to reach the soul.

Warfare against the Holy Spirit is like the drowning man choosing to cut the rope from the life saver that was tossed out to him.

When you say "original gospel" you mean "made up urantia-gospel that is in opposition to the one that we find in the Bible".

Even you will admit to this Urantia-not-the-Bible choice you are making.

Nope! You are imagining things

Please focus on actual fact. Are you saying that I have "imagined" Luke 24:27????


Details matter.

, Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah

Less making-stuff-up.... more Bible please.

 

[BobRyan]

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (4 – 7 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 8,400 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-and-a-half-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7;12, pp. 48-49).


"The Wisconsin Glacial Episode, also called the Wisconsinan glaciation, was the most recent major advance of the North American ice sheet complex. This advance included the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, which nucleated in the northern North American Cordillera; the Innuitian ice sheet, which extended across the Canadian Arctic Archipelago; the Greenland ice sheet; and the massive Laurentide ice sheet,[1] which covered the high latitudes of central and eastern North America. This advance was synchronous with global glaciation during the last glacial period, including the North American alpine glacier advance, known as the Pinedale glaciation.

I love that story.

And Noah's flood was disproven long ago.

Not in real life.

 

[Colter]

How do you know that? From the Bible? Are you saying you trust what the Bible says?

The Bible is not one book, it's 66 books put together, selected by the church. Some books that ere part of the original collection were banned by the church.

But I will note that you dodged the issue, that's what dishonest people do. Jesus chose apostles to teach and preach his original gospel, the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. But in the wake of the tragic death of Jesus, the 3 days of despair and even doubting, followed by the resurrection and ascension, the entire focus became the cross. The original gospel was underemphasized and overwritten by the new message about the cross.