Nothing changes in this forum.

[tas8831]

The KJV is the oldest and most read and less altered of the other versions. We live today in the last days and the KJV is obviously the one which God wanted us to read.

Why is that obvious?

Do you understand why it is called the King James VERSION?

It seems not.

The proper interpretation of the KJV AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History.

And that is what I actually asked - how do you KNOW that your INTERPRETATION of the KJV is the right one?

God's Truth MUST agree with every other discovered Truth or it is NOT God's Truth.

That is not circular reasoning at all...

In the end, your knee will bow to the Truth.

And a dose of question begging, too!

Any other logical fallacies you want to employ in the defense of your faith?

Since you have NO idea what Scripture is saying, its easy to fool you. Amen?

Since you have been brainwashed to accept one interpretation of one version of the bible, it is even easier to fool you. And to get you to expose yourself as having been brainwashed. Amen?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the proper interpretation of Genesis AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History...

... The proper interpretation of the KJV AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History.

Seems to me that if what you say is true, there's no need to teach anything but science in the science classes.

In the religion classes (which should cover all the major religions), when the teachers of the Christianity module teach about Genesis, they can introduce the biblical text, and then refer the students to the science classes for the proper interpretation and full implementation details.

Problem solved

 

[Phred]

THIS this is exactly where it is for you evolutionists. We can't have common design taught. Oh no that would be the most horrible thing ever! Actual information shows common design not evolution. You interpret facts and assume evolution. You interpret facts to mean evolution. The facts are facts. Common design is far more likely than evolution. You want so badly to believe in evolution despite the fact there is no observation no testing and no verifiable evidence for it. And you are so afraid of what may happen if people have an opportunity to see things differently.

That fear has kept you from actually reading my post. I didn't say ONLY teach common design. i didn't say ONLY teach abstinence. I didn't say ONLY teach a certain facit of global climate change. What I said was teach ALL the information. There is plenty of it out there in research and scientific understanding to say abstinence is a good thing, common design is worth looking at and climate change may not be as serious or man caused as some may say.

But you are so stuck that NO other thing can be taught but that what you believe to be true. It's very typical of folks with your mindset. You can't let any other thing be taught but that which fits what you want taught.

All you have to do is show us. Sadly you can't. You've never been able to. And that's the issue I have with you folks. Nothing you said is real.

 

[Phred]

No, that would be you and the godless followers of the Lie of the ToE.

Another example of empty statements with no facts to back them up.

 

[Phred]

False, since the global flood was 11k years ago in Lake Van, Turkey to the people of Adam's Earth,

I guess that being insane this makes sense to you. But to those of us that use words to mean something a "Global" flood means the entire GLOBE was under water thus providing a location for it is... well, insane. A localized flood is by definition NOT a global flood. It did NOT cover the world in water and did NOT ... oh, what's the point?

If you cannot offer any evidence of your ridiculous rantings they are just as valid as the gobbles from a turkey. Perhaps the turkey is a bit more lucid as it's completely genuine.

 

[Phred]

False since the proper interpretation of Genesis AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History, and YOU cannot refute that Fact. Looks like you don't have the proper interpretation....doesn't it?

That's not true. Since, from the very first sentence, Genesis is wrong.

 

[Phred]

Perfect! And what I have been saying all along. Evolutionists will never allow common design to be taught. It cannot be because it always gets to the point of a designer. And as you say a designer cannot be tested. So no matter what, Common design will always be rejected.

There will always be a rule of thought in science. No goal post moving here. It was the rule of thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It is presently the rule of thought that all things came from the same common ancestor. The unreliability of scentific thought is evident in past scientific thought. At it was always a battle to change it. Evolution is the only thought that is allowed even though the evidence that is used actually points to communicate design and not common ancestry. But as you so eloquently stated that cannot be considered. The claim is the designer cannot be tested scientifically. Yet they ignore the fact that a common ancestor cannot be tested either. All that can be done is to look at what the facts are, then interpret thise facts. The facts are interpreted to mean evolution from common ancestry. The facts can also be interpreted to mean common design.

You're so very wrong. "Intelligent Design" was first a scientific endeavor before it was hijacked by the creationist movement. Answer this one question. If all humans suddenly left the earth and aliens found it years from now, how could the aliens tell that say, Mt. Rushmore wasn't a natural artifact? Take it one step further, how can you tell that some corn is created by men while other corn is not? There is no need for a designer although it is the religious crowd that keeps insisting upon inserting one. Intelligent design first dealt with computer code. Then it spread out. How can you tell that something is the creation of a man vs. the creation of a machine? Or nature? Now you want us to teach this abstract concept of "design" because you already KNOW the designer. First, you need to show us that there's design present. THEN you can start to speculate about the designer. With no other evidence for the existence of the designer you desperately want to present, I'm sorry but no. I won't jump to that conclusion. You have a LOT of work to do if you want something like that taught. Better get started.

 

[rjs330]

So you would convert to Hinduism if there was evidence that Krishna was the designer?

So you would convert to Hinduism if there was evidence that Krishna was the designer?

Yup.

 

[rjs330]

Why would I do that when I just proved that the bible was wrong about mustard seeds?

I have the ability to tell the difference between metaphor and claims of fact - many creationists do not.

Saying that the mustard seed is the smallest is clearly supposed to be a factual statement. Saying Jesus is a gate is clearly metaphorical.

Not that hard - but in your desperation and frustration that you set yourself up for a fall, you'll engage in whatever silly antics you feel you must.

So you are claiming that a parable is totally false and made up? Parables are basically analogies - isn't at least a part of an analogy supposed to be true?

Wiki says:

"A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse that illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters. A parable is a type of analogy."

Matthew
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

I guess you are doing Apologetics? Which as best I can tell is little more than excuse-making and equivocation/post-hoc rationalization.

A cop out, as it were.

I think you have some work to do to understand literary uses. When something says another parable, that would be your indicator that what he is about to say isn't to be taken literally word for word. No a parable does not have to be factually accurate. So you haven't actually proven anything except your lack of understanding how literature and analogies, stories etc work. Part of the understanding of stories is the the use of things that the hearer would understand. It's a declvuce that is used down through the ages. Using a metaphor and analogies has to relate to the hearer. My suggestion is if you struggle with this concept you might want to do more studying.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think the weirdest part about "common design" is that it assumes that copycats can't exist. If I were given the tools to do so, I could create a watch identical to that of a Rolex from 2002, but that company wouldn't be the designer, I would be. It'd be impossible to tell if life on Earth was made by multiple designers copying off of one another to various extents versus 1 designer. A single design could be a corroboration between multiple beings.

There isn't even evidence for any designer, and now people want to tack on the additional claim that there's only one? The heck?

 

[rjs330]

I think the weirdest part about "common design" is that it assumes that copycats can't exist. If I were given the tools to do so, I could create a watch identical to that of a Rolex from 2002, but that company wouldn't be the designer, I would be. It'd be impossible to tell if life on Earth was made by multiple designers copying off of one another to various extents versus 1 designer. A single design could be a corroboration between multiple beings.

There isn't even evidence for any designer, and now people want to tack on the additional claim that there's only one? The heck?

The argument here is not about whontye designer is. It's about the fact there is a design. All of you have illustrated my point to perfection. That if you acknowledge a design you will always begin to search for a designer. That's why you absolutely refuse to acknowledge design. Evolution is so nice a neat that you dont have to get into the messy business of a designer.

Yet there is no way to show evolution from a common ancestor ever happened or could happen. It can't be tested, or verified. You can look at facts and find two options. Evolution or design. It's an interpretation of facts. Yet evolution is more often chosen despite that every observable fact in this world shows design is the more reliable answer.

 

[Aman777]

Seems to me that if what you say is true, there's no need to teach anything but science in the science classes.

In the religion classes (which should cover all the major religions), when the teachers of the Christianity module teach about Genesis, they can introduce the biblical text, and then refer the students to the science classes for the proper interpretation and full implementation details.

Problem solved

Amen. When God's Truth is found, it's true in Science and History classes. It's no longer an unsupported assumption/belief but instead, is the ONE Truth.

 

[Aman777]

Another example of empty statements with no facts to back them up.

Do you believe the Bible? or do you prefer the changeable half truths/assumptions of mere mortal men? Ask an evol where the first man came from and they will make up some speculation but will NEVER explain. All they can do is ask for "changeable facts of men" to support their false beliefs. Empty headed is indicated.

 

[pitabread]

Yet evolution is more often chosen despite that every observable fact in this world shows design is the more reliable answer.

"Reliable" how exactly?

 

[Aman777]

I guess that being insane this makes sense to you. But to those of us that use words to mean something a "Global" flood means the entire GLOBE was under water thus providing a location for it is... well, insane. A localized flood is by definition NOT a global flood. It did NOT cover the world in water and did NOT ... oh, what's the point?

It was a "Global" flood for the people inside Adam's firmament/Universe. The ground they walked on was "clean dissolved". Isa 24:19 Every living creature died except those on the Ark which floated into Lake Van, the largest Lake in Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. It rained for forty days and nights and the solid firmament, which surrounded Adam's Earth, filled with water and sank into the Lake.

If you cannot offer any evidence of your ridiculous rantings they are just as valid as the gobbles from a turkey. Perhaps the turkey is a bit more lucid as it's completely genuine.

I suspect you think the 450 ft Ark landed on top of 16k ft Mt. Ararat instead of in the 75 mile wide Lake, which was the perfect place to dock a boat the size of an Ocean liner. Such thinking keeps one's brain the size of a turkey's brain. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

That's not true. Since, from the very first sentence, Genesis is wrong.

Depends on your interpretation and we KNOW that's wrong. Care to tell us what Genesis 1:1 is telling you? I promise not to laugh.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ask an evol where the first man came from and they will make up some speculation but will NEVER explain.

Explanation: following the emergence of primitive cells from a prebiotic chemistry a period of sustained evolutionary development from an initial ancestor, common to all subsequent life, continued for some 3.5 billion years, during which time mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, chance and the like led to the emergence of mammalian quadrupeds, classified today as primates. One branch of these primates acquired an enlarged brain, bipedal stance and behavioural characteristics that included tool making. This branch had evolved sufficiently so that around 180,000 years ago it could reasonably be classified as homo sapiens.

There you go. That is an explanation. It contains no speculation. You may not like the explanation, but the interesting thing is that the explanation will remain, regardless of how much you huff and puff. The evolutionary house is not built of straw, unlike the arguments you construct then choose to attack, pretending they represent evolutionary thought.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The argument here is not about whontye designer is. It's about the fact there is a design.

Then why are you a Pentecostal?

All of you have illustrated my point to perfection. That if you acknowledge a design you will always begin to search for a designer.

Dude, I've been a seeker for years without seeing any evidence of design. There's more than one reason a person could be motivated to be a seeker. Thing is, though, whether or not nature appears designed has no relevance to whether or not it is, so the logical pathway is to actually search for a designer first. And most atheists are open to investigating that.

That's why you absolutely refuse to acknowledge design. Evolution is so nice a neat that you dont have to get into the messy business of a designer.

-_- what the heck is "nice and neat" about the theory of evolution compared to a designer? Plenty of people on here can't understand the theory of evolution whatsoever, but I've never seen a single person for whom the concept that something intelligent made life on this planet was too difficult for them to understand.

Yet there is no way to show evolution from a common ancestor ever happened or could happen.

Are you suggesting that paternity tests don't work? Because to suggest that shared ancestry can't be determined at all means you think we can't genetically compare people and find out if they are related, and how far back that they are related.

It can't be tested, or verified. You can look at facts and find two options.

False dichotomy, and one which is especially weird considering how many people support a combination of a designer AND the theory of evolution.

Evolution or design. It's an interpretation of facts.

-_- how else am I supposed to interpret the fact that there is no solid evidence for a designer whatsoever?

Yet evolution is more often chosen despite that every observable fact in this world shows design is the more reliable answer.

Demonstrate evidence for a designer that actually looks at the designer itself.

 

[Aman777]

Explanation: following the emergence of primitive cells from a prebiotic chemistry a period of sustained evolutionary development from an initial ancestor, common to all subsequent life, continued for some 3.5 billion years, during which time mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, chance and the like led to the emergence of mammalian quadrupeds, classified today as primates. One branch of these primates acquired an enlarged brain, bipedal stance and behavioural characteristics that included tool making. This branch had evolved sufficiently so that around 180,000 years ago it could reasonably be classified as homo sapiens.

False since life doesn't generate spontaneously. God "created and brought forth" from WATER every living creature that moves. Gen 1:21 Godless people changed that Fact by claiming that anything which comes from water is "Natural". Then, they dreamed up a Theory and began selling it to children as Fact. These people don't seem to know that an increased punishment awaits them since they have offended one of the little ones who believe in Jesus. Mat 18:6

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
The KJV is the oldest and most read and less altered of the other versions. We live today in the last days and the KJV is obviously the one which God wanted us to read.

Why is that obvious?

It's obvious to those who know that God is perfect and more intelligent than any man. IF He had wanted us to read another version, the KJV would NOT be the most read, but it is. Amen?