Any other book

[ebia]

So if Darwinists believed that God formed the human from the dust of the ground, then why in the world did they dream up the fantasy that humans came from apes or better yet, some unknown, animal?

So you are incorrect when you claim that Darwinists believe the bible. If they did, they wouldn't come up with an alternate story about the origin of man. So you've made another false statement.

I believe the bible. And from Genesis 1:11 I learn a huge number of truths about the nature and situation of God, Creation, humanity,...

Nothing in scripture (or elsewhere) leads me to conclude that Genesis is trying to tell me a scientifically or historically precise account of creation.

The account of creation provided by science isn't "alternative" to that, but complementary.

Every time you tell me "Darwinists don't believe the bible" I therefore know you are making a statement that is untrue, because at least one of them (me) does. There are words for people who continue to make such untrue statements.

 

[ebia]

Please define what you mean by 'macroevolution.' Do you mean crossing taxa, as in a fish becoming a horse, for example?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I believe the bible. And from Genesis 1:11 I learn a huge number of truths about the nature and situation of God, Creation, humanity,...

Nothing in scripture (or elsewhere) leads me to conclude that Genesis is trying to tell me a scientifically or historically precise account of creation.

The account of creation provided by science isn't "alternative" to that, but complementary.

Every time you tell me "Darwinists don't believe the bible" I therefore know you are making a statement that is untrue, because at least one of them (me) does. There are words for people who continue to make such untrue statements.

How is this

“Earth and the other plants of the solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago, condensing from a vast cloud of dust and rocks that surrounded the young sun. It is unlikely that life could have originated or survived on Earth for the first few hundred million years because the plant was still being bombarded by huge chunks of rock and ice left over from the formation of the solar system. The collisions generated enough heat to vaporize all the available water and prevent seas from forming a phase that likely ended about 3.9 billion years ago. The oldest known rocks on Earth’s surface, located at the site called Issua in Greenland, are 3.8 billion years ago. Although certain chemical data from these rocks suggest that life may have existed then, this evidence is open to different interpretations, and no one has yet found fossils that old.

As the bombardment of early Earth slowed, conditions on the plant were extremely different from those of today. The first atmosphere was probably thick with water vapor, along with various compounds released by volcanic eruptions, including nitrogen and its oxides, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide. As Earth cooled, the water vapor condensed into oceans, and much of the hydrogen quickly escaped into space. ” (Biology 7th Edition, Campell/Reece pg 513)​

Complimentary to this:
Genesis 1:1-19

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.​

Biology book says that the earth and the solar system were formed by a vast cloud of dust that surrounded the young sun.
Genesis 1 says that the earth was formed when God gathered the waters together into one place and the dry land appeared and God called it earth. (Gen. 1:9,10)

Biology book says that oceans formed after about earth cooled and the waters vapors became an ocean and hydrogen quickly escaped into space.
Genesis 1 said, the water was gathered together and then earth and sea was formed.

Biology book says Sun can before water, and that the water was prevented from forming early on, because it was too hot in the beginning.
Genesis 1 says, water came before Sun. In fact water (becoming oceans), grass, herbs, trees—etc, were formed before Sun was created. ‘

The only thing in my biology book that is even remotely close to the bible is this: “The first atmosphere was probably thick with water vapor” because of this “Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (Gen 1:6)”. The first atmosphere in Genesis seemed to have a water canopy, so what happened? Oh yeah, the flood! “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventheenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Gen 7:11). We are told that water broke from below and above.

Now, I understand that some people don’t take the Genesis account as historical but they say it’s a story, but I don’t understand how God would create a story that when compared to “science” the events of how the origin of universe can be so different. If evolution is in fact the ways things happened, then how do I take the events of Genesis (saying, it’s a story doesn’t cut it, because this story doesn’t even come to what evolutionist claim). If the Genesis account is in fact the way God said it, there is no way it is complimentary to evolution.

And we can't say that men wrote scripture and therefore it could be full of errors...Because I don't think the Apostle Paul wrote my biology book, I'm pretty sure that men (meaning mankind) wrote the text book and they too are prone to errors.

 

[herev]

I believe the bible. And from Genesis 1:11 I learn a huge number of truths about the nature and situation of God, Creation, humanity,...

Nothing in scripture (or elsewhere) leads me to conclude that Genesis is trying to tell me a scientifically or historically precise account of creation.

The account of creation provided by science isn't "alternative" to that, but complementary.

Every time you tell me "Darwinists don't believe the bible" I therefore know you are making a statement that is untrue, because at least one of them (me) does. There are words for people who continue to make such untrue statements.

2 (me, too). It is not only untrue, it is false witness--a sin according to the 10 commandments

 

[herev]

And before one decides that the Word in John 1 is referring to the Bible, they should check out the Greek. There are many issues with interpretation that are opinion--this one is not--it is NOT referring to Scripture--and IF it were, it would be referring only to OT scripture. The Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation were not scripture to those who wrote in the NT of scripture.
But in John, the Word, is without a doubt referring to the 2nd person of the Trinity--NOT to scripture

 

[peace4ever]

I believe the bible. And from Genesis 1:11 I learn a huge number of truths about the nature and situation of God, Creation, humanity,...

Nothing in scripture (or elsewhere) leads me to conclude that Genesis is trying to tell me a scientifically or historically precise account of creation.

The account of creation provided by science isn't "alternative" to that, but complementary.

Every time you tell me "Darwinists don't believe the bible" I therefore know you are making a statement that is untrue, because at least one of them (me) does. There are words for people who continue to make such untrue statements.

So then do you skip the first couple of pages of Genesis, then claim that God didn't tell us how He created the world?

Then we can each make up our own account of God's creation and claim that's what God did. But the only problem, that would mean that we worship an imaginary god since how we think he created the world comes from our imaginations. So I'll leave that to you. I worship the God of the bible so I know why man turns back into dust when he dies.

 

[Catherineanne]

Actually, the words in the bible are God as John 1:1-2 explains.

If this is true (and that it a massive if), how do you explain these words from Isaiah:

So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there - so that they will go and fall backwards, be injured and snared and captured.

28 v 13

In fact, while you are at it, you can look at the whole chapter, which explains why, in spite of the OT scriptures, the Lord sent the Messiah to us; because the written word is not enough to ensure righteousness in his people, and we need instead a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; in other words Christ himself.

Which is why Christianity, and indeed the whole Bible, is Christocentric, not Bibliocentric.

 

[Criada]

So then do you skip the first couple of pages of Genesis, then claim that God didn't tell us how He created the world?

Then we can each make up our own account of God's creation and claim that's what God did. But the only problem, that would mean that we worship an imaginary god since how we think he created the world comes from our imaginations. So I'll leave that to you. I worship the God of the bible so I know why man turns back into dust when he dies.

Not sure how the dust thing is an issue... all living things decay when they die... science would agree with you there!

 

[Catherineanne]

So where do you live that the sun doesn't give light by day, the moon and stars don't provide light by night and mark the months, seasons and years, where each animal doesn't breed its own kind, where man doesn't decay back into dust when he dies? A new made-up planet? I'd love to hear the new name because it's not planet earth. I bet it's a long Greek name to make it sound authentic. You and scientists really do live in your imaginations.

Genesis says the earth was created before light. This is not the case. Genesis says that trees and seeds were created before the sun, moon and stars. This is also not the case. Genesis says fish and birds were created before mammals and other livestock. Again, this is not the case.

The Bible, incidentally, says the earth is flat, has four corners and is covered by the heavens like a tent.

Is that true as well?

 

[Jase]

Macroevolution has not been observed in nature nor has it been proven in the lab. There is absolutely no uncontested proof. Evolution (macro) is not a fact but merely a theory. I don't dispute microevolution. Evolution also does not address abiogenesis so the best science has to offer to prove the creation of the universe ex material is the big bang. And that is also merely a theory. Genesis 1 and 2 remain uncontested.

BTW- Keep the innuendos to yourself. If you can't debate civily then don't.

Why is it that you guys are so unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say? How many times does it have to be explained that "merely a theory" does not mean what you think it means? A theory is not a hypothesis. It is as powerful as anything in science gets. Gravity is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory". Atoms are "just a theory". Cells are "just a theory". Everything that will ever have millions of pieces of supporting evidence, for all intents and purposes serving as "proof" in science will be "just a theory". That doesn't make it wrong.

And evolution isn't the only scientific field there is. Through geology, the global flood was disproven 200 years before evolutionary theory, by a Christian Reverend trying to prove it occurred no less. Astronomy and physics disprove any notion that light was stretched out billions of light years so Adam and Eve could see it while still being in a young universe. Galileo and Copernicus disproved the Biblical notion of geocentrism.

A completely literal Genesis has been disproven for hundreds of years.

 

[Jase]

Genesis says the earth was created before light. This is not the case. Genesis says that trees and seeds were created before the sun, moon and stars. This is also not the case. Genesis says fish and birds were created before mammals and other livestock. Again, this is not the case.

The Bible, incidentally, says the earth is flat, has four corners and is covered by the heavens like a tent.

Is that true as well?

Oh and don't forget that the Earth doesn't move, and the sun revolves around it

 

[Catherineanne]

I tell you what. When macroevolution is proven and when the creation of the universe from ex materia is proven then I will reevaluate my position. Until then all the scientists have is a bunch of theories.

And a certain amount of evidence. However, feel free to continue to discount it, if you prefer.

 

[Catherineanne]

To clear up the confusion, scripture is God as John 1:1-2, John 1:14, and Hebrews 4:12 explain. "The word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing bone and marrow; it judges the thoughts of the heart."

The Word itself is the power of God. That's why people are either convicted or saved by it. That's also why when one receives Jesus in His heart, he also receives the Word in his heart, along with God's Spirit which is the Holy Spirit.

The Word itself has tremendous power and energy because it's God's Word that created the world:

Genesis 1:3, "And God said; 'Let there be light,' and there was light.

Genesis 1:6, "And God said; "Let there be an expanse between waters....And it was so.

Psalm 32:6, "By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made...For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded and it stood firm."

So the Word is as alive and eternal as God is.

You are mistaken, on all counts.

The Word of God in all of these quotes is Christ himself, not the Bible. It is Christ who sits on the throne to judge the nations, not a book. It is Christ who was with God in the beginning, not a book. The clue is in the pronoun; 'he'. Fortunately, nobody has to take my word for it:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no-one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron sceptre." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 19 v 11 ff

Now, who still thinks the Word of God is the Bible, in direct contradiction to this Scripture?

 

[peace4ever]

Oh and don't forget that the Earth doesn't move, and the sun revolves around it

The Bible, incidentally, says the earth is flat, has four corners and is covered by the heavens like a tent.

You're both as wrong as can be. But that's what happens when you quote only part of a sentence and not the whole sentence. You totally distort the words of the author. And when the author is God, then of course, it's Satan's intent to entice you to distort it. But it doesn't work because the rest of God's words all exist in the bible for everyone to see. You need to remember Isaiah 40:22 so you can put that verse together with the verses you have neglected to quote.

And the "corners" of the earth represent the farthest one can go in any direction that the eye can see. So the bible speaks both from the perspective of God and man which the secular world has no chance of doing since it has no clue whether or not God even exists! So since you're reading the bible from the fallible human mind, then your interpretations can only be as fallible as you prove they are.

That's why this verse; Psalm 51;16, "But to the wicked God says; 'What right have you to recite my laws and take my covenant upon your lips? You hate my instruction and cast my words behind you!"

So until you understand God's meaning, you'll look as foolish as someone who doesn't understand Einstein's theories, or better yet, claims that Einstein never even existed, trying to disprove Einstein's theories. That's why quoting a God you don't believe can only defeat your whole point which it has.

 

[Polycarp1]

i gave you Scripture, you rejected it. there is nothing else i can or want to do. i'm not here to convince people. i post Scripture so that God's Word can show people the Truth. You rejected 2 Timothy 3:16. That is your choice and i'm leaving it there.

So Miles Coverdale and King James's men were inspired by God. Because Paul did not write the sentence found in English-language bibles as "II Timothy 3:16" as one look at the original Greek would tell you. Nor does it endorse the "66-book Bible" in any way -- Paul is referring Timothy to the reliability of the Tanakh -- the Jewish Bible -- as something both he and his hearers will know which is "theopneustos and profitable for" the four purposes Paul details.

I might also point out that "the 66-book Bible" is a creation of very late Protestant attitudes, and that the Church as a whole for over 1,500 years and the majority of Christians today accept more books than the so-called "66-book Bible."

Further, most people throughout history are well aware of the value of story in conveying truth -- only some Biblical literalists try to turn story into literal historical narrative.

 

[Catherineanne]

As best as I understand it, remember the mode is a mystery, God did not hold the pen or dictated the words. If He had then the authors would have been mere puppets. Mechanical dictation takes the human nature of the bible away which is something that we see throughout the scriptures. Scripture, like Christ, has both a human nature and a divine nature. The physical words are the human nature while the inspiration by God is the divine nature. Basically, the authors wrote the words and God kept them from error.

Again, much of this has no basis in Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that God kept the authors of the various books from error. Nor that Scripture has a human nature and a divine nature, come to that; that smacks far too much of confusing the Bible with Christ once more.

If Scripture doesn't say it, as far as I am concerned, we are not authorised to believe it.

 

[Catherineanne]

How is this

“Earth and the other plants of the solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago, condensing from a vast cloud of dust and rocks that surrounded the young sun.

Complimentary to this:
​

Genesis 1:1-19

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. .
​

The first is how, which relates to scio; I know. The second is why, which relates to credo; I believe.

The whole purpose of Scripture is to bring people to God; to show them how to reach credo. It is not at all interested in scio, or in denying what it discovers about the world around us.

No problem there.

 

[Hentenza]

Why is it that you guys are so unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say? How many times does it have to be explained that "merely a theory" does not mean what you think it means? A theory is not a hypothesis. It is as powerful as anything in science gets. Gravity is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory". Atoms are "just a theory". Cells are "just a theory". Everything that will ever have millions of pieces of supporting evidence, for all intents and purposes serving as "proof" in science will be "just a theory". That doesn't make it wrong.

And evolution isn't the only scientific field there is. Through geology, the global flood was disproven 200 years before evolutionary theory, by a Christian Reverend trying to prove it occurred no less. Astronomy and physics disprove any notion that light was stretched out billions of light years so Adam and Eve could see it while still being in a young universe. Galileo and Copernicus disproved the Biblical notion of geocentrism.

A completely literal Genesis has been disproven for hundreds of years.

LOL!!!! IF Genesis had been disproven as you say then I guess we might as well just turn out the lights and close the door. But you see, it hasn't been disproven. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. My research has led me in the oposite direction of where you are so you believe what you want to believe. I'm fine and secure in my belief.

 

[peace4ever]

You are mistaken, on all counts.

The Word of God in all of these quotes is Christ himself, not the Bible. It is Christ who sits on the throne to judge the nations, not a book. It is Christ who was with God in the beginning, not a book. The clue is in the pronoun; 'he'. Fortunately, nobody has to take my word for it:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no-one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron sceptre." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 19 v 11 ff

Now, who still thinks the Word of God is the Bible, in direct contradiction to this Scripture?

Ah, do you know what the trinity is? Obviously not. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one. So none of them will disagree with the other. So you cannot separate one from the other. That's what John 1;2 and John 1:14 s explaining.

And since the Word comes from the Holy Spirit, then the Word is also God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit which all born again Christians know. So I believe John 1:1-2 as written and do not have to add or subtract any words in the like you do.

So for claiming to believe the bible, so far, I haven't seen much that you do believe. You strike out the words in the bible, including many in Genesis, Isaiah and the gospels, and replace them with words from your imaginations. Well Igot news for you, God's words will never pass away but your words will pass away. So it's a waste of time to add them to scripture. "By their fruits you will know them." Indeed.

 

[Hentenza]

And a certain amount of evidence. However, feel free to continue to discount it, if you prefer.

I prefer.