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.
I say "maybe" you say "definitely". That's adding to the Bible.Does it matter if the passage is talking about the USA or Peru? either way, you would accuse me of adding to the Bible, wouldn't you?
You say: "maybe USA or Peru".
I say: "some European nation".
What's the difference?
Either way, "adding to the Bible" is a false accusation.
Not that I can tell. But neither does the NT.
An addition (I think) is that the god of the Koran creates the animals from water (Adam is created from clay).
Sura 24:45
Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.
I just showed that the Koran describes more about how the animals were created. I would count that as a footnote. Another example would be that the Koran describes its god as creating "the seven heavens".
Sura 2:29
It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then He directed Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation], and made them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things.
Whereas you have offered:
This does not even describe the act of creation, much less tell us anything about it. It is simply a reference to 'the beginning of time'. This does not say very much about creationism.
So let me get this straight.I say "maybe" you say "definitely". That's adding to the Bible.
I do not agree the above applies to "most" Christians. Not even close. YECs are a vocal minority.That's because for most Christians/creationists the Bible is not enough, that's why they argue against evolution and keep looking for Noah's Ark, they can not sit quietly and free good about what they believe they must all try to prove to themselves and every one else that there is no doubt that what they believe is true, how can they not? who in their right mind would believe something that was not true? with no supporting evidence they are caught in a vicious trap.
I'm sorry, it's hard to parse this run-on sentence. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.The stories in the Bible are told to the young and some of them accept them as fact but most just can not come to terms with them and deep down don't believe them, they however see what it means to their parents so they try as hard as they can to believe them in order to please them, everyone around them says the stories are true [even the people who do not believe them] so they can at least tell themselves there must be something to the stories even if they are not fully committed to believing them.
Please provide Biblical support for this claim.Meaning, in other words, you've never heard it before?
That's usually the first thing I think of when I get accused of "adding to the Bible".
What they're really saying is: "I never heard that before."
The Antichrist will indeed come from a ten-nation European confederacy.
I call it making it up as you go along.You call it "adding to the Bible;" we call it "basic doctrine."
Why in the world should I Google some random claim you made?If you were to just Google it (and I find it hard to believe you and Queller didn't), I think you'd find I didn't make it up -- whether you believe what comes up or not.
If the truth fits...But it's much easier to accuse someone of just "adding to the Bible," isn't it?
But why are they scattered pieces of information and are scattered in different Sura(s)? In comparison, Genesis 1 is complete and is far more beautiful.
The verse of I Peter 1 explains the relationship between the creation and Lord Jesus. This is not clearly said in Genesis.
here is another one:
I Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
Yes, but as I've mentioned, Islam accepts Judaism and the Torah, just as Christianity does. Why are the NT scriptures you've mentioned so scattered, and don't even mention much of the creation process? In comparison, the Koran at least copies (and expands) the Genesis narrative of creation.
That's because the Israelites didn't know anything about Jesus. Just adding Jesus name does not tell us anything about creationism.
All that says is that the god of the NT is the creator. That doesn't say very much at all.
Really, if that's the best you got, it's clear that the Koran is more creationist than the New Testament.
Umm, hello? Prajapati created the egg. That makes it creationism.
Tell me this, people that believe in evolution, if you disagree with creationists so much, why is Christianity the only religion thats hated?
and why do people only Use Jesus's name as a swear word and no one else's name?
why do people hate christianity so much but not muslims?
so you are trying to get us Christians to disprove evolution for you?
So you basicly are always asking US to disprove it for you, while you ignore every other religion, as I said before sense you do this YOU know there is truth in the Bible, and that it is the WORD OF GOD, but you want evolution disproved, even though you know its false already.
Alot of you will disagree with what I just wrote, but every athiest/evolutionist I've seen shows that they do believe in the word of God/The Bible, if you didn't you would just ignore it, and you would also attack other religions other then Christianity.
First, your arguments totally missed the point. The creation in "Christianity" is completely described in Genesis 1.
Which verse in koran is that?
Given that a) you don't know the reference is to the Roman Empire and b) much of the Roman Empire wasn't European then yes, stating that it definitely refers to Europe is "adding to the Bible".So let me get this straight.
You think one of the ten toes of Daniel 2 "might be" the USA or Peru; and anyone who says it is an European nation from the breakup of the Roman empire is "adding to the Bible" ... is that it?
Suit yourself.
Google is your friend ... let's let it end here.Given that a) you don't know the reference is to the Roman Empire and b) much of the Roman Empire wasn't European then yes, stating that it definitely refers to Europe is "adding to the Bible".
Google is, indeed my friend but apparently not your friend. It tells me (quite rightly) that there are several conflicting interpretations of that passage. Therefore, anyone who states categorically "this is what the Bible says" is adding to the Bible.Google is your friend ... let's let it end here.
Unless your goal is to keep on assuming I'm adding to the Bible, in which case Google is your enemy.
Fine, the creation in "Islam" is completely described in Genesis 1.
I still maintain (and the evidence in this thread so far shows) that the Koran has more specific references to creation than the NT.
And yet you somehow have suggested that the Koran is evolutionary. Why do you think so?
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?