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 am interested in where the words came from. The biblical writings were anything BUT a strictly physical activity. It was men moved by the Holy Spirit, and Loudmouth can't see that in action thousands of years ago. Really. I am being patient here, but would suggest you be careful about siding with evos.
Fancy names aside, were these things men or not?
The truth is that if I were inspired to write this post, you would not be able to see it. Do you have a ghost busting machine, and a time machine, to go back and look at whether holy men of God were inspired and recording what God said to?? No. So do not tell us that men wrote the bible. That is like saying a quill wrote it.I'm not siding with anyone. This isn't a competition.
The truth doesn't matter what you are interested in, nor that anyone can go back to verify or challenge what the text says. All we can do is trust the text as reliable, and the text says men wrote the Bible.
Speak truth and I'll agree with you, too.
OK, unless someone disagrees with you with good reason, let's say they are not men. So? Why would anyone care about dead apes? --Because part of their dead bodies look a bit like a part of someone from the kind of man?I say homo erectus are not men....
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.If God authored it through the hands of men, then it was still the hands of men that wrote it. Perhaps you fail to understand that writing is strickly a physical activity.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.All we can do is trust the text as reliable, and the text says men wrote the Bible.
I say homo erectus are not men.
Turkana Boy is your best specimen and he was found with a small neural canal indicative of a lack of sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability. The skull still looks very ape like.
Although the human skull is very varied I see the variation way outside humanity today.
If you tip the skull back a little further, where I think it should be, all the more does Turkana Boy look like an ape.
Some creationists think Erectus is human. Up until Turkana Boy most did not. Turkana Boy is also young and would have developed even more ape like features in adulthood.
Your researchers have gone to great lengths to show that Turkana Boy is an intermediate. However, evolutionists do not know what the chimp/human ancestor looks like. Neither do creationists know what the first ape looked like. For all we know the first ape may not have had long arms and these may have lengthened due to adaptation.
However the bible states that . . .
I do not believe . . .
The other problem is the fossil record for chimps going back to the common ancestor. There are few. I believe that is because every adaptation of ape is put into the human line, often to be exited soon after.
Given that Lucy asnd Ardi are now challenged as human ancestors.
Given that erectus is also being challenged as a direct human ancestor, given that Turkana Boy is classified as both ergaster and erectus demonstrating vagueness in classification, given that Erectus is not capable of sophisticated language and higher reasonong ability, my deduction from the evidence available is that Homo Erectus is not human but is a variety of ape that may have had adaptations of shorter arms. There is too much discontinuity for this creature to be human.
Therefore I see no intermediates, but rather evidence for the creation of distinct kinds, ape & human.
This along with such things like the sudden appearance of tetrapods 395mya,
the dating of modern birds via footprints dated to 212myo,
a lack of human intermediates,
fossils of various different kinds I see as misrepresented in the fossil evidence eg Indohyus,
creationist dating methods such as helium addition,
I feel there is no need to change my beliefs . . .
The evidence for evolution is just not strong and stable enough for me to change my views.
I see TOE as a theory in evolution itself with a long way to go before it stabilizes and starts confirming stable and consistent data as opposed to new finds and data often causing shifts in thinking.
I cannot explain the coalescence and animation God used to create life instantly. God is a deity and has access to science we have yet to even form a notion about. I believe God does not use magic, but does use physics mankind is not aware of.
The data is the data. Either side can debate the validity of the methods used, either side can put up an interpretation of the evidence.
However I honestly believe . . .
I think it is sad that evolutionists are unable to acknowledge what creationists see.
I and many other creationists at least can see what evolutionists look to and the interpretaions evolutionists make of the data.
Creationist theory is more stable with data amounting and continuing to validate evolutionary paradigms rather than changing them.
The truth is that if I were inspired to write this post, you would not be able to see it. Do you have a ghost busting machine, and a time machine, to go back and look at whether holy men of God were inspired and recording what God said to?? No. So do not tell us that men wrote the bible. That is like saying a quill wrote it.
And you, man, have you something informed to say about it? Or is this some silly 'God used men to speak to the world of men, so it was all just men, blah..'?
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
So is it a man or not?
OK, unless someone disagrees with you with good reason, let's say they are not men. So? Why would anyone care about dead apes? --Because part of their dead bodies look a bit like a part of someone from the kind of man?
The data is the data. Either side can debate the validity of the methods used, either side can put up an interpretation of the evidence. However I honestly believe that creationist interpretations are often the most parsinomous and align with much data without the need for complicated and often non plausible explanations.
Someone doesn't know the art of amanuensis, does he?Another piece of literature written by men claiming to speak for God.
It is verbal plenary inspiration of the holy word of God; and just so you don't get too comfortable with your theory, the Ten Commandments were written by God, Himself.It is, once again, man's reasoning based on man's writing.
Someone doesn't know the art of amanuensis, does he?
It is verbal plenary inspiration of the holy word of God; and just so you don't get too comfortable with your theory, the Ten Commandments were written by God, Himself.
Wow -- I would think Mr. Literature Professor here would understand the art of amanuensis better than most here.Someone knows it -- and thinks it's a crock.
Wow -- I would think Mr. Literature Professor here would understand the art of amanuensis better than most here.
Am I the only one that understands that when a secretary types a letter that was dictated to her, the letter goes out as being from the boss, not the secretary?
It is verbal plenary inspiration of the holy word of God;
and just so you don't get too comfortable with your theory, the Ten Commandments were written by God, Himself.
Am I the only one that understands that when a secretary types a letter that was dictated to her, the letter goes out as being from the boss, not the secretary?
Am I the only one who understands that I'm taking your points with a grain of salt?Am I the only one who understand that the secretary can show that the Boss actually exists independently of the letter?
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?