Why Evolution is True

[BL2KTN]

The book of Peter itself state that what is written is inspired by God. this same message is repeated throughout the bible. We have 40 authors from different times, places and circumstances all agreeing on the same message. They all agreed because they were inspired by the holy spirit and not their own words. If you ask 40 people to write on a subject you will get many different opinions. Thats because they are writing about their own ideas and not Gods.

Click my signature - the bible is not the inspired word of God. Your claims are easily shown untrue with just a tiny amount of research.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes they are, lies can only come from liars, only liars tell lies, knowingly repeating lies is still telling lies.

I'm thankful you're not the judge.

For the record, a lie is an untruth, told with the intent to deceive.

I've been called a liar many times; some of which I have said something, then someone rebutted what I said, and I didn't accept the rebuttal.

Later, when I said it again, it looked to the rebutter that I had lied.

In other words, the old:

"I told you before, xyz, so why are you now in another thread repeating it?"

 

[biggles53]

The book of Peter itself state that what is written is inspired by God. this same message is repeated throughout the bible. We have 40 authors from different times, places and circumstances all agreeing on the same message. They all agreed because they were inspired by the holy spirit and not their own words. If you ask 40 people to write on a subject you will get many different opinions. Thats because they are writing about their own ideas and not Gods.

1 Peter 2:21 states, "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Steve, the least you could do is actually research the thing that you claim to believe in, rather than just parroting the BS put out there by lazy apologists....

The authors "agree" because they were specifically chosen by a panel of human beings to be included in the canon...! The books that didn't meet with their approval were discarded......so, surprise, surprise, there is a degree of conformity about them...!

But, despite all that selectivity, the damned things still contradict one another........and we're supposed to accept them as being inspired by a god....!??

 

[MuchWiser]

I'm thankful you're not the judge.

For the record, a lie is an untruth, told with the intent to deceive.

I've been called a liar many times; some of which I have said something, then someone rebutted what I said, and I didn't accept the rebuttal.

Later, when I said it again, it looked to the rebutter that I had lied.

In other words, the old:

"I told you before, xyz, so why are you now in another thread repeating it?"

Once a person knows a statement is a lie and they repeat it they become liars because they know they are telling a lie.

I know that evolution is true, if I say it's not because I don't want to believe that it is I am a liar, ignorance is no excuse.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a moon because I refuse to go out after dark and I refuse to look at the sky during the day, if I tell you there is no such thing as a moon am I telling you a lie?

 

[AV1611VET]

Once a person knows a statement is a lie and they repeat it they become liars because they know they are telling a lie.

That doesn't make them a liar.

Do people lie because they are liars, or are they liars because they lie?

I know that evolution is true, if I say it's not because I don't want to believe that it is I am a liar,

If you want to consider yourself a liar, knock yourself out.

Just don't expect us to do the same.

ignorance is no excuse.

Funny ... I thought ignorance played a big part in whether someone is a liar or not.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a moon because I refuse to go out after dark and I refuse to look at the sky during the day, if I tell you there is no such thing as a moon am I telling you a lie?

No.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, the least you could do is actually research the thing that you claim to believe in, rather than just parroting the BS put out there by lazy apologists....

The authors "agree" because they were specifically chosen by a panel of human beings to be included in the canon...! The books that didn't meet with their approval were discarded......so, surprise, surprise, there is a degree of conformity about them...!

But, despite all that selectivity, the damned things still contradict one another........and we're supposed to accept them as being inspired by a god....!??

Well I have done the research and most of the ones that were not accepted were not put in the bible because they contradicted the doctrines of what was considered inspired. Not because they wanted to make it all conform but because they actually didn't agree with some of the core beliefs of the gospels. There are a few that didn't make it like the gospel of Thomas, and and some other letters to the Corinthians. They dont contradict the bible but were not included for other reasons like there was doubt that Paul had written the other letters to the Corinthians or some were found much later and there was no evidence of them being in use in the early church. They may well have been ok but there was to much doubt to validate them. But there was no conspiracy to hide any books. All the other so call books can be read and and are not hidden from the public. They were just not considered for various reasons.

1. They were not referenced by Jesus. Jesus directly referenced the entire Jewish canon of Scripture by referring to Abel (the first martyr in the Old Testament) and Zacharias (the last martyr in the OT) (Matt. 23:35). He also never quotes directly from any of the apocryphal writings but makes numerous references to the Old Testament books.
2. They lacked apostolic1 or prophetic authorship.
3. They did not claim to be the Word of God.
4. They contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) or the condoning of magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
5. They have serious historical inaccuracies (For more information, see "Errors in the Apocrypha").

Are there lost books of the Bible?|Is the Bible missing books? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

The small inconsistencies in the bible are in the smaller detail. That will happen when you have many different people reporting on events with their own perspectives. What I am talking about is the core beliefs that God is the only God and Jesus is his Son. Jesus died and was risen from the dead and is the messiah. He is the only way yo God and forgiveness for sins. Plus all the other teachings surrounding these and the role of the holy spirit are all consistent throughout the books. None disagree and all teach the same thing with some varying emphasis on certain aspects. If many authors from all over the world in many different times throughout history and from many walks of life tried to write about one subject they would not even be in agreement on the core aspects of these things. They are all in agreement about God and Jesus Christ. The bible is one of the most scrutinized books in history. No other book has been subjected to so much critical examination and have had so many people trying so hard to discredit such a book. But still it has stood the test of time and is still the most powerful book ever in the history of this world. If any other book was subjected to so much close examination it would not stand up.

 

[BL2KTN]

Well I have done the research and most of the ones that were not accepted were not put in the bible because they contradicted the doctrines of what was considered inspired. Not because they wanted to make it all conform but because they actually didn't agree with some of the core beliefs of the gospels.

How can you say "not because they wanted to make it all conform" and then say "but because they actually didn't agree with some of the core beliefs of the (and by that you mean the selected, not destroyed) gospels. Only choosing the ones that agree with what you want is called "making it all conform." There were Jewish gospels that church fathers cited heavily... they were destroyed. Instead we have highly contradictory, Roman gospels pretending to be written by Jews when obviously that isn't true (the author of Matthew can't even read Hebrew).

But there was no conspiracy to hide any books. All the other so call books can be read and and are not hidden from the public. They were just not considered for various reasons.

This is false. The Jewish gospels were destroyed. Most of the other gospels were destroyed. Four were selected by Iranaeus based on the idea that there are four corners of the Earth and four winds.

They were not referenced by Jesus. Jesus directly referenced the entire Jewish canon of Scripture by referring to Abel (the first martyr in the Old Testament) and Zacharias (the last martyr in the OT) (Matt. 23:35). He also never quotes directly from any of the apocryphal writings but makes numerous references to the Old Testament books.

Doesn't matter. The Old and New Testament reference plenty of books not found in the bible as if they are scripture. Yeshua (Jesus) cites scripture which doesn't exist, misquotes the Ten Commandments, etc.

They lacked apostolic1 or prophetic authorship.

It is obvious the four gospels are not written by Jews.

They contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) or the condoning of magic (Tobit 6:5-7).

There wasn't yet a bible, so they couldn't have been "unbiblical".

They have serious historical inaccuracies

Genesis says Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans. It didn't exisst for centuries after he died. Genesis says Abraham had camels... they weren't in the middle east until the time scholars believe Genesis was written. I could keep going. Wonder how Genesis made it into the bible?

 

[stevevw]

How can you say "not because they wanted to make it all conform" and then say "but because they actually didn't agree with some of the core beliefs of the (and by that you mean the selected, not destroyed) gospels. Only choosing the ones that agree with what you want is called "making it all conform." There were Jewish gospels that church fathers cited heavily... they were destroyed. Instead we have highly contradictory, Roman gospels pretending to be written by Jews when obviously that isn't true (the author of Matthew can't even read Hebrew).

That is because you dont believe the bible in the first place and have already judge it wrong without really looking into all the facts. If you have 20 odd books all agreeing with each other then you know they all go together because they support each other. But if there are one or two or even three that are saying something else then there a very high chance that those books dont belong. Not because they want to hide them because they say something that they dont want people to hear but because they just are out of line. Have you even read the non bible books. You have obviously assumed they have some great conspiracy going on with them. Some are just crazy writings about some strange things and are easy to disregard. Some agree with the bible but were not included for the reasons I mentioned. Some have some go into particular areas of things like about Mary or Jesus early life. But mostly for one reason or another and because there maybe only 1 or 2 books saying a particular thing they dont conform with the other 20 odd books that say the same thing. If one book mentions some controversial things do you say that one book should be included when the 20 others dont agree with it. Just because some say its a book that was not included in the bible doesn't mean it has some validity. If anything it shows that if there are some false books out there that people like to mention then these are the ones and not the bible. Thats all no conspiracy or secret writings that expose the bible if yoy take the time to read them.

This is false. The Jewish gospels were destroyed. Most of the other gospels were destroyed. Four were selected by Iranaeus based on the idea that there are four corners of the Earth and four winds.

Then what are the books that are hidden. We have other gospels like Thomas and Jude that were not included for other reasons but they dont contradict the bible. If they wanted to have a certain amount of gospels then fine. But that doesn't mean that they have conspired to put false teachings in the bible.

Doesn't matter. The Old and New Testament reference plenty of books not found in the bible as if they are scripture. Yeshua (Jesus) cites scripture which doesn't exist, misquotes the Ten Commandments, etc.

And what are they.

It is obvious the four gospels are not written by Jews.

Why does that matter. Matthew was written to the Jews. Matthew was a Jew. It was written to convince the Jews that Jesus was the messiah. Matthew often mentions the law of Moses and explains the genealogy of Jesus showing he is of the line of King David.

There wasn't yet a bible, so they couldn't have been "unbiblical".

These books were written at the time when other old testament books were written. So if they were considered worthy they could have been included in the old testament.

Genesis says Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans. It didn't exisst for centuries after he died. Genesis says Abraham had camels... they weren't in the middle east until the time scholars believe Genesis was written. I could keep going. Wonder how Genesis made it into the bible?

I will answer this tomorrow as its getting late in Oz and I need to do some research on it. Not that I look forward to opening up a can of worms.

 

[BL2KTN]

That is because you dont believe the bible in the first place and have already judge it wrong without really looking into all the facts.

So I would need to believe the bible in the first place in order to judge it correctly and look into all the facts. I see. Does any other good belief work that way? Have you ever went to the doctor and the doctor say "the reason I don't think you are sick is because I don't believe you are sick in the first place"?

Facts come first.

If you have 20 odd books all agreeing with each other then you know they all go together because they support each other. But if there are one or two or even three that are saying something else then there a very high chance that those books dont belong.

This is ridicuous. There were over thirty gospels and a guy named Iraneaus picked four (13%) to correspond with the then-believed four corners of the world. Four out of thirty means they were picked based on what they wanted the compilation to say.

Not because they want to hide them because they say something that they dont want people to hear but because they just are out of line. Have you even read the non bible books. You have obviously assumed they have some great conspiracy going on with them. Some are just crazy writings about some strange things and are easy to disregard.

You mean like the dead coming back to life in Jerusalem and witnessing... despite no other book or historian mentioning such an event? Oh wait, no that's Matthew.

And no, I have not read many of the thirty gospels disallowed from the bible. Most were destroyed. I'd actually love to go back and read the Jewish gospels cited by the early church fathers.

Some have some go into particular areas of things like about Mary or Jesus early life. But mostly for one reason or another and because there maybe only 1 or 2 books saying a particular thing they dont conform with the other 20 odd books that say the same thing. If one book mentions some controversial things do you say that one book should be included when the 20 others dont agree with it. Just because some say its a book that was not included in the bible doesn't mean it has some validity. If anything it shows that if there are some false books out there that people like to mention then these are the ones and not the bible. Thats all no conspiracy or secret writings that expose the bible if yoy take the time to read them.

How big is this paragraph you have written and how many facts did you provide? Zero. This was 100% opinion, and much of it based on demonstrable falsehoods.

Then what are the books that are hidden. We have other gospels like Thomas and Jude that were not included for other reasons but they dont contradict the bible. If they wanted to have a certain amount of gospels then fine. But that doesn't mean that they have conspired to put false teachings in the bible.

They destroyed the Jewish gospels. They selected four gospels that pretend to be written by Jews but which are obviously impostors. Matthew can't even read Hebrew!

And what are they.

I get so tired of this excrement. Type it in to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' Google.

Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does that matter. Matthew was written to the Jews. Matthew was a Jew. It was written to convince the Jews that Jesus was the messiah. Matthew often mentions the law of Moses and explains the genealogy of Jesus showing he is of the line of King David.

The author of Matthew is not a Jew. He doesn't speak Hebrew and he repeatedly messes up Jewish customs.

These books were written at the time when other old testament books were written. So if they were considered worthy they could have been included in the old testament.

By who? The Old Testament (actually the Hebrew bible) was canonized hundreds of years before by Jewish priests. You think you can just start adding books to canonized scripture for other religions??? Heck, let's add Green Eggs and Ham to the Old Testament - it's more moral than Deuteronomy or Song of Solomon anyway.

I will answer this tomorrow as its getting late in Oz and I need to do some research on it. Not that I look forward to opening up a can of worms.

Do you research on it, but I am not retreading it. You can click on the link to the formal debate "The Bible is not the Inspired Word of God" and see that I already introduced this to a well-educated Christian and he couldn't defend it.

Man I wish some of you would study the real history of the bible before spouting off whatever your denomination's publishing company told you.

 

[biggles53]

Well I have done the research and most of the ones that were not accepted were not put in the bible because they contradicted the doctrines of what was considered inspired.

Oh duh....!!

Yes, they didn't conform to the particular story that was being pushed......that's the whole point....!!

Good grief....!

 

[dad]

Ummm...."the sense I mean"...? I simply stated that Peter lied.

He lied. He said that he wouldn't deny Jesus ...... and then did.

That's lying.... You can find justification for his lying if you wish. You can claim that one type of lie is not as bad as another type of lie if you wish...

But a lie is a lie...

Peter lied....

That means he's a liar...

Nope. Not to God! A sinner that God uses to bring His word to man is not a liar.

I want you evos to look at yourselves and apply God's criteria for what a liar is. Then we can all test Peter against y'all, and see who truly is a liar in the real sense of the word according to God...and me.



1Jo 2:22 -Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Now, did Peter pass the test? Yes! Did you?


Work on that.

 

[biggles53]

Nope. Not to God! A sinner that God uses to bring His word to man is not a liar.

Wow........so, I guess a pastor who lies and cheats on his wife, or perhaps one who lies and cheats on his tax returns (hello Mr Hovind ) is just a peachy guy then, as long as he keeps on preaching the 'Word'.....right...?

Wonderful set of ethics you have there......

I want you evos to look at yourselves and apply God's criteria for what a liar is. Then we can all test Peter against y'all, and see who truly is a liar in the real sense of the word according to God...and me.

You can keep your putrid morality thanks.......

 

[stevevw]

Oh duh....!!

Yes, they didn't conform to the particular story that was being pushed......that's the whole point....!!

Good grief....!

The gospels that are in the bible also relate to all the other books ie James, Jude, Timothy ect and all the letters of Paul which refer to the gospels in the bible. So the gospels confirm all the other books and letters and the letters and other books confirm the gospels. The ones that didn't get in the bible mostly dont do this. They either have one that refutes say the nativity or disagrees with the writings of the old testament. Or they are only a few verses long and have parts missing or are short and dont mean much. They may speak of astrology or dead spirits and other stuff that isn't in line with the bible. There is only a few that maybe considered in line with the bible like the gospel of Thomas. But they dont contradict the bible and so dont raise any controversy. So there wasn't a bunch of books that said something different and all agreed with each other to make out there was something else going on. They were single isolated books that were saying something different and each was different from the other as well. So one off books are not usually something you would accept as having much weight. They will be the ones that are more likely written as non scripture because they are the only ones saying what they say and are out of line with the many. So what do you say is accepted as OK the one that is different or the many that are agreeing.

 

[stevevw]

So I would need to believe the bible in the first place in order to judge it correctly and look into all the facts. I see. Does any other good belief work that way? Have you ever went to the doctor and the doctor say "the reason I don't think you are sick is because I don't believe you are sick in the first place"?

I am saying because you are a non believer you have already decided that the bible is false. So you will say it is wrong even without looking into things. You are bias towards saying that the bible is false.

Facts come first.

Yes they are but you dont use facts when you claim the bible is wrong.

This is ridicuous. There were over thirty gospels and a guy named Iraneaus picked four (13%) to correspond with the then-believed four corners of the world. Four out of thirty means they were picked based on what they wanted the compilation to say.

Have you read or research some of the gospels that were rejected. I think you should be checking them out before you make those assertions. Most of them had either parts missing, were written in the 3rd century, were about astronomy or dead people which had nothing to do with scriptures. One denied the nativity, one disputed the old testament, Some were just a few verses long, some were copied from the existing gospels, some were written by followers of the existing apostles, some were just a cometary on the other writings in the bible. So it was obvious they were not inspired and scripture. The gospels support and mention things in the other books and letters of the bible. The other books and letters mention the gospels in the bible. Paul mentions the gospels in his writings so they all support each other and go hand in hand. The other books not included dont do this and are out of line in one way or another. There was good reason why they were not included.

You mean like the dead coming back to life in Jerusalem and witnessing... despite no other book or historian mentioning such an event? Oh wait, no that's Matthew.

If your referring to Christ rising from the dead well just about all the new testament books agree with this and mention this. So they all support each other. The none bible books dont say this or even speak along these lines.

And no, I have not read many of the thirty gospels disallowed from the bible. Most were destroyed. I'd actually love to go back and read the Jewish gospels cited by the early church fathers.

As for you stating you havnt read any of them then how can you be making so many accusations about them if you dont even know what was in them. Like I said you have already decided that the bible is false so you will condemn it even without any evidence. Its a case of guilty before even having a trial.

How big is this paragraph you have written and how many facts did you provide? Zero. This was 100% opinion, and much of it based on demonstrable falsehoods.

Like i said I have done the research but you havnt as you have admitted. Some books deny the nativity and others refute or disagree with the old testament. There are other reasons they were not included. I could go into more detail but what is the use you will only say its all lies anyway.

They destroyed the Jewish gospels. They selected four gospels that pretend to be written by Jews but which are obviously impostors. Matthew can't even read Hebrew!

They may have destroyed them but there are many others that are still able to be researched or have commentary on them. Well who ever wrote the book of Matthew knew what he was talking about when it came to Christ being the messiah and appealing to the Jews about the gospel of Christ.

I get so tired of this excrement. Type it in to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' Google.

Yes thats all you can come up with in the end is ridicule and name calling.
Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont think your worth wasting time on. You obviously have already decided whats what without doing any research which shows you have already made your mind up..

 

[dad]

Wow........so, I guess a pastor who lies and cheats on his wife, or perhaps one who lies and cheats on his tax returns (hello Mr Hovind ) is just a peachy guy then, as long as he keeps on preaching the 'Word'.....right...?

Wonderful set of ethics you have there......



You can keep your putrid morality thanks.......

Nope. A true liar is one who denies Christ is Lord. Since all men are liars in the small l sense, what the issue is a the big L Liar. You cannot pick out some sin in the life of a believer, as Satan always does, and accuse us before God and think you are on high ground. God knew Peter would have some failings and actual predicted the denial! Yet He promised to get His word right through these same folks! Your issue is with God. It is great the God uses us sinners. All men have sinned. It is also great that He works IN us and purges and judges and helps us be better. Being a believer was never about perfection.

That should help you grasp the concept of what a liar really is. You see no liars will enter into the New Jerusalem. Yet Peter sure will, and His name is immortalized written right in a layer of the walls of that city!!!

 

[AirPo]

Nope. A true liar is one who denies Christ is Lord. Since all men are liars in the small l sense, what the issue is a the big L Liar. You cannot pick out some sin in the life of a believer, as Satan always does, and accuse us before God and think you are on high ground. God knew Peter would have some failings and actual predicted the denial! Yet He promised to get His word right through these same folks! Your issue is with God. It is great the God uses us sinners. All men have sinned. It is also great that He works IN us and purges and judges and helps us be better. Being a believer was never about perfection.

That should help you grasp the concept of what a liar really is. You see no liars will enter into the New Jerusalem. Yet Peter sure will, and His name is immortalized written right in a layer of the walls of that city!!!

P1

A true liar is one who denies Christ is Lord.

P2

all men are liars

C all men deny Christ is lord.

 

[MuchWiser]

That should help you grasp the concept of what a liar really is. You see no liars will enter into the New Jerusalem. Yet Peter sure will, and His name is immortalized written right in a layer of the walls of that city!!!

Creationists might just as well give up now because that's all they do is tell lies.

 

[dad]

P1

P2

C all men deny Christ is lord.

Doesn't follow. The apostles and believers and Peter did not deny Christ, in fact most died for Him! The instances of sin mentioned serve to show how a man that came to Christ was weak, but God worked in him! The Liar is on his own, and when he lies it is his native tongue. When a saved person sins, that is something they dislike and learn from.


1Jo 2:22 -Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. A couple of liars were Ananias and his wife, who kept back money they pretended to offer to God. God judged them right away.

 

[AirPo]

Doesn't follow. The apostles and believers and Peter did not deny Christ, in fact most died for Him! The instances of sin mentioned serve to show how a man that came to Christ was weak, but God worked in him! The Liar is on his own, and when he lies it is his native tongue. When a saved person sins, that is something they dislike and learn from.


1Jo 2:22 -Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. A couple of liars were Ananias and his wife, who kept back money they pretended to offer to God. God judged them right away.

Of course it does. You laid it out quite nicely.

 

[biggles53]

P1

P2

C all men deny Christ is lord.

Well done........