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.
Good to know you are aware that things got into the bible that were not the direct word of God.Yes, I am aware of it.
That's why they're called "scholars."
Hey.Thank you for the brotherly insults, AV! I appreciate it.
Merry Christmas to you, too!
There's nothing there that doesn't belong.Good to know you are aware that things got into the bible that were not the direct word of God.
It is not deceptive. It simply a belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Most of the ~40,000 Christian denominations do not believe that the bible is the literal word of God.
Your example is not a chapter.It is ridiculous that anyone believes Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally while knowing the fact that many chapters after it obviously are not. For example, when Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out," he could not have meant we should be half blind. So for me it goes far beyond the undeniable scientific proof that Earth is round and billions of years old.
Good to know you are aware that things got into the bible that were not the direct word of God.
I'll pass.Perhaps you could explain the difference between "X has the appearance of Y" and "X looks like Y."
Well, I'll keep considering them the same thing, okay?I'll pass.
How do you know that for a fact.Fortunately those things were taken out of it by a very good man named Martin Luther. We know for a fact all Bibles with 66 books are the direct Word of God and all Bibles that have more books include man-made text that is incorrectly claimed to be inspired by God.
It is not only what has been removed from the bible what was also has been changed. A recent topic at Peaceful Science explored "The Meanings of Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible?"It is ridiculous that anyone believes Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally while knowing the fact that many chapters after it obviously are not. For example, when Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out," he could not have meant we should be half blind. So for me it goes far beyond the undeniable scientific proof that Earth is round and billions of years old.
Evidence that anyone thought it not literalIt is ridiculous that anyone believes Genesis 1 must be interpreted literally while knowing the fact that many chapters after it obviously are not. For example, when Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, cast it out," he could not have meant we should be half blind. So for me it goes far beyond the undeniable scientific proof that Earth is round and billions of years old.
God is deceptive? Where did that concept come from? God creating Adam as a man instead of a baby was deceptive?Why is that logical?
Or are you in AVs camp that God is deceptive in making the world 6000 years ago but made it all look, in every single testable way, 4.5 billion years old?
Writing fails miserably to support 4000bc creation. By 600 years you say. Hmmmmm when do you think the world began billions of years before writing. Give me a break. Silly. History supports the creation timeline and location.This is not a response to my post but a diversion.
You have got things around the wrong way science is not confirmed by history, history is confirmed by science.
Are you not familiar with the Winston Churchill saying “History is Written by the Victors.”
Earlier in this thread I mentioned after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians attempted to erase the Hyksos from history by not including their pharaohs into the king lists of the time including erasing their names from monuments
Censorship however was not 100% watertight as the Turin king list included the Hyksos.
It took science through archaeology to confirm the Hyksos were not only present in Egypt but ruled as pharaohs for a considerable period of time.
History is about recording events and the Bible fails on the first hurdle.
The Bible does not explicitly state creation occurred in 4004 BC, the flood in 2348 BC or the Exodus in 1491 BC, these are interpretations made long after the supposed events.
In fact when it comes to the creation date it seems every man and his dog has had a shot.
The Bible fails on the second hurdle ironically using your own idea.
As you have admitted the earliest evidence of writing is around 3400 BC which falls 600 years short of the creation date hence recorded history does not support with the creation date of 4004 BC.
Then there is the science itself which doesn't need to be repeated which shows the Earth is considerably older than 6000 years.
NonsenseWriting fails miserably to support 4000bc creation. By 600 years you say. Hmmmmm when do you think the world began billions of years before writing. Give me a break. Silly. History supports the creation timeline and location.
False and irrelevant
God can't create a loaf of raisin bread without being considered deceptive.God is deceptive? Where did that concept come from? God creating Adam as a man instead of a baby was deceptive?
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?