Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Noooooo, one doesn't. One does, if one is looking to demonize something.actually it does. one always has to consider the source.
Oh, no, we admit its source is from what you call the "unbelieving world". We just know that doesn't matter, and that you're just trying to snipe at any part of secular thought you can get your crosshairs trained on.TE's refusal to admit evolution's source is from the unbelieving world shows that they are not interested in the truth but instead are more interested in their desire to practice science the secular way.
Then it wasn't literal, as you claim it must be.
So why did Satan need to take Jesus to a mountaintop to show Him things?
If you say that the TOE says God doesn't exist, then the Bible also says a whole lot of things don't exist.
I do not believe in evolution. I accept it. It is not a belief. It does not provide a moral code, talk about the origin of life, affirm or deny a Supreme being or set of the same
This would refer to the body's death and the salvation of the spirit if you read the whole thing
After this he SPECIFICALLY states that the teachings will be food abstinence and a forbiddance of marriage. Evolution does neither. Verses 3 and 4.
such teachings come through hypocritical liars whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron...
This is talking about those who lose faith during persecution.
matthew henry
4.The scriptures we are to know are the holy scriptures; they come from
the holy God, were delivered by holy men, contain holy precepts, treat of
holy things, and were designed to make us holy and to lead us in the way
of holiness to happiness; being called the holy scriptures, they are by this
distinguished from profane writings of all sorts, and from those that only
treat morality, and common justice and honesty, but do not meddle with
holiness. If we would know the holy scriptures, we must read and search
455them daily, as the noble Bereans did,<441711>Acts 17:11. They must not lie by
us neglected, and seldom or never looked into. Now here observe,
(1.)What is the excellency of the scripture. It is given by inspiration of
God (v. 16), and therefore is his word. It is a divine revelation, which we
may depend upon as infallibly true. The same Spirit that breathed reason
into us breathes revelation among us: For the prophecy came not in old
time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved or carried
forth by the Holy Ghost, <610121>2 Peter 1:21. The prophets and apostles did not
speak from themselves, but what they received of the Lord that they
delivered unto us.
albert barnes
Allexercise of their own minds
that is necessary to be held is, that the sacred writers were kept from error
on those subjects which were matters of their own observation, or which
pertained to memory; and that there were truths imparted to them directly
by the Spirit of God, which they could never have arrived at by the unaided
adam clarke
1.That every thought and word were inspired by God, and that the
writer did nothing but merely write as the Spirit dictated.
rev. godbey
16.All Scripture is God-breathed. This beautiful word (E.V., given by
the inspiration of God) is theopneustos, from theos, God, and pneuma,
breath. Hence, it literally means God-breathed, or the breath of God. O
what a wonderful Bible we havethe breath of God! While every
translation is inspired in its integrity, really and substantially the message
of God, the verbal inspiration is only in the original
Germs, among others
Link to thread please
Pointing out my errors is limited to what I say. You have been attacking my very faith. That is indeed judging
that one.The whole paragraph I wrote
Accepting evolution breaks neither
There is no good and there is no evil interpretation of the evidence
For Matthew24, evolution does not claim to be or displace God. Therefore, the verse is irrelevant to the discussion.
For Matthew 7, why do you ignore verses 1-5? And verse 21! "Not everyone who says to Me "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but He who does the will of My Father in Heaven."
And, about 21-24,
Tell me exactly which sayings of Jesus I have not done. Tell me how exactly I have not done His will. And tell me exactly how you are qualified to judge what is what in defiance of Romans 5 and Matthew 7.
a) His proposition stated nothing either way about God.
b) Other correct things have been stated by non-believers, such as the original Greek atom theorizers.
c) The bit that would deny a literal Genesis is the timescale. THAT comes from geology and nuclear physics, not evolution. And denying a literal Genesis is not denying God. Devils would seek to deny God.
d) Devils would seek to deny God. Making statements about things that have no bearing on God's existence or lack thereof is not the way to do that.
Please stop attacking me and my faith.
Hahahahaha woah, woah, woah, hold up.No. itis not hard to find.
I am too, and have posed a similar question but as yet await an answer.Actually, I'm curious now.
What exactly does "Christian "science consist of, archaeologist?
I've only ever heard you refer to "secular" science.
Metherion
Exactly how many people do you think you're winning over, acting like this?
So why do you think Darwin's religion tell us evolution is wrong, but Watson and Crick's atheism does not contradict the DNA double helix, and the paganism of Eratosthenes does not mean the earth isn't a sphere.actually it does. one always has to consider the source.thought we'd already pointed out that Darwin's beliefs have no impact on the theory of evolution's validity
TE's refusal to admit evolution's source is from the unbelieving world shows that they are not interested in the truth but instead are more interested in their desire to practice science the secular way.
when did i laim the world to be flat? or just because the termisused in one passage does it make the 1st chapter of genesis allegorical or a metaphor. stop reaching for excuses to believe what is not of God.
isaiah and daniel weren't mentioned due to redundancy and like these points you are looking for some opening to extend certain usages to the first chapter of genesis and give you justiufication to study evolution.
not going to happen. genesis 1 is a literal event.
Not really.you are reaching and you know it.
Such as?there are more factors which deny evolution, like all the other creation references in the Bible;
Which you have not shown to even be relevant except for some unsubstaintiated claims of his HAVING to have been decieved by demons.the source of evolution;
And flat out lies. See :nylonase, breeding (for starters). Good times.the inability to prove the theory beyond inferrence and conjecture. etc.
According to your interpretation. Yes, we must belive in God's words. And that means not believing some of man's words. But some of man's words can hold true. We would be fools for not accepting those. If God did not want us to have some small wisdom of our own He would not have given us the Breath of Life. So where they collide, yes. God prevails. Where God's Word is silent, man can then put in his two cents.sorry but you can't do both. evolution is not of God thus anyone who says they are a believer in God must follow God's words not man's. that is why you have a choice.
Well, when you add things onto it that it doesn't say, you are confusing it with something that says those things you add. Adding a lack of God to an idea with no position makes it no longer the original idea.i am not confusing it with anything. adding God to a secular theory doesn't make the theory right or secular science christian or acceptable.
If Genesis happened, it would leave evidence. That evidence would be seen.Quote:
This would refer to the body's death and the salvation of the spirit if you read the whole thing
i read the whole thing and yu asked for a verse and you got it but if you think about it, why can't it refer to shunning evolution and secular man's theories?
Yes, I would, if they contradicted the true meaning f the Word. But that's not what we do. We accept His word and then take a look at things around it, that do not disagree with how it is meant to be, and accept then since they have no statement about God in them. A hypocritical liar would actually fit your actions in this thread better. Asking that I provide links, yet refusing to do your own, spreading lies about evolution that have been corrected time and time again. Hypocritical and lying. Not saying you are one on the whole, merely that one or two of your actions have been. But, according to 1 John (and others), nobody's perfect.you skipped verse 2, very convenient of you but here it is anyways:
Quote:
such teachings come through hypocritical liars whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron...
those that say they believe in God then hold to alternatives to His word, would fit that to a 'T'. don't you think?
Quote:
This is talking about those who lose faith during persecution.
no it isn't.
Talks about what will happen to people being persecuted, and Timothy's own persecution.
I found the sections you posted quite interesting. I have a few points with them though.
1. True DOES NOT EQUAL literally true. Jesus told parables. Those were true. Was there really a man with 9 talents that distributed them to servants? Doubtful. Did a person really talk to Moses from his place in Hell? Doubtful. Are the parables still true? Yes.
2. We know that God uses non-literal means of giving truth. Jesus used parables, prophecies get interpreted, and so on. So it is quite possible that IF the Spirit gave them word for word instruction (which is not supported by the verses themselves) He may STILL have been giving non-literal meanings.
Quote:
Germs, among others
i said those were the results of the fall not a product of special creation you have a lot to learn yet. by your logic you would be saying that God created sin.
You said that there were a consequence of the Fall. Which means they were not around before the fall (definition of consequence). Which meant they were not around during the 6 days you believe are literal. Which means they were created later. There are no two ways about it. I also fail to see how my logic states God created sin.
Yes. Christians. Plural. And at least half of all Christians say I am one of them, as I am part of the RCC (which holds roughly 1 billion of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the globe). Add the ones who would consider me one anyways outside of the RCC and a vast majority would find me as one of them. Your lone opinion means little. And it is based on shaky ground.haven't judged you at all but you forget christians get to determine who is or isn't a false teacher. you have a poor idea of what 'judging' means. it certainly doesn't allow you to continue in error and be part of the church.
Gotcha. With the line you selected it was confusing me slightly.that one.
So let's re-examine what I said.
Nowhere do I say it is okay to disobey God. Romans 5 says specifically faith. James add acting Christlike. NOTHING IN THE BIBLE adds a literal Genesis. So, it would seem insisting God missed something ( a literal Genesis) would ge putting your wisdom ahead of God's. Or judging on your own instead of letting God do it, one of the two. And again we have you exhorting that evolution is not of God.Me said:Furthermore, according to Romans 5, (and others, just making sure I give at least one specific part of it), all we need is faith in Jesus to be saved. Not faith in Jesus AND selective literal interpretation, not faith in Jesus AND something else, just faith. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that faith in Jesus consists of literal interpretation. It says faith requires deeds in James, and acting like Him elsewhere, but nowhere does it say you need a literal Genesis.
According to you. The Bible says nothing on the matter. Evolution says nothing on the matter.yes it does, it is not of God though you wish it were.
Through effective means. Through things that have to do with God. By putting a negative spin on things contained in the Bible (such as turning some people off by pointing out the lack of women's rights.). By twisting the words of Christians who make silly claims and attack others. In the words of Ghandi (slight paraphrase) "Christ, I like you, but please tell your followers to lay off!" In other words, through things actually related to religion. Unlike evolution.you have soooo much to learn, and yes there is. how do you think the devil deceives people?
You seem to be the one doing what the Bible says not to. Not me.yes you need justification because you are so far off track.
I did not ignore verse 13. It did not seem applicable. Christianity itself is a narrow road.why did you ignore verse 13?
I did not ignore verse 15 (or its paragraph) either.i am not judging you, i am solely focused on what your message is not you as a person. or why did you ignore verse 15?
In a sentence, we will be able to tell bad fruits by their actions. Bad fruits obviously will not bring people to the fold, while good fruits obviously will. I have at minimum 8 souls that I personally had a hand in their coming to Christ. (I taught RCIA at my church one year for a service project.) I am happy with that going for me, declaring that I am a good fruit.
Then enlighten me.Quote:
a) His proposition stated nothing either way about God.
b) Other correct things have been stated by non-believers, such as the original Greek atom theorizers.
c) The bit that would deny a literal Genesis is the timescale. THAT comes from geology and nuclear physics, not evolution. And denying a literal Genesis is not denying God. Devils would seek to deny God.
d) Devils would seek to deny God. Making statements about things that have no bearing on God's existence or lack thereof is not the way to do that.
there is so much you don't know or understand.
You are telling me that I am not a Christian and that I do not believe in God. You are also telling me that I believe in something that doesn't exist (evolution as a religion) and that I will not be saved because of that. That is attacking me. If you want to attack my position, fine, bring on more Scripture. That is all good. But stay away from my personal salvation and my personal belief.i am not attacking you or your faith but defending my position scripturally with credible sources to back my statements up. if you feel under attack then maybe you need to re-evaluate what you believe.
And now, I have another question. The Hebrews did not invent writing. God gave us a perfectly good method of communication with our mouths. So is writing not "not of God?" It was established by a bunch of pagans in spite of something God gave us. It THAT not wrong?
I would still like an answer about "secular science" versus "christian science."
Metherion
You never did explain how Cosmas Indicopleustes with his bible literalist arguments for a flat earth, and Luther calling Copernicus a fool for denying the plain meaning of scripture, are just people who latched on to strange ideas, while you present us with the true meaning of the word of God.there are many people today and throughout history who latch onto strange ideas and it is not limited to the church. remember those trying to turn iron into gold?
Cosmas Indicopleustes http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html
How then do you reason with respect to the natural world? and how does an axis not also pass through the earth, which is in the middle, and turn it round? and again tell me, ye who follow these men and yet wish to be Christians, into to what place of the eight spheres, or of the ninth which is called by some starless, hath Christ entered, or shall we ourselves enter? Or how can waters be contained on a rotating sphere? or how when the stars fall at the final consummation, can such spheres as yours be preserved? or what can be the use of them? Is it not evident that you argue against the hope held out by the Christian doctrine? For these views can not be consistently held except by pagans, who have no hope of another and better state, and who consequently suppose that the world is eternal, in order that the rich abundance of the spheres in which the planets will accomplish their courses may be preserved for them -- while in another sphere are the fixed stars -- and their error has some show of reason in its favor. But ye advance arguments altogether incredible, and will have it that there is a multitude of spheres, and that there is no final consummation of the world since ye are unable to tell what is the necessity of these things. And in like manner ye will have it that the waters above the spheres rotate -- a most ridiculous idea and altogether idiotic, and ye advance arguments that are self-contradictory and opposed to the nature of things. And though ye allow that the universe was created in six days, yet ye find no mention of the making of a third heaven, and far less of the eight or nine which ye venture to affirm. How great is your knowledge! how great is your wisdom! how great your intelligence! how great your inconsistency. No man can serve two masters, (12) as has well been said by the lord, but if one will serve God, let him serve him, or if Mammon, then Mammon. And again he says through Paul: Ye cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. (13) And again: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with lawlessness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (14) and how again was it possible for the earth, which according to you is placed at the very middle of the universe, to have been submerged by the deluge in the time of Noah? or haw can it be believed that on the first or the second day it was covered by waters, and on the third, when the waters were gathered together, that it made its appearance, as is recorded in Genesis? But with even greater wisdom ye suppose that there are men walking the earth over with their feet opposite the feet of other men. We therefore depict according to your view the earth and the Antipodes.
No that is simply a different claim you make about evolution.simple--DNA is a creation of God whereas evolution does not exist, but then also one hs to re-examine many of wason's and crick's claims to see if they are leading to God or away from Him.
I have wondered about that.there is more involved than i am letting on
Archie, I repeat, were your English of a higher standard there might be fewer misunderstandings and you would be able to better express your point of view.if you mis-read the post that is upon you. i gave the thread title which is more than anyone else gives me.
A literal Bible equals a flat earth, a moving sun, a stationary earth
So you say.
Which you have not shown to even be relevant except for some unsubstaintiated claims of his HAVING to have been decieved by demons.
Where God's Word is silent, man can then put in his two cents.
If Genesis happened, it would leave evidence. That evidence would be seen.
Talks about what will happen to people being persecuted, and Timothy's own persecution.
13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived
1. True DOES NOT EQUAL literally true. Jesus told parables
And at least half of all Christians say I am one of them, as I am part of the RCC (which holds roughly 1 billion of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the globe). Add the ones who would consider me one anyways outside of the RCC and a vast majority would find me as one of them. Your lone opinion means little.
The Bible says nothing on the matter
You are telling me that I am not a Christian and that I do not believe in God. You are also telling me that I believe in something that doesn't exist
The Hebrews did not invent writing
.... as for the rest please clarify: are you saying writing is a secular invention? if so, then you would be leading to the pointi have been making concerning secular science which you all ignore and deny is possible.
... but God is not silent on the origin of all things, and He made it clear evolution was not involved, .....
..
.... i wouldn't bet the farm on that (earliest writing) as we do not know who was first to use writing. in the post-flood world, it is assumed the sumerians or the akkadians were first but in reality, writing probably was in the time of noah and the pre-flood world....
Want verses to back it up? I will be glad to provide them.not at all.
However, I will not further talk with you UNTIL YOU DEFINE THE TERM "SECULAR SCIENCE."
You say Darwin must have been possessed by demons
then shut the computer off as my eyes are being affected by the constant staring at the screen
am surprised you haven't figured it out by now, but tonight i will let it slide
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?