The originaly Bible hasn't change, or the meaning of it, however some translations may to be acurate.3. The Bible hasn't been changed? Why don't you start a thread on that. I'll debate you on it.
Upvote
0
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.
The originaly Bible hasn't change, or the meaning of it, however some translations may to be acurate.3. The Bible hasn't been changed? Why don't you start a thread on that. I'll debate you on it.
Today at 04:37 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #237
I think you give us too much credit. I doubt the three of us have that much power as to drive people to creationism.
Today at 02:47 PM lucaspa said this in Post #202 Back it "all" up? What written history outside Judeo-Christian writings talks about the Garden of Eden? Where is Abraham mentioned? How about the "heavenly beings" in Genesis 5? Noah? Moses. Joshua. Jacob.
Adam and Eve are allegorical, not historical.
I'm surprised that you are allowing Adam and Eve to have "evolved". [/B]
Today at 04:38 PM Arikay said this in Post #238
Thats fine.![]()
Im just thinking that you arent understanding somethings. As there is No scientific backing for creationism. None at all.
Today at 05:41 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #248
That is nonsense. Up untell Darwin, there was no disagreement between theology and science. It was not tell Darwin came along that science abandoned the Bible. Ever sense then you see more and more nonsense that they call science. Because they have abandoned the Bible and the stability that affords.
The Bible is an anchor, when you cut the rope to the anchor then your are going to be tossed around on the waves. That is exactly what you see in a lot of science today. They believe one thing one day, and something else the next day. Because they have abandoned the stability you get from the Bible.
Today at 02:41 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #248
That is nonsense. Up untell Darwin, there was no disagreement between theology and science. It was not tell Darwin came along that science abandoned the Bible. Ever sense then you see more and more nonsense that they call science. Because they have abandoned the Bible and the stability that affords.
The Bible is an anchor, when you cut the rope to the anchor then your are going to be tossed around on the waves. That is exactly what you see in a lot of science today. They believe one thing one day, and something else the next day. Because they have abandoned the stability you get from the Bible.
Today at 05:22 PM Arikay said this in Post #247
Even evolutionary theory and the study of DNA suggest that everything starts with one man and one women. Civilization and language can be traced back to them.
I would like to see the evidence for this.As everything ive read suggests that you need a group of people to keep the diversity of DNA high enough to keep the population alive.
![]()
Smilin:There was no disagreement between science and the Bible before Darwin?
You forgot the whole Galileo thing didn't you Jon?
Today at 05:17 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #246
Just give Moses the same consideration that you would give any scientest. As much as your able to verify Moses, he checks out and is proven to be accurate. That is good reason to believe he is relyable and accurate in all of his work. All of the Bible builds on the writtings and the work of Moses.
Today at 05:56 PM Jon said this in Post #254
Smilin:
Are you talking to John? If you are thats the seconnd time that you call JohnR7 Jon.![]()
Today at 02:56 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #253
You exist, that is all the evidence I need. If there were not a Creator, there would be no creation. What more evidence do you need?
Today at 05:58 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #255
What about Galileo? What point are you trying to make?
Today at 06:02 PM Arikay said this in Post #258
IC, so you make an assumption and call it fact.
So, who created the creator?
Or do you also assume that no one created the creator?