Only way?

[Colter]

True. The pertinent question then is whether or not the clock used to make the measurements - radioactive decay - has in fact been uniform. If the clock has slowed down significantly, or sped up, the estimated dates will be off, perhaps by orders of magnitude.

There was interesting work by the Russians that indicated that the speed of light may have decayed over the ages. And "c", of course, is a fundamental factor in any process involving energy - including radioactive decay.

This isn't an argument, just an observation of the need to assume a constant rate of decay over time for the clock to be accurate. If c has decayed, then the rate of decay has also decayed with it, and the clock has slowed down. How much? Well, that's an interesting question without a currently known answer. The Soviets speculated perhaps 20,000 times.

I'm aware of that, but we aren't talking about slowing it down to the Hebrews 6 day, YEC story. Mortal death is normal, the salvaged awake from the sleep of death without any sense that any time had lapsed.

 

[Vicomte13]

I'm aware of that, but we aren't talking about slowing it down to the Hebrews 6 day, YEC story. Mortal death is normal, the salvaged awake from the sleep of death without any sense that any time had lapsed.

As to the first part, I read the "Yom" to be a period of "OR" - order. So those "days" are not 24-hour periods. This makes people mad, though, and I don't really care either way, so I'm not willing to get into an argument about that with anybody.

As far as the second part, I think that what has been revealed through both experiences and the written word, is that the body rots but the spirit goes on, awake and aware, to Paradise or Gehenna (to pay the debt of sins). At the end of the world, bodies are made anew and the spirits pass back into them, becoming living souls once again: this is the resurrection. Then comes judgment.

So, I think that the spirits are aware during the time they are not part of a soul - they are aware in Paradise or Gehenna, awaiting the next developments.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you were to study dating techniques such as radioactive decay rates using the half lives of isotopes you will learn how we can date the earth at 4.5+ billions of years old as well as life at 3 billion and the Cambrian explosion at 350,000,000 years. The fossil record demonstrates many forms of life that lived during many different ages as well as the evolution of those early life forms which lead to the next. Humans and our pre-humanoid ancestors date to millions of years old.

The authors of the Bible didn't know any better, they were just writing a story.

So, if the authors of the Bible didn't know any better, then the Bible is incorrect, the Bible is a story, a fable, a lie.... So, if this is true, does that not make this scripture relevant...

1 Corinthians 15:12-19New International Version (NIV)
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

IF the authors were oblivious to the truth of the creation, at what point did they begin writing the truth? What parts of the Bible are true, which ones are just stories and how do we know the difference?

Dating items pulled out of the ground is an unproven method. There are too many speculations in the process. Like I said, things have been dated and one part is billions of years older or younger than a different piece of the same artifact.

The wisdom and knowledge of man will never be my first choice when dealing with things that happened thousands of years ago.

If the Bible states something and mans "empirical science" disagrees, it is because "empirical science" is wrong and is missing a piece of the puzzle.

I will build my house on the rock (God's word) not the sand (wisdom of men).

I bet my eternal life on it.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

Interestingly, the fossil layers in the Grand Canyon, having multiple layers from each supposed multi-million year time period, are quite often penetrated vertically by fossilized tree stumps. Therefore, unless those trees were alive for hundreds of millions of years, this shows that the layers did not compound over millions of years, but only over the lifetime of those trees, but likely much more quickly.

Here's another! Secular physicists in Canada have show that light "explosions" being blasted over pure water in a vacuum, breaks the water into super-heated Hydrogen and Oxygen gases, the very thing that makes up the stars in our Galaxy. They also postulate that if all the energy in the universe instantly "exploded" over a large body of water (as described in Genesis 1), that our entire universe, as it is today, could have come into existence in as little as 5, 24-hour days.

SUGGESTION: If you want to discover the Truth, scientifically, and for yourself, I suggest researching "The Origin of Light".

It's "ENLIGHTENING" LOL. Sorry. Couldn't help myself

 

[Strong in Him]

That's what will happen. It has been happening for five hundred years. We will each quote Scriptures, they contradict, and if we persist, the conversation will indeed get heated.

Maybe.
But it's a shame that a productive and useful conversation may not take place because we are afraid of it getting out of control. It's a shame any time someone doesn't do something for fear that it may go wrong.

The problem is not that we don't know our faith and the Gospel. We both know it. We both can explain it to others. But what we know and what we will be explaining, is quite different. And we can't agree on it because we are both certain we are right. Writ large, this is why Christianity is divided. It cannot be reconciled either, without one capitulating to the other, because the positions are almost polar opposites.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but THE Gospel is centred on Jesus; that he, God, was born as a human, that he taught, lived, died, was raised again and ascended to heaven, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. And that he chose to offer his perfect life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, John 1:29; John 10:11; Matthew 26:28; Mark 10:45; Romans 5:6-8; - and many others.
It was this act which made it possible for us to be forgiven and reconciled to God. In the OT, an perfect animal was killed, and its blood shed, to make atonement for their sin. This was only temporary, however; many sins were committed so many animals were killed. Jesus came to die once for all, Hebrews 9: 28, Hebrews 10:10, 1 Peter 3:18.
The Gospel is that we were sinners and deserved to suffer the wrath of God, but that through Jesus we can be forgiven and receive eternal life and his Holy Spirit - and it is this Spirit who assures us that we are children of God.

We, in the churches, may disagree about many things, and sometimes we argue because those things are important to us.
But as far as I am aware, every denomination accepts the Gospel. Every Christian accepts and believes that it is Jesus who saves us from sin. If Jesus had not come, we would not be reconciled to God - maybe living good lives and sincerely following our own beliefs, but still sinners and apart from God. Our good deeds do not save us; our church practices and theological positions do not save us; Jesus does.

There are people who do yeoman's work trying to find the common ground,

The common ground between all denominations is, or should be, Jesus.

trying to show that, deep down, the two belief systems are the same. But they aren't.

I'm not quite sure which two belief systems we're talking about. If you mean salvation by the cross and salvation by good deeds, then you're right.
We can have a debate about the part that good deeds play in our Christian life - how does a Christian show their faith, if not by their actions - but we shouldn't try to reconcile the two. Salvation is by Jesus alone; he is the only way to the Father, John 14:6, and the only one who can save us, Acts 4:12.

So, then, the choice we each face is: What do we DO about it? Neither one of us is going to abandon our faith, what we know to be true. What does that leave, then? Fight about it endlessly and fill the air with rancor?

No; discussion is good; fighting is not.
The thing is that as far as the Bible is concerned; people either accept the Gospel or they don't. Now we are all called to proclaim and teach the Good News, we are told we may suffer for this, because people who hated Jesus will hate us too and because darkness hates the light, and we are told to be ready to answer for the hope that is in us, 1 Peter 3:15. We have the right, and duty, to explain, teach and defend the Gospel, and I can well understand people becoming passionate about the Gospel and trying desperately to persuade those who may be mocking or refusing to believe it. But ultimately, this is not our job. We proclaim the Good News; it is God who works in someone to respond and want to become a disciple of Jesus. We are responsible for how we teach and explain, but the unbeliever's response, sign of faith, willingness to listen and so on is down to God. We can pray for them, but I don't think we can make them respond to what we are saying.

I think it might be possible to have such a conversation in private, without an audience.

I'm sure we could have a conversation by messaging each other, if you like. But this debate has been started on a public forum, and there may be people reading this thread who want to know the answers.

In a nutshell, it comes down to how one weighs the words of Scripture, what trumps what.

Scripture doesn't contradict itself and there are no mistakes, so it is not about "what trumps what". If we read a verse or passage which seems to say one thing; very often there will be another verse or passage which confirms, or explains it.
Our understanding is often at fault; Scripture never is.

 

[Vicomte13]

Scripture doesn't contradict itself and there are no mistakes, so it is not about "what trumps what".

This is a dogmatic statement, and it is not true. Scripture does contradict itself.

What Jesus says and what Paul says are often in quite sharp contrast. And in all such cases, Jesus trumps.

What Jesus says and what James says are in contrast in some places, and Jesus trumps.

Certainly what Moses said and what Jesus said conflict, and Jesus trumps.

We cannot have the conversation. It will consist of you making dogmatic statements such as the one I quoted, and also your assertion of "what the Gospel is". No, that is not what the Gospel is. The good news is something else.

Neither of us is going to accept, even for the sake of argument, what we are certain is not true. I know what the good news is, and it isn't what you've said it is. I know where the Scriptures conflict, and you will never accept that they do.

So, what can we do, then, but repeat dogma at each other over and over and over again? Christians have been doing this for 500 years. And they were doing it back in the early centuries also.

It is true that other people are reading this. It is equally true that those people will side with me or with you depending on where they already stand on the matter. We will be refighting the Reformation, yet again, and that game is not worth the candle to me.

Our religions are centered on different things, and we believe them for different reasons. We will not see eye to eye in this life. If I'm right, we will be able to see eye to eye in the next life. If you're right, we won't be seeing each other in the next life.

I'm content to defer the argument until then, because then there will be no argument. On this side, it isn't possible to have the discussion without a dogmatic argument, which will revolve on appeals to authority that the other does not accept as authoritative. Then what? Neither of us can appeal to force, so it will just be repeating the same tired, hackeneyed arguments that Christians have been having for a half-millennium.

The game is not worth the candle to me.

 

[Strong in Him]

We cannot have the conversation. It will consist of you making dogmatic statements such as the one I quoted, and also your assertion of "what the Gospel is". No, that is not what the Gospel is. The good news is something else.

Neither of us is going to accept, even for the sake of argument, what we are certain is not true. I know what the good news is, and it isn't what you've said it is.

What I explained is the Gospel; I gave several verses to demonstrate it and I can explain why I say that that is what it is.

But you have just said that you don't believe it, nor, presumably, the Scriptures which teach it. You also think that Scripture contradicts itself.
So despite what I said before, I agree; there's no point in arguing about it.

By the way, I don't see it as a game, but an attempt to explain the Gospel and my faith. Looks like it might have to remain unsaid.

 

[Vicomte13]

What I explained is the Gospel; I gave several verses to demonstrate it and I can explain why I say that that is what it is.

But you have just said that you don't believe it, nor, presumably, the Scriptures which teach it. You also think that Scripture contradicts itself.
So despite what I said before, I agree; there's no point in arguing about it.

You explained what you believe the Gospel to be, what the Gospel is to you, and some others. It is well. Go in peace.

 

[Strong in Him]

You explained what you believe the Gospel to be, what the Gospel is to you, and some others. It is well. Go in peace.

You too.
God bless.

 

[miknik5]

It is said that Adam and Eve brought sin and death to the earth, but if that was true, and no one was supposed to die, the earth would be very, very crowded. Adam and Eve lost their own immortality status, death was already normal on the earth. The proof in in the ground.

Did GOD's command to Adam and Eve already sound like GOD already knew mankind's disobedience?

 

[miknik5]

If we were fully alive and there was no possibility of our/Adam/mankind falling, why was there a tree of LIFE in the garden already?

 

[miknik5]

And why, when we/Adam/mankind fell was the way blocked lest any man eat from the tree of Life and live forever?

Was the way back to the tree of LIFE provided?

 

[Colter]

Did GOD's command to Adam and Eve already sound like GOD already knew mankind's disobedience?

The Hebrew priest who wrote Genesis had the benefit of hindsight. They were the voice of God speculating.

 

[Colter]

If we were fully alive and there was no possibility of our/Adam/mankind falling, why was there a tree of LIFE in the garden already?

The tree of life was only for Adam and Eve who arrived on a preaveously populated, evolved earth. By partaking of the tree, they could sustain life indefinatly. But they fell and lost the use of the tree, so they eventually died like man dies. Death was and is normal for man unless we "translate".

 

[Colter]

So, if the authors of the Bible didn't know any better, then the Bible is incorrect, the Bible is a story, a fable, a lie.... So, if this is true, does that not make this scripture relevant...

1 Corinthians 15:12-19New International Version (NIV)
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

IF the authors were oblivious to the truth of the creation, at what point did they begin writing the truth? What parts of the Bible are true, which ones are just stories and how do we know the difference?

Dating items pulled out of the ground is an unproven method. There are too many speculations in the process. Like I said, things have been dated and one part is billions of years older or younger than a different piece of the same artifact.

The wisdom and knowledge of man will never be my first choice when dealing with things that happened thousands of years ago.

If the Bible states something and mans "empirical science" disagrees, it is because "empirical science" is wrong and is missing a piece of the puzzle.

I will build my house on the rock (God's word) not the sand (wisdom of men).

I bet my eternal life on it.

But we do have reliable dating techniques.

Nothing that man touches is infallible. People choose to make the bible infallible because it's easier than the truth of unknowns.


When Genesis was written by Hebrews, they culled from existing lore then present in Mesopotamia in the construction of their own rather spectacular narrative, while they looked down on the Gentile world with utter contempt.

 

[Colter]

Interestingly, the fossil layers in the Grand Canyon, having multiple layers from each supposed multi-million year time period, are quite often penetrated vertically by fossilized tree stumps. Therefore, unless those trees were alive for hundreds of millions of years, this shows that the layers did not compound over millions of years, but only over the lifetime of those trees, but likely much more quickly.

Here's another! Secular physicists in Canada have show that light "explosions" being blasted over pure water in a vacuum, breaks the water into super-heated Hydrogen and Oxygen gases, the very thing that makes up the stars in our Galaxy. They also postulate that if all the energy in the universe instantly "exploded" over a large body of water (as described in Genesis 1), that our entire universe, as it is today, could have come into existence in as little as 5, 24-hour days.

SUGGESTION: If you want to discover the Truth, scientifically, and for yourself, I suggest researching "The Origin of Light".

It's "ENLIGHTENING" LOL. Sorry. Couldn't help myself

Polystrate fossils explained:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

[miknik5]

The Hebrew priest who wrote Genesis had the benefit of hindsight. They were the voice of God speculating.

Do you realize that what you are saying is in line with satan's biggest lie?

 

[Colter]

Do you realize that what you are saying is in line with satan's biggest lie?

No, I have no quote from Satan about such. Do you?

 

[miknik5]

No, I have no quote from Satan about such. Do you?

You imply that "GOD did not really say" thereby calling the TESTIMONY/TRUTH of GOD speculation

 

[miknik5]

No different sir?

"Did GOD reeaally say" is the age old lie of the age old liar.