They are Both true!

ImmortalTechnique · Aug 8, 2005

if literal six day creation is indeed the only possible interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible is demonstrably false, and there is no reason for Judaism, Christanity, and even Islam would have a lot of problems.

Trying to prove Creationism from the Bible is actually like trying to bring down monotheism, since it is obvious that YEC is patently false

Mistermystery · Aug 8, 2005

azzy said:
to degrade man who was created in Gods image,and in his likeness.

I can't be bothered by the rest of it, but seriously, Do you believe that His image is the outside of things? That seems pretty weird since there are enough "ugly" looking people on the face of the planet.

John16:2 · Aug 8, 2005

Mistermystery said:
I can't be bothered by the rest of it, but seriously, Do you believe that His image is the outside of things? That seems pretty weird since there are enough "ugly" looking people on the face of the planet.

Not all have the genes of the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2, but Job did, and his daughters were the most beautiful anywhere.

The race of the "sons of the prophets" is mentioned in 1 Kings 20:35-41 KJV or 3 Kings 20:35-41 other versions, where one tried to pass as ordinary by smearing black ash on his hair and skin. It didn't work.

The Publius Lentius document was a letter to Rome from a captain describing Jesus as the most beautiful person he'd ever seen in all his travels for Rome, with hair like golden wine in the sun, and a very dead serious face and manner. Some dispute the authenticity of the document, but I see far more motive to discredit our only specific description of Christ, than for inventing him.

An angel announced the pregnancy of Mary, indicating artificial insemination as possible. The Lord is Lord, but one of the sons of God in Job 1:6. David and Zechariah spoke of his beauty also.

No guard at the gene pool here, and many righteous have been killed like the 900000 Protestant Reformationists killed by Inquisition Jesuits, and the Roman persecution, and since. Smart people don't have children in this hellhole of a purgatory. Jeremiah 16:2.

ImmortalTechnique · Aug 8, 2005

if you are equating mary's pregnancy to artificial insemination, where does God's sperm come from? did the angel bring down a test tube full of it?

John16:2 · Aug 8, 2005

ImmortalTechnique said:
if you are equating mary's pregnancy to artificial insemination, where does God's sperm come from? did the angel bring down a test tube full of it?

I'd bet the genes came from the same pool as the "sons of God" of Job 1:6, & 38:8, and Genesis 6:2!
You'd have to ask them where they got their genes, from an even higher species or as children of the Lord.

appleofhiseye · Aug 8, 2005

Mistermystery said:
I can't be bothered by the rest of it, but seriously, Do you believe that His image is the outside of things? That seems pretty weird since there are enough "ugly" looking people on the face of the planet.

hey! who you callin' ugly? lol

Most christian doctrine says we have a spirit just as God is spirit. That is how we are in the image of God, we are spiritual beings as well as physical.

Mistermystery · Aug 8, 2005

John16:2 said:
Not all have the genes of the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2, but Job did, and his daughters were the most beautiful anywhere.

Yeah well. That is not what I asked. But uh, since we all suposidly came from adam, shouldn't we all have God's genes?

But I think to be honest you are wrong if you think that piece of scripture deals about something else, then something so superficially as the outside.

Mistermystery · Aug 8, 2005

appleofhiseye said:
hey! who you callin' ugly? lol

Most christian doctrine says we have a spirit just as God is spirit. That is how we are in the image of God, we are spiritual beings as well as physical.

Exactly, that's what the scripture is talking about, not the physical outside, but the inside. (lose the last two words and we are in agreement 100% )

gluadys · Aug 8, 2005

John16:2 said:
The Publius Lentius document was a letter to Rome from a captain describing Jesus as the most beautiful person he'd ever seen in all his travels for Rome, with hair like golden wine in the sun, and a very dead serious face and manner. Some dispute the authenticity of the document, but I see far more motive to discredit our only specific description of Christ, than for inventing him.

An angel announced the pregnancy of Mary, indicating artificial insemination as possible. The Lord is Lord, but one of the sons of God in Job 1:6. David and Zechariah spoke of his beauty also.

Isaiah, on the other hand, disagrees.

he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Isaiah 53:2b

Talcos Stormweaver · Aug 8, 2005

I'd bet the genes came from the same pool as the "sons of God" of Job 1:6, & 38:8, and Genesis 6:2!
You'd have to ask them where they got their genes, from an even higher species or as children of the Lord.

That would hardly make since. Mary's birth was immaculate. How would she have passed down those genes if she herself did not possess them and it was a virgin birth? Also, higher species? Aliens and artificial insemination now, isn't it?

Hydra009 · Aug 8, 2005

azzy said:
In my humble opinion,sometimes evolution is a way to degrade man

Too bad. Natura non contristatur. Humans are interesting in that we like to think the universe revolves around us, literally. Egotism is not a good place to start when attempting to find out how nature works, it leads to much disappointment.

God is absolutly able to creat this whole universe in 6 days.Even if we dont see how he can do it,He is still able to.

Apparently dis aliter visum.

gluadys · Aug 8, 2005

azzy said:
God is absolutly able to creat this whole universe in 6 days.Even if we dont see how he can do it,He is still able to.

Sure he is able to. But the whole universe says he didn't. Why did he make the universe provide evidence of a long history if he created in six days a short time ago?

Who is lying if the universe is not telling us a straight story?

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to figure that maybe we haven't understood the bible as well as we ought, than to assume God is a deceiving creator?

John16:2 · Aug 9, 2005

gluadys said:
Sure he is able to. But the whole universe says he didn't. Why did he make the universe provide evidence of a long history if he created in six days a short time ago?

Who is lying if the universe is not telling us a straight story?

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to figure that maybe we haven't understood the bible as well as we ought, than to assume God is a deceiving creator?

Not all creationists fall under your no slack policy towards the Bible account of it, based on Hebrew oral tradition passed since 9600BC, the Pleistocene cataclysm science knows as fact. Hebrews STILL have an oral tradition outsiders aren't privy to.

6 days can be 6000 years, according to 2 Peter 3:8, and even longer as each day symbolic of an age. No slack literalists can't afford to give the Bible any slack, or their case gets weak. 2 Peter 3:8 says give the Bible slack.

ANY human culture had to be after Adam, including the global pyramid culture utterly destroyed with ALL its' knowledge lost. Science didn't base the Pleistocene cataclysm on Plato, but Plato also pinpointed the Atlantean cataclysm at 9600BC. atlan.org. Now y'all say the Bible can't match up with it, but it does anyhow.

Hebrew scholars don't even know when Job lived, or anyone before him...it's all guesswork.

cerad · Aug 9, 2005

Teft said:
... Can you imagine how long the Genesis would be if it laid out the whole process, and what would it matter? And the whole "on the 5th day" thing - day helps us understand the process, not the actual time table. The Bible is symbolic (Noahs Ark, come on), not "literal". It would lack any beauty and eloquence if it were....
Teft

I have read similiar statements about how inserting a bit of science into Genesis would destroy it's beauty. Why is that poets (especially divinely inspired ones) are so incompentent that they can't add a fact or two? Would it have really hurt the story if it mentioned that the universe was created about 15 billion years ago? And imagine the impact if they had done so.

Jet Black · Aug 9, 2005

cerad said:
I have read similiar statements about how inserting a bit of science into Genesis would destroy it's beauty. Why is that poets (especially divinely inspired ones) are so incompentent that they can't add a fact or two? Would it have really hurt the story if it mentioned that the universe was created about 15 billion years ago? And imagine the impact if they had done so.

it would have taken the edge off the monty python song about the universe.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 9, 2005

cerad said:
I have read similiar statements about how inserting a bit of science into Genesis would destroy it's beauty. Why is that poets (especially divinely inspired ones) are so incompentent that they can't add a fact or two? Would it have really hurt the story if it mentioned that the universe was created about 15 billion years ago? And imagine the impact if they had done so.

The fact that the Genesis writers didn't know the universe was 15 billion years old might have been a bit of a snag.

John16:2 · Aug 9, 2005

cerad said:
I have read similiar statements about how inserting a bit of science into Genesis would destroy it's beauty. Why is that poets (especially divinely inspired ones) are so incompentent that they can't add a fact or two? Would it have really hurt the story if it mentioned that the universe was created about 15 billion years ago? And imagine the impact if they had done so.

"A day with the Lord is as a THOUSAND years"-2 Peter 3:8. Yet enemies of Biblical validity DEMAND ALL in the Bible MUST be literal, in spite of the fact that the Genesis creation story is the result of Hebrew ORAL TRADITION that still continues now, that outsiders aren't privy to, since the Pleistocene cataclysm of 9600BC.

The days of creation are eras. The global pyramid culture & all its' knowledge are totally lost in the Atlantean cataclysm of 9600BC. ANY human culture had to be after Adam. I know y'all will keep beating the YEC strawman weakpoint, while ignoring that the Bible IS validated, regardless if the waters over mountains statement is a generalization or not. Deny the Pleistocene cataclysm, and you deny your own science, and the Bible.

cerad · Aug 9, 2005

John16:2 said:
The days of creation are eras. The global pyramid culture & all its' knowledge are totally lost in the Atlantean cataclysm of 9600BC. ANY human culture had to be after Adam. I know y'all will keep beating the YEC strawman weakpoint, while ignoring that the Bible IS validated, regardless if the waters over mountains statement is a generalization or not. Deny the Pleistocene cataclysm, and you deny your own science, and the Bible.

I should know better than to feed you but I just can't seem to resist. How exactly have I denied the "Pleistocene cataclysm". And if days are eras then why not just say era? Not poetic enough? Or is it a pyramid thing?

Mistermystery · Aug 9, 2005

John16:2 said:
"A day with the Lord is as a THOUSAND years"-2 Peter 3:8. Yet enemies of Biblical validity DEMAND ALL in the Bible MUST be literal,

Oh sure, *we* are saying that the bible is saying the Earth is young *rolleyes*

Brilliant way of thinking there.

John16:2 · Aug 9, 2005

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
The fact that the Genesis writers didn't know the universe was 15 billion years old might have been a bit of a snag.

Your argument is based on expectation that all contributors to the Bible HAD to be equal to God; omniscient & infallable, while ignoring that Jonah was incorrect, yet a man of God.

You demand no errors from the Hebrew oral tradition still used since 9600BC, which Genesis was based on, not prophecy. Who ever claimed to have been there witnessing?

Bible does NOT say how old creation is, or deny the age of it. You act like it does. Hebrew scholars have no firm knowledge of when Job or Adam lived. The Pleistocene cataclysm matches the Biblical cataclysm closely enough, if you don't demand that the Genesis writer cannot have spoken generally about mountains covered, instead of ALL mountains totally covered.

The tribulation predictions are scientifically accurate; the effects of major meteoric event & impact, with a global quake, roaring seas, darkened skies, the world ruined in 1 hours time. Y'all nitpickers may want to time the shock wave, so you can call prophecy wrong by 1 minute 45 seconds!

"the seas became as blood" Rev 16. Now the UN Environmental Program cites 150 GROWING dead zones from "red tide", as predicted. Google "Mir mold" about radiation mutated fungus behind it, and fruit cancre, and soybean rust, & sudden oak death syndrome, and algae blooms. The seas are now dying, as predicted. The signs of the heavens are accomplished with 3 comets hitting the sun since Aug 1998, and the Jupiter impacts, and Isaiah 34:4 confirmed by science. It is soon, by the predicted signs. Atheists ought to investigate evidence of the afterlife, starting with ghostresearch.org & ghostpix.com. You don't have to believe in God to see the evidence.

The 1000 year reign is for the 144000 redeemed in the "new earth", for the old earth shall not recover from the impact ever, Rev 18:21. Christians may take warning to get camping water filters before the REST of tribulation prophecy is accomplished. Acts 3:23.

They are Both true!

Senior Veteran

Here's looking at you kid

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Here's looking at you kid

Here's looking at you kid

Legend

Fighter of Ignorance!

bel esprit

Legend

Well-Known Member

Zebra Fan

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Zebra Fan

Here's looking at you kid

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency