Bible and science?

[The Barbarian]

Very early in the earth's history did the continents exist alongside the oceans, or was the early earth just covered in water?

Genesis 1:9-10
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

According to the Genesis account water covered the earth and after some time the continents appear.

Has science been able to answer this question yet?

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains. Earth 4.4 billion years ago was flat and almost entirely covered in water with just a few small islands, new research suggests. Scientists came to the conclusion after analysing tiny zircon mineral grains from a region of Western Australia containing the oldest rocks ever found. (Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2942; newscientist.com, 8th May 2017)

Though the Genesis account is obviously a very ancient account and has been passed on for millennia. How could the Genesis account possibly have been correct regarding the formation of land mass, on the surface of the earth after the oceans already existed?

This was traditional in a number of ancient religions:

The Enuma Elis contains numerous parallels with the Old Testament, and has led to a general conclusion amongst some researchers that the paralleled Old Testament stories were based on the mesopotamian work. Overarching similarities include : reference to a watery chaos before creation; a separation of the chaos into heaven and earth; different types of waters and their separation during the creation process; as well as the indirect textual similarity between the number of tablets, and the number of days of creation - that is - seven.[51] However, in a deeper analysis (Heidel 1951) notes many differences, including polytheism vs. monotheism, and personification of forces or properties in the Babylonian myth vs. imperative creation by god in the biblical stories; permanence of matter vs. creation out of nothing; and the lack of any real parallel for the extended description of Marduk's battles with monsters. He also notes some broad commonalities with other religions in both e.g. a watery chaos found in Egyptian, Phoenician, and Vedic works; and that the linguistic analysis of both belief system's texts are complicated by a common Semitic root for both languages.[52] In terms of creation of man there are similarities in terms of the use of dust or earth (clay) for his creation, but man's purpose is inverted in the two texts - in the Enuma Elis man is created as a servant of gods, whereas in Genesis man is given more agency - nevertheless in both man contains "godhood" - either through a god's blood in the Babylonia, or being made "in His own Image" in Genesis; in both man is the final creative act of the god/gods.[53] In terms of the seven tablets and seven days of each system - the numbered itineraries in general do not closely match - but there are some broad commonalities in order of occurrence i.e. creation event; theme of darkness; light created; firmament created; dry land created; man created; followed by god/god's inactivity.[54]
Enûma Eliš - Wikipedia

One could argue that the writer of Genesis borrowed from existing creation stories. One could argue that God communicated facts of His creation to other peoples before the Hebrews. One could argue that the idea of land and order arising out of chaotic waters is common to all humans for various reasons.

 

[klutedavid]

This was traditional in a number of ancient religions:

The Enuma Elis contains numerous parallels with the Old Testament, and has led to a general conclusion amongst some researchers that the paralleled Old Testament stories were based on the mesopotamian work. Overarching similarities include : reference to a watery chaos before creation; a separation of the chaos into heaven and earth; different types of waters and their separation during the creation process; as well as the indirect textual similarity between the number of tablets, and the number of days of creation - that is - seven.[51] However, in a deeper analysis (Heidel 1951) notes many differences, including polytheism vs. monotheism, and personification of forces or properties in the Babylonian myth vs. imperative creation by god in the biblical stories; permanence of matter vs. creation out of nothing; and the lack of any real parallel for the extended description of Marduk's battles with monsters. He also notes some broad commonalities with other religions in both e.g. a watery chaos found in Egyptian, Phoenician, and Vedic works; and that the linguistic analysis of both belief system's texts are complicated by a common Semitic root for both languages.[52] In terms of creation of man there are similarities in terms of the use of dust or earth (clay) for his creation, but man's purpose is inverted in the two texts - in the Enuma Elis man is created as a servant of gods, whereas in Genesis man is given more agency - nevertheless in both man contains "godhood" - either through a god's blood in the Babylonia, or being made "in His own Image" in Genesis; in both man is the final creative act of the god/gods.[53] In terms of the seven tablets and seven days of each system - the numbered itineraries in general do not closely match - but there are some broad commonalities in order of occurrence i.e. creation event; theme of darkness; light created; firmament created; dry land created; man created; followed by god/god's inactivity.[54]
Enûma Eliš - Wikipedia

One could argue that the writer of Genesis borrowed from existing creation stories. One could argue that God communicated facts of His creation to other peoples before the Hebrews. One could argue that the idea of land and order arising out of chaotic waters is common to all humans for various reasons.

Simple observation would lend weight to the idea that land and water have always existed, on the surface together even in deep time.

One would not expect the earth to be covered by water and land mass rising up later. Not even science considered that a possibility until that recent research recognized that idea.

 

[klutedavid]

This was traditional in a number of ancient religions:

The Enuma Elis contains numerous parallels with the Old Testament, and has led to a general conclusion amongst some researchers that the paralleled Old Testament stories were based on the mesopotamian work. Overarching similarities include : reference to a watery chaos before creation; a separation of the chaos into heaven and earth; different types of waters and their separation during the creation process; as well as the indirect textual similarity between the number of tablets, and the number of days of creation - that is - seven.[51] However, in a deeper analysis (Heidel 1951) notes many differences, including polytheism vs. monotheism, and personification of forces or properties in the Babylonian myth vs. imperative creation by god in the biblical stories; permanence of matter vs. creation out of nothing; and the lack of any real parallel for the extended description of Marduk's battles with monsters. He also notes some broad commonalities with other religions in both e.g. a watery chaos found in Egyptian, Phoenician, and Vedic works; and that the linguistic analysis of both belief system's texts are complicated by a common Semitic root for both languages.[52] In terms of creation of man there are similarities in terms of the use of dust or earth (clay) for his creation, but man's purpose is inverted in the two texts - in the Enuma Elis man is created as a servant of gods, whereas in Genesis man is given more agency - nevertheless in both man contains "godhood" - either through a god's blood in the Babylonia, or being made "in His own Image" in Genesis; in both man is the final creative act of the god/gods.[53] In terms of the seven tablets and seven days of each system - the numbered itineraries in general do not closely match - but there are some broad commonalities in order of occurrence i.e. creation event; theme of darkness; light created; firmament created; dry land created; man created; followed by god/god's inactivity.[54]
Enûma Eliš - Wikipedia

One could argue that the writer of Genesis borrowed from existing creation stories. One could argue that God communicated facts of His creation to other peoples before the Hebrews. One could argue that the idea of land and order arising out of chaotic waters is common to all humans for various reasons.

You seem to be confused on this point.

Hebrews were a Canaanite people they were named Hebrews in ancient literature, they were recorded around the fifteenth century B.C.

So the Hebrews did not borrow ancient texts or myths, the Hebrews were descendants of the Canaanite people and already had these texts.

Hebrews were descendants of a an original Mesopotamia population so no one is borrowing anything, the stories existed insitu within Mesopotamia.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to be confused on this point.

Hebrews were a Canaanite people they were named Hebrews in ancient literature, they were recorded around the fifteenth century B.C.

The Canaanites were people who lived in the land of Canaan, an area which according to ancient texts may have included parts of modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

Much of what scholars know about the Canaanites comes from records left by the people they came into contact with. Some of the most detailed surviving records come from the site of Amarna, in Egypt, and from the Hebrew Bible. Additional information comes from excavations of archaeological sites that the Canaanites are thought to have lived in.

Scholars doubt that the Canaanites were ever politically united into a single kingdom. In fact, archaeological excavations indicate that the "Canaanites" were actually made up of different ethnic groups. During the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 B.C.), "Canaan was not made up of a single 'ethnic' group but consisted of a population whose diversity may be hinted at by the great variety of burial customs and cultic structures" wrote Ann Killebrew, an archaeology professor at Penn State University, in her book "Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity" (Society of Biblical Literature, 2005).

The Canaanites are mentioned often in the Hebrew Bible. The stories say that god promised to give the land of the Canaanites (along with land belonging to several other groups) over to the Israelites after they escaped from Egypt.

In the stories, God tells Moses that "I have heard them [the Israelites] crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey — the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites." (Exodus 3:7)

The stories told in the Hebrew Bible say that after the Israelites escaped from Egypt they fought a series of wars against the Canaanites (and other groups), which led to the Israelites taking over most of the Canaanites' land. The stories say that those Canaanites who survived had to do forced labor. The stories also say that this conquered land was incorporated into a powerful Israelite kingdom that eventually split in two.
Who Were the Canaanites?

So the Hebrews did not borrow ancient texts or myths, the Hebrews were descendants of the Canaanite people and already had these texts.

No. The Hebrews were descendants of Israel (Jacob) (hence "bene-Israel"). Jacob was the grandson of Abraham, who was a Chaldean, a Semitic group living in what is now Iraq. The word "Hebrew" is apparently from Semetic "eber" (crossing over, as in crossing a river) or possibly from Egyptian "haipru", (vagrants, referring to their nomadic sheepherding life).

Hebrews were descendants of a an original Mesopotamia population so no one is borrowing anything, the stories existed insitu within Mesopotamia.

The creation myths of Mesopotamia are quite different from that of the Israelites, but they do have the earth-from-chaotic-waters theme in common.

 

[dad]

5-years old girl:
"God made me."

A scientist:
"Actually, your daddy and mommy made you, sperm, fertilization, egg, ovulation...."

Who is lying? Right, nobody. Both are right. What is different? The person who is describing it. Moses was not a 21st century scientist.

Part of the girl is the real her, which is the spirit. Mommy didn't make that...and mommy did not make the wondrous child inside here. Mommy just slept with a man.

 

[dad]

"False" does not mean "bad".

A false king means he only pretends to be a king. There is only one God, you should know that.

The world is ruled by Satan in case that is news, and he uses demons to do it.

 

[dad]

White evangelicals are the most likely people to object to neighbors of another race.

What is the basis for the poll? Did they go to all ghettos and hoods and ask if they 'complained' or just some neighborhoods...or..?? Polls are easy to mess with. I figure people are people. Doesn't matter about race. Every color is just as prejudice as another.

One of your fellow evangelicals noticed this. And Barna is an evangelical whose business it is to collect data on evangelicals. But it's not just Barna.

So, how did the data get collected..details.

More to the point, the late 19th-century reunification of northern and southern white Protestants embedded a politics of whiteness on the evangelical coalition. By the 1960s, white evangelicals had spent decades sacralizing Jim Crow. The ministers who led the civil rights coalition caught white evangelicals flat-footed by naming segregation as unbiblical. Such a claim flew in the face of the status quo, where God-fearing white Christians and black Christians worshiped in separate churches and went to segregated schools. White evangelicals understood segregation as the natural—even divine—ordering of society. They responded in different ways to the civil rights challenge. A minority preached “massive resistance” to desegregation, but a greater number took their cues from Billy Graham, calling on civil rights activists to take it slow and follow the laws.

So you seem to hate your own race...fine. But you especially hate all non Catholic believers apparently. Fine. I don't find that appealing or interesting or honest of course.

When civil rights activists (and later, second-wave feminists and gay rights activists) refused to slow down or to reject civil disobedience, white evangelicals strengthened their political resistance to liberal activism.

Maybe their churches at the time were not quite as infested with sodomites as yours?

They also sharpened their hostility to the federal government, which enforced desegregation through court orders and the deployment of the National Guard. Fears of a tyrannical government became more pronounced among evangelicals in the 1970s, fueled in particular by an obsession with end-times theology.

Sounds like some drug induced mentally messed up version of history, bent out of shape and selectively viewed and skewed.

By the final decades of the 20th century, a commitment to right-wing political movements and white racial identity offered the most distinctive marks of evangelicalism

We get it. To you real bible believers are the boogy man and responsible for all evil.
....

Evangelicals are not any whiter, demographically, than mainliners or Mormons. But they have rallied around Trump to defend a white Protestant nation.

Of course, the crowning crime of those nasty white believers, they rejected Obama's anti christ rule and migrated elsewhere.


Oh, and for lurkers, if you doubt the Obama regime was anti bible, anti Christ, here is a quick link that dispels all doubt.

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President - WallBuilders

They have proven to be loyal foot soldiers in the battle against undocumented immigrants and Muslims.

So protecting borders is war against certain criminals and terrorists and religions...OK.

The triumph of gay rights, the persistence of legal abortion, and the election of Barack Obama signaled to them a need to fight for the America they once knew.

When sin flourishes, that is not triump. Looks like God held or set it back a bit temporarily till the time for judgment comes by using a guy with almost the same name as triumph! Ha.

The history of American evangelicalism shows us a group of believers who find the most in common when it comes to race and politics.
Whiteness in American evangelical history

More 'white' bashing and hatred. Ok.

That's not what sets evangelicals apart.

Being Catholic, I don't reject the validity of other denominations.

Apparently many of you guys really embraced the very young, and race was no issue! Now you have a pope who is not even considered Christian by almost anyone I know.

That's a pretty good clue that someone doesn't really get what Jesus wants from us.

Clues from pedophile organizations and protectors of them are simply not of any value at all to me, except to see what NOT to do.

No. Protestants are not merely evangelicals. And as Christians, we don't deny anything that is good and true in other religions.

Right, and Jesus doesn't seem to much figure into things for you guys. The brotherhood of man baloney.

There is much that is good and true in evangelical Christianity. It has just beome racialized and politicized to a degree that impairs its stated goal of saving souls.

Your opinion on saving souls is of no value.

A literal six-day creation week is a denial of Genesis,

Woe to them that call good evil and evil good. Now believing Scripture is a denial of it!

which uses "yom" as a way of describing categories of Creation.

I no longer seek to agree with you on Scripture. You have made your unbelief clear and it is irreconcilable with the bible as I see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

What is the basis for the poll? Did they go to all ghettos and hoods and ask if they 'complained' or just some neighborhoods...or..??

Ask your fellow evangelical. He did the survey.

(Barbarian criticizes racism)

So you seem to hate your own race...

Here, you're assuming that "white" means "racist." Even many white evangelicals aren't racists. Your assumption is faulty.

But you especially hate all non Catholic believers apparently.

If you hate non-Catholic believers, then one of us does. Is that what's making you act like this?

Maybe their churches at the time were not quite as infested with sodomites as yours?

More so, apparently..
The epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the evangelical church ...

We get it. To you real bible believers...

If you'd be willing to accept the Bible as it is, you wouldn't be so angry at real Bible believers.

Of course, the crowning crime of those nasty white believers, they rejected Obama's anti christ rule and migrated elsewhere.

Obama actually got a lot of believer votes. As I pointed out to you, there are many evangelicals who are not racists.

(white nationalist source says Obama is the anti-Christ)

When sin flourishes, that is not triump.

Can you name a commandment Trump hasn't broken? Neither can I.

Apparently many of you guys really embraced the very young, and race was no issue! Now you have a pope who is not even considered Christian by almost anyone I know.

I knew, when he chose "Francis", we'd have a pastor. And I was pleased when he dressed down the Curia, saying "the shepherd should smell of the sheep." And then he told them it wouldn't hurt them to smile every now and then.

Pretty much what you'd expect of a real vicar of Christ.

Clues from pedophile organizations and protectors of them

You mean the way Trump rewarded the prosecutor who cut a sweetheart deal for Trump's pedophile buddy? Acosta is now the Labor Secretary. Trump came through for his pal, didn't he?

Right, and Jesus doesn't seem to much figure into things for you guys. The brotherhood of man baloney.

You're not listening to what Jesus is telling you:

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

You might call it "baloney", but it's what Jesus expects of you. In my opinion, He has it exactly right.

Your opinion on saving souls is of no value.

Your way or Jesus' way. Not really much of a choice, is it?

Woe to them that call good evil and evil good. Now believing Scripture is a denial of it!

You might deny His words. Doesn't change a thing.

I no longer seek to agree with you on Scripture.

You merely need to agree with Him. Do that, and I'm happy for you.

 

[trophy33]

The world is ruled by Satan in case that is news, and he uses demons to do it.

Ruler does not mean "God". There is only one God.

Any chance you are an SDA or a JW?

I am a protestant, somewhere between a calvinist, a lutheran and a czech brother.
I accept apostolic and nicean creeds as basic truths and I try to keep an open mind in the rest. You?

 

[nolidad]

I asked you first, if you accepted the Nicene Creed. For whatever reason, you won't say. We'll just draw the reasonable conclusion from that. Whatever your beliefs are, they seem to not allow you to confirm the Creed. Why you won't do that, as the rest of us have, can be your secret.

So be it.

Well If you review this thread you will see I asked you if you believed Jesus is eternal God with His father a while before you brought that dodge question up.

So let us tackle them in order, I am more than willing to specifically without a lot of verbal garbage thrown in (your habit) if you answer what was asked ahead of you.

What you wish to draw from my waiting upon you is your own business. But you love to use the word we alot? Are there multiple people answering under the name barbarian?

I did some checking:

Your post of the nicene creed (not even asking me if I believed) was on post 452 in response to my asking you prior!

So this is the 3rd lie you have said in our ocnverstiona.
1. You lied about ICR scientists believing in evolution to family level.
2. You lied about ICR sdcientists believing in junk DNA
3. Now this.

Once afgain as soon as you give a simple answer to a simple question posed to you- I will gladly give all the responses you want!

 

[The Barbarian]

Well If you review this thread you will see I asked you if you believed Jesus is eternal God with His father a while before you brought that dodge question up.

I showed you what I believed, and asked if you believed the Creed as I do. And you refused to say. For reasons that are beginning to become clear. I don't really care if you believe it as I do or not. Just man up and say one way or the other.

There are a lot of people out there who hate Christians and pretend to be Christian, while promoting extreme forms of YEC. Again, it doesn't matter to me whether you are or aren't. I'm just noting that when I presented the Nicene Creed as my beliefs and invited you do confirm you were also a Christian, you refused to do so.

I don't care if you are or are not. If you are, just say you believe it. Or continue to stall. i don't care.

 

[The Barbarian]

1. You lied about ICR scientists believing in evolution to family level.

I had an email conversation with John Woodmorrape (author of the ICR-endorsed Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study) He confirmed this to me. With which ICR scientist did you have your conversation?

2. You lied about ICR sdcientists believing in junk DNA

"Junk DNA" is a layman's term for "non-coding" DNA. The creationist take was that living things have been degenerating since The Fall, and that non-coding DNA is evidence for this. But when I was an undergraduate, a half-century ago, scientists were even then discovering functions for non-coding DNA.

Ironically, that's one YEC belief that isn't totally wrong; the ENCODE project has found that about 20 percent of non-coding DNA doesn't have any identifiable function. Some of it is indeed "junk", like the GULO gene. It once coded for synthesis of vitamin C, but in primates, it's broken and doesn't work. Because primates are fruit-eating organisms, it didn't matter.

3. Now this.

I repeat. I don't care why you won't say you agree with the Nicene Creed. You might be of a particular sect that doesn't follow orthodox Christianity. You could just be stubborn and don't want to say because you don't want to justify what you believe.

Or you might be of some other faith, that prevents you from making that statement. I don't care. If you don't want to say, then don't. Those of us who follow the Creed, don't necessarily think you're going to hell if you don't believe it. Or at least most of us don't.

Do what you want; others can draw whatever conclusions seem reasonable to them. It's over. You can say what you believe, or you can keep it to yourself. But stop whinging about how unfair it is.

 

[dad]

Ask your fellow evangelical. He did the survey.

(Barbarian criticizes racism)

No thanks

Here, you're assuming that "white" means "racist." Even many white evangelicals aren't racists. Your assumption is faulty.

No, I just notice people that obsess on certain races repeatedly seem to have some chip on their shoulder or bone to pick.

If you hate non-Catholic believers, then one of us does. Is that what's making you act like this?

I like all believers, Catholic or otherwise, thanks.

More so, apparently..
The epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the evangelical church ...

Every time we turn around we see cases of pedophilia and homosexuality in the Catholic church as well as cover ups from their leadership. Not that schools and other denominations and government and etc do not also have some problems. That does not change the fact that when an organization covers up and does not report or punish child rapists they are considered a pedophile organization by many folks. Far as I am concerned the perpetrators should have been dealt with like anyone else, and those that covered up the crimes also, to the point I figure they should sell all they have to make reparations also.

If you'd be willing to accept the Bible as it is, you wouldn't be so angry at real Bible believers.

Since your position was shown to be either accept imaginary inserted billions of years into bible texts, or not be considered a bible believer, you have it inverted. I would require you in that case to consider me a non bible believer because I actually believe it.

Obama actually got a lot of believer votes.

Your kind of believer, no doubt.

As I pointed out to you, there are many evangelicals who are not racists.

We'll add that to your inverted truth list, if we ddn't vote for an anti Christ regime we are racists. Fine.

(white nationalist source says Obama is the anti-Christ)

There you go with that white obsession again. They are wrong, being an anti Christ does not make one THE AntiChrist.

Can you name a commandment Trump hasn't broken? Neither can I.

In many ways he was a relif from the evil of the previous regime as far as I am concerned. But still that doesn't make me a supporter, since I think the US is too far gone to have some leader save them. I think of him as a temporary respite that really is still a danger to the world in the warmongering dept.

I knew, when he chose "Francis", we'd have a pastor. And I was pleased when he dressed down the Curia, saying "the shepherd should smell of the sheep." And then he told them it wouldn't hurt them to smile every now and then.

To each his own, you can have him.

Pretty much what you'd expect of a real vicar of Christ.

Despite what you feel is some great saying of his 'shepherds should smell of sheep' I think Shepherds should be of God and protect the sheep and be bible believers.

You mean the way Trump rewarded the prosecutor who cut a sweetheart deal for Trump's pedophile buddy? Acosta is now the Labor Secretary. Trump came through for his pal, didn't he?

Sorry, don't follow US politics that closely. But if a president did not have some pedos in his government I would be quite surprised.

 

[dad]

Ruler does not mean "God". There is only one God.

Many gods, one God.

Any chance you are an SDA or a JW?

No.

I am a protestant, somewhere between a calvinist, a lutheran and a czech brother.
I accept apostolic and nicean creeds as basic truths and I try to keep an open mind in the rest. You?

I try to believe the bible.

 

[trophy33]

Many gods, one God.

Can you name few real gods?

 

[The Barbarian]

No, I just notice people that obsess on certain races repeatedly seem to have some chip on their shoulder or bone to pick.

You don't have to be defensive about it. If it bothers you, it's your house, not mine.

Every time we turn around we see cases of pedophilia and homosexuality in the Catholic church as well as cover ups from their leadership.

As you learned it's a bigger problem among Protestants:
Sexual Abuse Cases In Protestant Churches

In 2007, the Associated Press revealed data from insurance companies that insure majority of the country’s Protestant churches. According to these companies, they typically receive more than 260 reports every year of children under 18 years of age being sexually abused by members of Protestant churches.


Psychologists and counsellors have weighed in, saying that the number of reported cases may be a lot smaller than the actual number of abuse incidents that have occurred. Sex abuse is seldom reported and only a small number of victims come forward.
https://www.thefitchlawfirm.com/sex-abuse-in-protestant-institutions.html



Not that Catholics do not also have some problems. That does not change the fact that when Protestant churches cover up and does not report or punish child rapists they are considered a pedophile organization by many folks.

Since your position was shown to be either accept imaginary 24 hour days into the creation account, or not be considered a bible believer, you have it inverted. There are lots of people who insert literal days into Genesis, and still believe the message God has for us. You won't go to hell for being a YEC, unless you make your new doctrines into an idol and say that Christians must believe them.

I would require you in that case to consider me a non bible believer because I actually believe it.

As you see, you've made up a story and insist that it's mine. I'm in good company; you did that to God, too.

We'll add that to your inverted truth list, if we ddn't vote for an anti Christ regime we are racists.

Actually, most racists voted for Trump. You have it backwards, again. And it's a bit of an exaggeration to say he's anti-Christ; he just doesn't agree with most of what Christ taught.

There you go with that white obsession again. They are wrong, being an anti Christ does not make one THE AntiChrist.

So it's just an obfuscation to make it sound worse. But evangelicals and their media outlets have been peddling the story:

Nothing in the Bible, in Revelation or elsewhere, describes the anti-Christ as being “a man, in his 40s, of Muslim descent.” In fact, since the book of Revelation was complete by the end of the second century, yet the religion of Islam wasn’t founded until about four hundred years later, the notion that Revelation would have mentioned a “Muslim” at all is rather far-fetched. (And even if it did, it couldn’t be construed as a reference to Barack Obama, since he isn’t a Muslim.)


A July 2009 video purportedly demonstrating how “Jesus revealed the name of the anti-Christ” to be “Barack Obama” was publicized by the disreputable WND web site
FALSE: Barack Obama Is the Anti-Christ

Sorry, don't follow US politics that closely. But if a president did not have some pedos in his government I would be quite surprised.

The current one has at least 2 pedo enablers. Trump was sued by a then-13 YO girl for sexually abusing her, but then the lawsuit suddenly went away. Given his documented history of sexual assaults, we can only guess about this one.

 

[dad]

Can you name few real gods?

No..but the Roman and Greek god's come to mind ...probably some demons there.

 

[trophy33]

No..but the Roman and Greek god's come to mind ...probably some demons there.

Demons are not gods, though.

 

[The Barbarian]

Demons are not gods, though.

Some religions say they are. Dad's idea of the existence of other gods is accepted in some of them. Mormons, for example, believe there are other gods.

 

[nolidad]

I showed you what I believed, and asked if you believed the Creed as I do. And you refused to say. For reasons that are beginning to become clear. I don't really care if you believe it as I do or not. Just man up and say one way or the other.

There are a lot of people out there who hate Christians and pretend to be Christian, while promoting extreme forms of YEC. Again, it doesn't matter to me whether you are or aren't. I'm just noting that when I presented the Nicene Creed as my beliefs and invited you do confirm you were also a Christian, you refused to do so.

I don't care if you are or are not. If you are, just say you believe it. Or continue to stall. i don't care.

Well now you made it first person ! we are getting somewhere.

Yes I accept the Nicene creed as biblical. I only add that it was just His humanity that was begotten, but as the Scriptures declare he has always existed as the eternal Son- equal in essence but subordinate in position!


You: "I had an email conversation with John Woodmorrape (author of the ICR-endorsed Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study) He confirmed this to me. With which ICR scientist did you have your conversation?"

Well if you did not save that e-mkail conversation with Wodmorappe- then His publicly written declarations stand!

I have talked with ICR on several occasions. What they told me matched what they wrote.

You: "There are a lot of people out there who hate Christians and pretend to be Christian, while promoting extreme forms of YEC."


So you believe that YEC may not be Christians? In my 44+ years experience I found the opposite to be true! thoise who have compromised and accepted science falsely so called are usually the ones who look down and loathe YEC people

You : " "Junk DNA" is a layman's term for "non-coding" DNA. The creationist take was that living things have been degenerating since The Fall, and that non-coding DNA is evidence for this. But when I was an undergraduate, a half-century ago, scientists were even then discovering functions for non-coding DNA."

Both those are lies!

In 1972 the late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" to describe all noncoding sections of a genome, He was an ardent evolutionist. He even equated them to fossil DNA- junk from our evolutionary past!

ICR and AIG both denounce the concept of JUNK DNA and never used the term to describe teh breakdown of the human genome!


You: "But when I was an undergraduate, a half-century ago, scientists were even then discovering functions for non-coding DNA."

Would love to see that research! for it wasn't until the 21st Century that Junk DNA was challenged by research. It was the near universal accepted hypothesis that non coding DNA was junk amongst believers in evolutionism.

The research in the human genome project and even more so the encode project has shown that there is no junk DNA ! I believe it was 2014 and they wewre up to over 80% utility for human DNA and the scientists were saying they were absolutely confident that when they finished that would be 100%

So it took the smug self appointed "superiors" in evolution decades to catch up with the truth that Creation Scientists had been proclaiming all along! Just like with the supposed absolute truth of "radio-decay constants" It only took the naturalists a mere century to catch up with YEC scientists who said decay constants were not constant!