Noah way?

[AV1611VET]

Come on AV, I am trying my best, to give you every bit of information is just too much for one person to do, and too much to expect you to read it all.

Sorry, Sarah.

You'll fail my challenge ... I promise.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can I vote for this one?

Sure can.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact is that every fossil found to date fits the evolutionary paradigm. This is a paradigm that is falsifiable by fossils. In other words we have found millions of fossils and none of them counter evolution.

Do you know what a daisy chain is?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry, Sarah.

You'll fail my challenge ... I promise.

I can't do it all, the sheaf amount of information is just too great. Which tells you something about evolution in and of itself.

Can I present it to you in pieces rather than all at once? And would you care if I didn't bother with species after they went extinct if they were evolutionary dead ends?

 

[Aman777]

I'm sure you realize the physical evidence doesn't support your assertion that there was no precipitation before the flood. Right?

Dear selfinflikted, You are confusing the heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW with Adam's world, the world (Kosmos) that THEN WAS. Read the following:

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed totally)

See what I mean? The next verse is speaking of our world:

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The two worlds are totally different. See?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know what a daisy chain is?

There is more than one kind. One could get you in trouble here. Neither can be applied to science in any meaningful way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I present it to you in pieces rather than all at once? And would you care if I didn't bother with species after they went extinct if they were evolutionary dead ends?

In other words, just give me nodes and expect me to play connect-the-dots with you?

I'll pass.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither can be applied to science in any meaningful way.

Science can take a hike.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In other words, just give me nodes and expect me to play connect-the-dots with you?

I'll pass.

Would you really rather read thousands of pages all at once? Even the bible is divided between different books within, as well as chapters. So long as I kept it in order, I don't see the problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science can take a hike.

Thank you for admitting defeat once again

 

[Dizredux]

By quoting Scripture accurately we quote it perfectly. Interpretation is perfectly acceptable once we've established what is actually written.

Are you saying that we have access to the original autographs? I was not aware of this. It might make a huge difference for Christianity. Where are they kept?

Dizredux

 

[MarkT]

It is my religious faith that I believe that God made the universe and all that is in it. I don't know this to be true. For me it is simply faith and that is enough for me.

I try to understand and follow God's plans as best I can. I do not insist that God adhere to anyone's interpretation of God's Bible much less mine. To me it would be more than a bit of Hubris to insist that.

I look at God's Bible and God's works and try to figure out the best way to understand them. Rejecting God's works is not something that makes sense to me. Your mileage may vary and that's OK.

I would never say that anyone's belief is wrong. That is between God and themselves. I will say that someone's facts are incorrect. Being a Christian does not give us our own private set of facts.

Take care,

Dizredux

Facts? Do you believe you are star dust?

 

[Dizredux]

Facts? Do you believe you are star dust?

If you mean do I accept the Big Bang theory. Provisionally yes. There seems to be a lot of evidence for it but it is is out of my range of expertise so I have to leave it at that except to say that it may be possible that is the way God did it. Who am I to say differently?

Dizredux

 

[MarkT]

I understand that you mean well but intolerance is not to my mind a Christian virtue.

Jesus was one of the most tolerant of men. It is one of his hallmarks. You might consider going back to his teachings and take a few notes. If you find yourself becoming angry because people do not agree with you, you might consider reading those notes.

PS, "There is no third option." I could respect your feelings if you put at the end "in my opinion." God decides the options not you are me, at least in my opinion.

Dizredux

You can't just dismiss Christ's teachings like that. It's not my opinion that Jesus said, 'as in the days of Noah'. It's not my opinion that Peter said, 'the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished'.

The flood is not my opinion.

 

[MarkT]

If you mean do I accept the Big Bang theory. Provisionally yes. There seems to be a lot of evidence for it but it is is out of my range of expertise so I have to leave it at that except to say that it may be possible that is the way God did it. Who am I to say differently?

Dizredux

What is your expertise?

 

[KWCrazy]

Are you saying that we have access to the original autographs? I was not aware of this. It might make a huge difference for Christianity. Where are they kept?

Dizredux

Jesus didn't fear that there were any historical, moral, theological, and scientific inaccuracies in His Bible. He had a copy of the Book anyone can Trust!

But as we read Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus summed it up as simply this, HE believed God's Word and so should we:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Have you ever looked down and wondered if you really held the same Bible Jesus had, the one God breathed out supernaturally by inspiration? And further, have you ever wondered if this one is okay, because it is a translation, and not the actual Hebrew or Greek words that God gave to those 40 plus men, who He used to write the Bible?

This is the Bible Jesus Used

The Septuagint was the first translation of the Hebrew Bible; and was made in the third century B.C. by Jewish scribes, who were direct descendents of those trained in Ezra's Great Synagogue of Jerusalem. They were complete experts in the text, being very well versed in Hebrew and Greek.
source


In Luke 24:44, Jesus is recorded as telling his disciples that his ministry had been a fulfillment of what was written in “the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms.” As noted by Josh McDowell in Evidence That Demands a Verdict (page 30), Jesus was making reference to the “three sections into which the Hebrew Bible was divided – the Law, the Prophets, and the ‘Writings’ (here called ‘the Psalms’ probably because the Book of Psalms is the first and longest book in this third section).”

Lou H. Silberman, in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible (page 1209), offers a concurring observation, as he notes that the Jewish collection of scripture was divided into three groups: The Torah (or Law), the Prophets and the Writings. On this same page, he comments that the “earliest clear evidence” that the division of the Jewish writings was being recognized, was from “Jeshua ben Sira, the author of Ecclus. (ca. 180 B.C.).” This would strongly suggest that when Jesus spoke of himself, as recorded in Luke 24:44, any disciple familiar with the Jewish books, would know these were the writings to which Jesus was referring. This scripture from Luke gives us an indication as to what “Bible” Jesus was using.

So what books were in these three collections of writings to which Jesus referred? Silberman notes (IOVC, page 1209), that the section of the Law contains “the 5 books attributed to Moses, i.e. the Pentateuch: Gen., Exod., Lev., Num., Deut.”

The section known as the Prophets, Silberman writes (IOVC, page 1209), is “subdivided into the Former Prophets: Josh., Judg., Sam. Kings, and the Latter Prophets: Isa., Jer., Ezek., and the 12.” That which is referred to as “the 12,” would be the “minor” prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
source

Some people have the idea that the Bible has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.

The Old Testament's accuracy was confirmed by an archaeological discovery in 1947, along today's West Bank in Israel. "The Dead Sea Scrolls" contained Old Testament scripture dating 1,000 years older than any manuscripts we had. When comparing the manuscripts at hand with these, from 1,000 years earlier, we find agreement 99.5% of the time. And the .5% differences are minor spelling variances and sentence structure that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

Regarding the New Testament, it is humanity's most reliable ancient document. We have thousands of copies of the New Testament, all dated closely to the original writing. In fact, we are more sure the New Testament remains as it was originally written by its authors, than we are sure of writings we attribute to Plato, or Aristotle, or Homer's Iliad
source

The problem isn't that you doubt the Bible be accurate, the problem is that you simply reject what is taught. Anyone who has a question about what is written need only ask the Author. He answers knee mail.

 

[MarkT]

Genesis 6:12

God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.

Genesis 6:12
And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. RSV

 

[Dizredux]

The problem isn't that you doubt the Bible be accurate, the problem is that you simply reject what is taught. Anyone who has a question about what is written need only ask the Author. He answers knee mail.

Two things, first you don't know what I accept or reject. I am not required to agree with what you personally teach. Are you setting yourself up as God's spokesman whose teaching are absolute?

Second, you didn't answer my questions which were

Are you saying that we have access to the original autographs? I was not aware of this. It might make a huge difference for Christianity. Where are they kept?

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

You can't just dismiss Christ's teachings like that. It's not my opinion that Jesus said, 'as in the days of Noah'. It's not my opinion that Peter said, 'the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished'.

The flood is not my opinion.

I am not dismissing Christ's teachings. I may not agree with yours though. I don't think you know what God is thinking nor do I and I do not think that you are the direct spokesman for God. You seem not to realize that people of good will can disagree.

So you might consider cooling your jets a bit. You seem to get very angry when someone doesn't believe as you do. Probably not a very healthy thing.

Dizredux

 

[KWCrazy]

Two things, first you don't know what I accept or reject.

It is my religious faith that I believe that God made the universe and all that is in it. I don't know this to be true. For me it is simply faith and that is enough for me.

I try to understand and follow God's plans as best I can. I do not insist that God adhere to anyone's interpretation of God's Bible much less mine. To me it would be more than a bit of Hubris to insist that.

I look at God's Bible and God's works and try to figure out the best way to understand them. Rejecting God's works is not something that makes sense to me. Your mileage may vary and that's OK.

I would never say that anyone's belief is wrong. That is between God and themselves. I will say that someone's facts are incorrect. Being a Christian does not give us our own private set of facts.

See, I do know. You believe in evolution. You can't point to a single passage of Scripture to validate it, so you pretend that the Scriptures do NOT state unambiguously that God created man from the dust of the earth on the sixth day of creation.

I am not required to agree with what you personally teach. Are you setting yourself up as God's spokesman whose teaching are absolute?

God's teaching is absolute, but then you know this. You can say it's my interpretation all you want, but we both know that I didn't write the Scriptures I post and we both know that the Scriptures absolutely positively refute the claims of evolution. You make your own choice which you believe. Personally, I believe the word of God.

Second, you didn't answer my questions

As I recall I gave multiple posts regarding the history and validity of the Scriptures we have. You can pretend that the original posts made references to millions of years and to evolution if it makes you feel better, but there is no justification in this in the Scriptures.