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

[daleksteve]

There is a thread here that starts with a mock-the-Bible list -
Apr 30, 2016 #1

By contrast we could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Some need to see that although the bible is the word of God it should not be taken literally in some places.

Young earth creationists have it so wrong.

 

[lismore]

No, you made a legalistic nonsence excuse for the churches behavior. There is a long list of the more noted victims of the church. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

From the very link you posted:

they were turned over to the local government for execution

So I will tell you for the third time, the church didn't burn anyone at the stake, it was the secular authorities.

 

[Colter]

From the very link you posted:

they were turned over to the local government for execution

So I will tell you for the third time, the church didn't burn anyone at the stake, it was the secular authorities.

After they were convicted by the Church, they were turned over to the local government for execution because of religious restrictions that kept ecclesial clergy from actually carrying out the executions.


And I will still point out that the church was complicit in sentencing to death for haracy and turning them over to be executed. If you are not honest enough to see the culpability of the church then you just are not an honest person.

 

[lismore]

And I will still point out that the church was complicit in sentencing to death for haracy and turning them over to be executed.

That's a different statement from your original post.

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

The church didn't burn anyone at the stake.

 

[Colter]

That's a different statement from your original post.

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

The church didn't burn anyone at the stake.

The church turned people over to secular authorities for execution after finding them guilty knowing full well what would happen. They also used torture to extract confession during various inquisition proceedings. Church government is composed of men and just as imperfect as secular governments.

 

[nerfherder]

I don't understand young earth creationist at all and I don't think I ever will. They are allowed to have their views and I'm allowed to think they are woefully misguided.

 

[BobRyan]

From the very link you posted:

they were turned over to the local government for execution

So I will tell you for the third time, the church didn't burn anyone at the stake, it was the secular authorities.

Non-Christians find it easy to blame the entire Christian church for what one or ten Christians do - or for what one denomination does.

Christians have a hard time following the atheist's lead on that one.

"The church" was being persecuted for 1260 years of the dark ages - and one way you know is from the supposedly infallible "Lateran IV" ecumenical council -- where the RCC called for the 'extermination' of Jews and heretics under certain conditions. (often under all conditions).

Secular authorities were under 'dire threat' in that document should they fail to carry out the extermination orders.

Not too surprising then that the "inquisition" is not too far away after Lateran IV is published.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't understand young earth creationist at all and I don't think I ever will. They are allowed to have their views and I'm allowed to think they are woefully misguided.

I don't understand Bible-deniers -- who are also science-deniers as it turns out -- since there is no science at all confirming blind-faith evolutionism in its war against the Bible.

Yet they will cling to the "belief" that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories"

 

[bugkiller]

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

From my experience I think the first 4 posts of this thread is merely the pot calling the kittle black.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

There is a thread here that starts with a mock-the-Bible list -
Apr 30, 2016 #1

By contrast we could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

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

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

-------------------------------------------------------------

But then arises the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is 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.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have 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".

From my experience I think the first 4 posts of this thread is merely the pot calling the kittle black.

bugkiller

Until you "read" the actual details in the subject itself.

 

[bugkiller]

There is a thread here that starts with a mock-the-Bible list -
Apr 30, 2016 #1

By contrast we could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

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

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

-------------------------------------------------------------

But then arises the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is 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.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have 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".




Until you "read" the actual details in the subject itself.

I was thinking that was your real goal of the thread.

I would say mocking the Bible is using half a sentence or less to change its meaning is mocking the Bible. Do I need to provide examples for the public?

bugkiller

 

[Colter]

There is a thread here that starts with a mock-the-Bible list -
Apr 30, 2016 #1

By contrast we could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

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

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

-------------------------------------------------------------

But then arises the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is 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.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have 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".




Until you "read" the actual details in the subject itself.

The "crafty beast" had become an atheist.

The Hebrews redacted book of Genesis is clear on the 6 day, young earth creation, it's just wrong. Men wrote it not God.

 

[BobRyan]

The "crafty beast" had become an atheist.

Who?
Darwin?
Dawkins? Provine? P.Z. Meyers? those who claim to know a lot about actual evolutionism?

The Hebrews redacted book of Genesis is clear on the 6 day, young earth creation, it's just wrong. Men wrote it not God.

Voila!! That is the much expected view of the evolutionist - and leads Darwin to then go to the logic step of rejecting the Bible just as you do in your "trust Urantia not the Bible" solution.

You at least admit to the obvious point in evolutionism - when it comes to the Bible. One or two others here on still in denial on that point.

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't understand young earth creationist at all and I don't think I ever will. They are allowed to have their views and I'm allowed to think they are woefully misguided.

Some YEC's are allowed to believe that many accept evolution because they don't have the fortitude to defend the word of the Lord. As I have pointed out many times, Jesus affirmed that the Bible was the word of God; that Noah and the flood was a historical event; that Cain and Able were real; that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that the writing of Moses was accurate and that the stories of Lot's wife and Jonah were real events. Jesus, it seems, is a young earth creationist who believes that His Father created the universe and everything in it. What we do NOT find in the Bible is any support whatever for evolution or billions of years. When challenged to produce such reference they fail every time. The rejection of Genesis is nothing short of a rejection of the Scriptures. Belief in a created earth is not a new interpretation of Genesis, it's an acceptance of the clear written text as the ultimate authority. It is what Jesus taught.

 

[Colter]

Who?
Darwin?
Dawkins? Provine? P.Z. Meyers? those who claim to know a lot about actual evolutionism?



Voila!! That is the much expected view of the evolutionist - and leads Darwin to then go to the logic step of rejecting the Bible just as you do in your "trust Urantia not the Bible" solution.

You at least admit to the obvious point in evolutionism - when it comes to the Bible. One or two others here on still in denial on that point.

But I don't reject the spiritual truths of the Bible, just the untrue, outdated cosmology as well as the exaggerated stories. Life evolving from Gods creation of life is a fact that can be seen in the fossil record just like a fetus evolving into an adult through stages of progression.

 

[4x4toy]

Some YEC's are allowed to believe that many accept evolution because they don't have the fortitude to defend the word of the Lord. As I have pointed out many times, Jesus affirmed that the Bible was the word of God; that Noah and the flood was a historical event; that Cain and Able were real; that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that the writing of Moses was accurate and that the stories of Lot's wife and Jonah were real events. Jesus, it seems, is a young earth creationist who believes that His Father created the universe and everything in it. What we do NOT find in the Bible is any support whatever for evolution or billions of years. When challenged to produce such reference they fail every time. The rejection of Genesis is nothing short of a rejection of the Scriptures. Belief in a created earth is not a new interpretation of Genesis, it's an acceptance of the clear written text as the ultimate authority. It is what Jesus taught.

True , and Eve believed the first lie .. Then convinced Adam .. So now some believe God and others believe their lies .. There is a way that seems right to man but the end there of leads to destruction .. If you don't stand on the whole Word of God , you are subject to demonic oppression or possession .. Every one thinks they're right .. I say there are signs that follow those who believe as described in the Word .. Otherwise don't waste your time with me , you're blind leading the blind .. Your personal testimony of what Jesus did for you , not your vain imaginations or running to and fro proclaiming " he is here , he is there " .. I've been accused of being "brainwashed" , I say anyone who can't believe the Word of God can use some "mental hygiene"

 

[BobRyan]

The "crafty beast" had become an atheist.

Who?
Darwin?
Dawkins? Provine? P.Z. Meyers? those who claim to know a lot about actual evolutionism?

The Hebrews redacted book of Genesis is clear on the 6 day, young earth creation, it's just wrong. Men wrote it not God.

Voila!! That is the much expected view of the evolutionist - and leads Darwin to then go to the logic step of rejecting the Bible just as you do in your "trust Urantia not the Bible" solution.

You at least admit to the obvious point in evolutionism - when it comes to the Bible. One or two others here on still in denial on that point.

But I don't reject the spiritual truths of the Bible, just the untrue, outdated cosmology as well as the exaggerated stories.

Voila!! That is the much expected view of the evolutionist - and leads Darwin to then go to the logic step of rejecting the Bible just as you do in your "trust Urantia not the Bible" solution.

 

[Colter]

Who?
Darwin?
Dawkins? Provine? P.Z. Meyers? those who claim to know a lot about actual evolutionism?



Voila!! That is the much expected view of the evolutionist - and leads Darwin to then go to the logic step of rejecting the Bible just as you do in your "trust Urantia not the Bible" solution.

You at least admit to the obvious point in evolutionism - when it comes to the Bible. One or two others here on still in denial on that point.



Voila!! That is the much expected view of the evolutionist - and leads Darwin to then go to the logic step of rejecting the Bible just as you do in your "trust Urantia not the Bible" solution.

Your automated response is what one can expect from those who buy into the traditions of the divisive religions of authority rather than use the mind God provided you with. You are stuck on Darwin and Dawkins, rebutting points that I have not made. You compel me once again to conclude that you just are not an intellectually honest person.

I have said repeatedly that I believe God created the life that evolved on earth into what we know today as evidenced by the fossils left behind. Those are NOT the conclusions of a Darwin or Dawkins that you keep dragging into this discussion.

 

[4x4toy]

I was thinking that was your real goal of the thread.

I would say mockingDo I need to provide the Bible is using half a sentence or less to change its meaning is mocking the Bible. examples for the public?

bugkiller

Is that statement some kind of threat ? Puh-lease , you have nothing just like Colter .. Come on and go for it . At least Colter is funny and entertaining ..

 

[Speedwell]

Some YEC's are allowed to believe that many accept evolution because they don't have the fortitude to defend the word of the Lord. As I have pointed out many times, Jesus affirmed that the Bible was the word of God; that Noah and the flood was a historical event; that Cain and Able were real; that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that the writing of Moses was accurate and that the stories of Lot's wife and Jonah were real events. Jesus, it seems, is a young earth creationist who believes that His Father created the universe and everything in it. What we do NOT find in the Bible is any support whatever for evolution or billions of years. When challenged to produce such reference they fail every time. The rejection of Genesis is nothing short of a rejection of the Scriptures. Belief in a created earth is not a new interpretation of Genesis, it's an acceptance of the clear written text as the ultimate authority. It is what Jesus taught.

Did Jesus really do all of that? I must have missed it. I know He use the Hebrew scriptures extensively in His preaching, but I am not aware that He endorsed any particular interpretation of them.