Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

[Soul Searcher]

Think about it, if there is a God, no one is prone to anything that matters,

So sin does not matter?

He will get out the word He wants. Inspiration is something spiritual, and is not limited to those that get the meesage to begin with. The translators and etc also can get inspired. No one can doubt that, without reason, and the only reason anyone will find to doubt it, is their doubts.

Sure anyone can be inspired but that does not mean they were insipred and even when inspired does not mean they are correct and it certianly does not mean that your interpretation is correct. Face it you are not infalliable.

In the old testament so much of it is God speaking directly. It is incredible. It would be interesting to see an old testament with all the direct talking of God highlighted. Like the red letter edition for the new testament. So much of both is God directly speaking.

Yes there are several places in the OT where it indicates that God or probably more often the angel of the Lord said something. There are also many places where it does not quote God, yet how often do you here "God said..." when referring to a verse fromt he bible that is not a quote attributed to God. I find that people tend to be very dishonest in this regaurd.

In no way is the future and past described by God, and confirmed somewhat by history, fiction. And one cannot help but point out that so called science is founded on a faulty premise, whenever it's fables are waved around.

Speaking of dishonest....

 

[AV1611VET]

If I had a dime for everytime I have had need to repeat the same stuff on these forums......

I have one rule I go by: If it contradicts the Bible --- it's wrong.

That alone should be enough that anyone asking me a question should be able to ascertain how I'm going to answer.

 

[Split Rock]

I have one rule I go by: If it contradicts the Bible --- it's wrong.

I think you mean, "If it contradicts my interpretation of the Bible --- it's wrong." Right?

 

[Soul Searcher]

I have one rule I go by: If it contradicts the Bible --- it's wrong.

That alone should be enough that anyone asking me a question should be able to ascertain how I'm going to answer.

Really like we might see embedded age based on the bible. Funny I have read the bible and see nothing to even hint at such a thing though I do see some things that contradict it. Are you not aware that your own interpretation of things contradicts the bible at times?

 

[dad]

And if there isn't a God, or if the is one but He chooses not to inspire?

When it comes to His message to man, he takes care of it. What else could a real God do?

The fact that you were not alive to test whether the men who were instruments of getting the word of God to man, doesn't mean anything. Even if you were alive at the time, the spirit is invisible, as is inspiration. All you could have done is doubt without reason, and beyond reason. What else is new??

 

[Nathan Poe]

When it comes to His message to man, he takes care of it. What else could a real God do?

I know plenty of real Gods, dad -- and they all behave differently.

The fact that you were not alive to test whether the men who were instruments of getting the word of Detective Fish to man, doesn't mean anything. Even if you were alive at the time, the cheese is invisible, as is inspiration. All you could have done is doubt without reason, and beyond reason. What else is new??

I did warn you about the experiment -- you have no choice, you must go on.

 

[dad]

So sin does not matter?

That depends, in what way would you try to relate that to the context of what was being said?

Sure anyone can be inspired but that does not mean they were insipred and even when inspired does not mean they are correct and it certianly does not mean that your interpretation is correct. Face it you are not infalliable.

In other words, you have no idea if people in the past were inspired. I see that the book they compiled is inspiring, and works, and has been demonstrated to billions of observers to work. If there us a God that claims to have a word out to man, as Jesus Christ testified of, and quoted, and believed, it would HAVE to be a work of God. It is unreasonable to doubt it.

Yes there are several places in the OT where it indicates that God or probably more often the angel of the Lord said something. There are also many places where it does not quote God, yet how often do you here "God said..." when referring to a verse fromt he bible that is not a quote attributed to God. I find that people tend to be very dishonest in this regaurd.

Speaking of dishonest....

I was talking about direct quotes from the Almighty. Nothing dishonest about that! In other places, if a tried and proven prophet, many of which had signs and wonders behind them as well, to verify their credentials, said God said something, who are you to call him or her a liar? Or to call God inept, in being unable to assure that the record to man got here in good shape? An armchair doubter. That's all.

 

[Soul Searcher]

That depends, in what way would you try to relate that to the context of what was being said?

You said "Think about it, if there is a God, no one is prone to anything that matters,"

I assume that you believe people are prone to sin, in which case you are also saying that if there is a God sin does not matter.

In other words, you have no idea if people in the past were inspired. I see that the book they compiled is inspiring, and works, and has been demonstrated to billions of observers to work. If there us a God that claims to have a word out to man, as Jesus Christ testified of, and quoted, and believed, it would HAVE to be a work of God. It is unreasonable to doubt it.

I know without a doubt that many people have been inspired over the ages by many sources to do many things. I can not tell you if a specific person was inspired without knowing more about that person. In the case of the bible authors we do not even know for sure who they were much less the source of thier inspiration. It is plain however to me that some parts are indeed inspired by good and other parts are questionable. Inspired by and written by are two totally different things however.

I was talking about direct quotes from the Almighty. Nothing dishonest about that! In other places, if a tried and proven prophet, many of which had signs and wonders behind them as well, to verify their credentials, said God said something, who are you to call him or her a liar? Or to call God inept, in being unable to assure that the record to man got here in good shape? An armchair doubter. That's all.

Really, You keep talking about this different state past. I saw your interpretation of how long it took a tree to grow in Eden and that of how long it took to grow after the flood neither of which came as a direct quote from God. Yet you seem to be claiming they did. You do know the meaning of dishonesty do you not?

btw I have made no claims about God being enept nor unable to do anything. God is perfectly capable of preserving whatever he chooses. It is obovious though that the bible was not one of those things as the numerous different versions, beliefs and such show us. The bible is a work of man period. Granted those men believed in what they wrote and may even be right in most cases but that does nto change the fact that it was man who created, copied, translated, compiled and preserved the scrolls which we now call the bible. It was also man that destroyed many other scrolls that were considered by many to be scripture.

 

[dad]

I know plenty of real Gods, dad -- and they all behave differently.

Say hi to them all for us, now, ya hear?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I think you mean, "If it contradicts my interpretation of the Bible --- it's wrong." Right?

Sadly, no. Turns out AV is the final authority when interpreting the KJV.

 

[dad]

You said "Think about it, if there is a God, no one is prone to anything that matters,"

If I recall, the context was incoming asteroids, or some such, smashing us like pumpkins. No, we are not prone to anything like that, the planet is protected by God. If anything gets through, it is allowed, such as the judgement of the last days.

As for being prone to sin, we are not only prone, we are in the sin state, the fallen, depraved state. No one was talking about that. ..Context.

I know without a doubt that many people have been inspired over the ages by many sources to do many things. I can not tell you if a specific person was inspired without knowing more about that person. In the case of the bible authors we do not even know for sure who they were much less the source of thier inspiration.

No, most are known. Even a bit about them. It is also known that they were not false prophets, those were killled. If they were honored as prophets of old, there were real reasons for it. The destruction of Jerusalem, and captivity, etc all happened, and the prophets that were of that time were known.

John and Luke, and Paul and etc were also known. Not sure why it all seems to be a dark clloud inside your head.

It is plain however to me that some parts are indeed inspired by good and other parts are questionable. Inspired by and written by are two totally different things however.

No. It is impossible. If God exists at all, He has to be able to get a book to man. Who are you to question the inspiration of those that looked at each book, and chose only some for the bible??

Really, You keep talking about this different state past. I saw your interpretation of how long it took a tree to grow in Eden and that of how long it took to grow after the flood neither of which came as a direct quote from God. Yet you seem to be claiming they did. You do know the meaning of dishonesty do you not?

God planted Eden, remember? He also did creation week, as it was done. If trees were there in that time after being planted, Jack in the Beanstalk, move over! It is what it is. Don't blame me. I work with what I have, and what the bible is, and says. I feel no need to second guess it, or make stuff up. How honest is that?!

btw I have made no claims about God being enept nor unable to do anything. God is perfectly capable of preserving whatever he chooses. It is obovious though that the bible was not one of those things as the numerous different versions, beliefs and such show us.

Let's get this straight. You say God is not inept, BUT, he muffed up the bible, His only literary work. OK. Sure sounds inept to me.

The bible is a work of man period.

Objection, speculation.

Granted those men believed in what they wrote and may even be right in most cases but that does nto change the fact that it was man who created, copied, translated, compiled and preserved the scrolls which we now call the bible.

Nor the fact that God arranged, authored, inspired, and selected which men to compile, and copy, and preserve etc. So??

It was also man that destroyed many other scrolls that were considered by many to be scripture.

Think about it. If there is a God, that is not inept, would He let books He wanted in there be destroyed by man? No. Relax. He probably inspired those getting rid of them too!

 

[Soul Searcher]

If I recall, the context was incoming asteroids, or some such, smashing us like pumpkins. No, we are not prone to anything like that, the planet is protected by God. If anything gets through, it is allowed, such as the judgement of the last days.

Actually no, the context was in reference to a post where I said that man is prone to error. Nice attempt to weasel out of your statement but it won't work'

As for being prone to sin, we are not only prone, we are in the sin state, the fallen, depraved state. No one was talking about that. ..Context.

So sin is not an error and error is not sin but rather is akin to an asteroid smashing us to bits ?? ummm I don't think so.

No, most are known. Even a bit about them. It is also known that they were not false prophets, those were killled. If they were honored as prophets of old, there were real reasons for it. The destruction of Jerusalem, and captivity, etc all happened, and the prophets that were of that time were known.

Of course there were reasons for it, People believed them or did nto mind what they had to say. btw Jesus was killed which kinda destroys your reasoning here don't ya think.

John and Luke, and Paul and etc were also known. Not sure why it all seems to be a dark clloud inside your head.

What are you talkign about? We do not not for sure who wrote any of the books in the bible, we know what tradition teaches, we know what the scolars say but we do not really know. To say otherwise is dishonest.

No. It is impossible. If God exists at all, He has to be able to get a book to man.

Of course he is able, that does not make it mandatory that he do so however.

Who are you to question the inspiration of those that looked at each book, and chose only some for the bible??

So you need to be some special person to question? The bible itself tells us to question all things? Do you disagree with this. Those people who selected which books had thier reasons. We can only speculate what those reasons were but they argued about it for years and many of those books not included were destroyed along with many of those people who believed them to be scripture. You seem to have a lot of blind faith in man.

God planted Eden, remember? He also did creation week, as it was done. If trees were there in that time after being planted, Jack in the Beanstalk, move over! It is what it is. Don't blame me. I work with what I have, and what the bible is, and says. I feel no need to second guess it, or make stuff up. How honest is that?!

So because the bible says that God planted a garden you think it is honest to say that God said a tree grows in a week?

Let's get this straight. You say God is not inept, BUT, he muffed up the bible, His only literary work. OK. Sure sounds inept to me.

No I do not say he muffed up anything, Man did. Learn to read please. God did not write the bible, man wrote the scrolls, man copied them, many times, translated them, many times, selected the ones that the concil decided were scripture and bound them into a bible, different bibles have different books, different wording and are foten taken to have a different message.

Now if the bible were a singluar book were any attempt to change a single word would fail you would have a good case for God protecting it but as it is it can be changed to say anything at all and unless people object to it it will get accepted as the word of God by many.

Objection, speculation.

Nor the fact that God arranged, authored, inspired, and selected which men to compile, and copy, and preserve etc. So??

So you think those who compiled the bible were personally selected by God? Why then was it altered afterwards? Why were books removed from it? Did God make a mistake or was it really just man all along?

Think about it. If there is a God, that is not inept, would He let books He wanted in there be destroyed by man? No. Relax. He probably inspired those getting rid of them too!

Here's another thought for you, If as you say there is a God, that is not inept, He might not care at all what books we read or write. In fact he probably just shakes his head in disbelief everytime someone uses the phrase "Word fo God" to refer to this book of man.

btw what do you think fo the verses which speak of sending lying spirits into the mouths of thier prophets did you ever consider that some of these prophets who listened to lying spirits from God thought they were writing the truth but were writing a lie instead?

 

[dad]

Actually no, the context was in reference to a post where I said that man is prone to error. Nice attempt to weasel out of your statement but it won't work'

Well somthing seems to have gotten lost in your translation. But the same thing applies there. If there is a God that wanted a bible to get to man, nothing was ever out of control. Only in some people
s doubting heads.

So sin is not an error and error is not sin but rather is akin to an asteroid smashing us to bits ?? ummm I don't think so.

Sin is the town we all live in. Imaginary planet smashing accidents are imagination, and unreasonable fears.

Of course there were reasons for it, People believed them or did nto mind what they had to say. btw Jesus was killed which kinda destroys your reasoning here don't ya think.

Not at all. His prophesies, such as rising from the dead in 3 days were proven true. What was proven false was the religion of the day.

What are you talkign about? We do not not for sure who wrote any of the books in the bible, we know what tradition teaches, we know what the scolars say but we do not really know. To say otherwise is dishonest.

Well, is you want to claim Isiah was not Isaiah, you can just say that another fellow with the same name wrote it. God still was the One behind it. Same dif.

Of course he is able, that does not make it mandatory that he do so however. So you need to be some special person to question?

Indeed, you need some evidence. Not just 'they were men, so God couldn't have used them, yada yada blah blah'

The bible itself tells us to question all things? Do you disagree with this.

Yes. Why, is that bad? Jesus said believe, does that mean we should question that? No. Context.

Those people who selected which books had thier reasons. We can only speculate what those reasons were but they argued about it for years and many of those books not included were destroyed along with many of those people who believed them to be scripture. You seem to have a lot of blind faith in man.

I think the issue there was trying to determine what was unquestionably inspired, and to a high degree, as well as well sourced. The fact that they really took time and consideration shows it was taken seriously. God can work with that.

So because the bible says that God planted a garden you think it is honest to say that God said a tree grows in a week?

Yes, I do. Because it says when it was eaten, and planted. The only other option is to dishonor the text.

No I do not say he muffed up anything, Man did. Learn to read please. God did not write the bible, man wrote the scrolls, man copied them, many times, translated them, many times, selected the ones that the concil decided were scripture and bound them into a bible, different bibles have different books, different wording and are foten taken to have a different message.

So Jesus referred to a muffed up bunch of nonsense as the scriptures..I see. Guess He has a lot to learn from you on how worthless they are. Nice try.

Now if the bible were a singluar book were any attempt to change a single word would fail you would have a good case for God protecting it but as it is it can be changed to say anything at all and unless people object to it it will get accepted as the word of God by many.

It was not written to a singular man, nor even a singular time. Therefore a spectrum of folks is well in order. Overruled.

So you think those who compiled the bible were personally selected by God? Why then was it altered afterwards? Why were books removed from it? Did God make a mistake or was it really just man all along?

Say what? Did someone sneak off with a bunch of books fron the 1611 KJV? Be specific in your accusations.

Here's another thought for you, If as you say there is a God, that is not inept, He might not care at all what books we read or write. In fact he probably just shakes his head in disbelief everytime someone uses the phrase "Word fo God" to refer to this book of man.

Ok, so you want us to imagine we have some sort of psyco god, that loves man not at all. Guess Jesus came in vain, then also, in your books?

btw what do you think fo the verses which speak of sending lying spirits into the mouths of thier prophets did you ever consider that some of these prophets who listened to lying spirits from God thought they were writing the truth but were writing a lie instead?

Context. I am not aware of thiose verses. I have read the verse that mentions how to handle a certain situation on earth. It was decided, if I recall, to let the lying false prophets that surrounded a king to keep lying. Even though the one good prophet had told God's truth to them. So He let em have the usual lies of the usual lying false prophets, which he preferred to believe. Then he lost the battle, or whatever it was. So? In no way does that tell us to lie, or to believe the lies, we are to be like the good guy.

 

[BananaSlug]

So dad, after 5 pages do you care to respond to my last post? Were the questions too hard for you? Ignoring me doesn't give credit to your ravings, it only takes away from them.
Here is the link to the post in case you conviently "forgot" about it:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7390200-21/#post52619676
Walking away from a debate does not constitute being "undefeated".

 

[Soul Searcher]

Well somthing seems to have gotten lost in your translation. But the same thing applies there. If there is a God that wanted a bible to get to man, nothing was ever out of control. Only in some people
s doubting heads.

There was no translation invloved. The ststement was very clear, you erred and try to weasel out, why am I not surprised?

Sin is the town we all live in. Imaginary planet smashing accidents are imagination, and unreasonable fears.

Yeah right like that could never happen.

Not at all. His prophesies, such as rising from the dead in 3 days were proven true. What was proven false was the religion of the day.

Not at all what? Jesus was killed was he not?

Well, is you want to claim Isiah was not Isaiah, you can just say that another fellow with the same name wrote it. God still was the One behind it. Same dif.

You are very hard to follow. The point is and it is a fact that we "do not know for sure" who wrote the books in the bible, and no that does not mean someone else by the same name it means that we do not know it could have been Harry for all we know.

Indeed, you need some evidence. Not just 'they were men, so God couldn't have used them, yada yada blah blah'

Evidence? You mean like manuscripts in the handwriting of man, oh yeah we have that. It is a fact that the scrolls which became the bible were written by man kind. Now if you claim otherwise then you will need some real proof but we both know there is none.

Yes. Why, is that bad? Jesus said believe, does that mean we should question that? No. Context.

umm. You mean the bible says that Jesus said... what did he say to believe? Everything? or in the message of love one another as yourself. The bible says question all things hold onto that which is good. Anyone who believes anything just because someone tells them too is not very smart to say the least.

Yes, I do. Because it says when it was eaten, and planted. The only other option is to dishonor the text.

So let me get this straight, because you interpret "the bible" to say ... that means God said.... even though the bible does not say "God said.." nor does it imply such a thing. Again do you know what it means to be dishonest and is it honoring the text to use it dishonestly?

So Jesus referred to a muffed up bunch of nonsense as the scriptures..I see. Guess He has a lot to learn from you on how worthless they are. Nice try.

How little understanding you seem to have. According to the bible Jesus did refer to certian scriptures. Does that mean he agreed with everything in all of the scrolls which later became the bible? Not hardly, nor does it mean that they were correct in his time, remember he had some pretty strong words directed at the scribes in his day.

It was not written to a singular man, nor even a singular time. Therefore a spectrum of folks is well in order. Overruled.

You seem to have missed the point yet again.

Say what? Did someone sneak off with a bunch of books fron the 1611 KJV? Be specific in your accusations.

7 books were later removed if memory serves and the so called 1611 kjv was edited numerous times but still labeled 1611, one version even had the text Thou shalt commit adultry.. If God made this book perfect and was protecting it from error he sure did a bang up job. oh and btw the KJV is not "The Bible" it is a bible, one of many.

Ok, so you want us to imagine we have some sort of psyco god, that loves man not at all. Guess Jesus came in vain, then also, in your books?

So if God does not give a hoot about the book we call the bible that means to you that he does not love man at all and Jesus was in vain? Your mind works in a very odd manner, but then I guess I already knew that based on former posts.

Context. I am not aware of thiose verses. I have read the verse that mentions how to handle a certain situation on earth. It was decided, if I recall, to let the lying false prophets that surrounded a king to keep lying. Even though the one good prophet had told God's truth to them. So He let em have the usual lies of the usual lying false prophets, which he preferred to believe. Then he lost the battle, or whatever it was. So? In no way does that tell us to lie, or to believe the lies, we are to be like the good guy.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading what the bible actually says and less time making up stories about this altered state past.

 

[dad]

And unless you can go there, all you have is stories.



Okay so there isn't a verse that specifically says there was no radiation. Thanks for proving that for me!

Hmm, this stuff sounds familiar, I think I maybe did respond to this?

My question still stands. If some "big alteration" in the laws of physics changed 4500 years ago, such as no radioactive decay, then we wouldn't find any objects over 4500 years of age. Why do we find objects over 4500 years of age?

No alteration NI present universe and laws. The change was from something else, and this state is the result.

But if there is no physical evidence for a substantial change in the physical laws in the past, why assume so?

Science doesn't know. There is evidence in history and the bible. Changes such and ten fold longer lifespans.

So if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, why do we find geologic phenomena older than 4500 years of age. It would stand to reason if radioactive decay did not exist, no rocks would be dated older than when decay came into existence. Can you explain this?

Yes. The daughter and parent material were here already. They never all got here as a result of decay, as daughters now get here.

So where is the mark in the tree rings that show the boundary of the "past state" with the "present state"?

Shoow us some deeper than 45000 thick, and let's take a look! Why, you seen some, and speak from experience?!

You claimed there was no evidence. "The evidence of a hose was not detectable, all that was seen was the present hose". If the evidence of the different state past is detectable, tell us where to look! Of course you also claim their is no physical evidence for it so...

The evidence would be interpreted as caused by something present.

Then provide some evidence! There is ZERO evidence from the Bible supporting "no radioactive decay". Secondly, if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago the oldest rock on earth would only be 4500 years old. Either you are wrong, or God is the biggest liar in the universe.

Already explained that. The materials in the rock do not show there was decay then, just that there are materials in the rock. The decay is now, and for the last 4400 years.

Show us this "agreeing" evidence. First you claim there is physical evidence, then you claim there isn't, then you claim there is. Make up your mind!

Tree rings go right to about the right time! The axis of the earth is recorded to have changed, and Dodwell pinpointed the date of the change by making a curve from 66 data points. The geologic column supports the migration from Eden! No evidence opposes the concept,

There was no need to change the universe. God simply kicked A&E out of the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life. Why do you insist on adding to the Bible?

False!! He did not simply kick en out. He cursed the entire surface of the earth, the ground. And the plants, etc. Adam also lost eternal life, and started to live just a thousand or so years, then die.

Later, after the flood, we see even bigger changes to the laws.

Except it says squat about radioactive decay. It says squat about the physical laws of the past.

It says that the earth and sun will last forever, that eliminates decay. Not even rust will corrupt there.

Radioisotope dating, zircons, etc. So why, if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, do we find rock older than 4500 years? You say our "present state" science cannot measure past 4500 years, yet we can.

No, you sure can't! All the ways that anything is dated by so called science is present state based.

In Genesis 1 it says God formed the trees. And Genesis 8 does not specifically say trees grew instantly from seed. Again, no Biblical evidence to support your view.

Gen 2 is a more detailed look at what was already done, and finished. It explains that the Lord planted the garden!


By the way, I see no 'formed' here!?

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So why not regular evolution?

We know when the flood was, and where we are noow. There was no time for 'regular' evolving.

Wasn't part of the "curse" on creation death? I'll ask the question again.
In our "present state" algal blooms cause massive dieoffs in fish populations because the decay of the algae suck all of the dissolved oxygen out of the water. If God cursed creation after original sin, would the effect be the same? Why would the curse before the "split" be less harsh than what we are cursed with now?

First of all, death as far as I understand it applied to Eden's creatures. Not all life on earth, or in Eden. How algae worked then, I don't know. Why? Who cares? Point?

 

[dad]

So dad, after 5 pages do you care to respond to my last post? Were the questions too hard for you? Ignoring me doesn't give credit to your ravings, it only takes away from them.
Here is the link to the post in case you conviently "forgot" about it:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7390200-21/#post52619676
Walking away from a debate does not constitute being "undefeated".

Although I already may have, I did respond to it. See above post.

 

[dad]

There was no translation invloved. The ststement was very clear, you erred and try to weasel out, why am I not surprised?

There is no error in realizing God doesn't make errors.He got the bible to man, and no one can prove otherwise. The proof is in the pudding, as to the power in that book. It sets the calender of earth.

Not at all what? Jesus was killed was he not?

Not because of any wrong, He was innocent. He was framed, lied about, bore false witness against, and they even released a terrorist rather than Him. But He proved He was right by rising from the dead, and being seen for many weeks, by many many people. People who died to verify their witness. We know the record is true.

You are very hard to follow. The point is and it is a fact that we "do not know for sure" who wrote the books in the bible, and no that does not mean someone else by the same name it means that we do not know it could have been Harry for all we know.

No, that is silly. Here is an example...

Mal 1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.

Not Harry.


Re 1:4 - John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace,
Re 1:9 - I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Re 21:2 -And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
..Not Harry, see?


Eze 1:3 -The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.
Not Harry, see!? Need more?

Evidence? You mean like manuscripts in the handwriting of man, oh yeah we have that. It is a fact that the scrolls which became the bible were written by man kind. Now if you claim otherwise then you will need some real proof but we both know there is none.

No, the invisible spirit is not seen, so all man can detect is the men involved in the operation. Doesn't mean that was all there was to it.

So let me get this straight, because you interpret "the bible" to say ... that means God said.... even though the bible does not say "God said.." nor does it imply such a thing. Again do you know what it means to be dishonest and is it honoring the text to use it dishonestly?

Vague balderdash.

How little understanding you seem to have. According to the bible Jesus did refer to certian scriptures. Does that mean he agreed with everything in all of the scrolls which later became the bible? Not hardly, nor does it mean that they were correct in his time, remember he had some pretty strong words directed at the scribes in his day.

Says you. Let's hear it from the Man Himself.

Lu 24:44 -And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. That really covers a lot! Oh, and Daniel was another one He named by name.

7 books were later removed if memory serves and the so called 1611 kjv was edited numerous times but still labeled 1611, one version even had the text Thou shalt commit adultry.. If God made this book perfect and was protecting it from error he sure did a bang up job. oh and btw the KJV is not "The Bible" it is a bible, one of many.

The scriptures and sacred writings of the apostles, and words of Jesus, are above 'one version' That's the beauty of it!

So if God does not give a hoot about the book we call the bible that means to you that he does not love man at all and Jesus was in vain? Your mind works in a very odd manner, but then I guess I already knew that based on former posts.

Yes. I would say so. If the scriptures are dirt, then all is dirt. Just like if Jesus be not risen from the dead, we are the most miserable men on earth. But He has! And the scriptures are proven, and tried, and tested, and came out of the fires as real gold. Done deal.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading what the bible actually says and less time making up stories about this altered state past.

Perhaps you should make a point about the bible past, and what is says, if you dare.. I ain't shakin in my boots.

 

[Soul Searcher]

There is no error in realizing God doesn't make errors.He got the bible to man, and no one can prove otherwise. The proof is in the pudding, as to the power in that book. It sets the calender of earth.

LOL.. Dude Man wrote the scrolls they did not magically appear from heaven.

It would be nice to see you admit the truth for once rather than try to twist everything into your altered states. It is sometimes entertaining but has gotten old.

 

[dad]

LOL.. Dude Man wrote the scrolls they did not magically appear from heaven.

It would be nice to see you admit the truth for once rather than try to twist everything into your altered states. It is sometimes entertaining but has gotten old.

Not at all, God authored the scriptures, and merely used men. The facts bear this out, in that there is spiritual power behind the words. That no more happens from an explosion in a printing press piling up just the right words, than happens from carnal men writing by themselves the words from Heaven. Impossible.

To claim man alone was responsible for God's word to man is short sighted, and ignorant of the incredible power over the ages that the words had, and still have.

It is a simple matter of the observer having limited vision and perception of what the spiritual did. In fact, I guess, no perception at all!