Why Evolution is True

[MuchWiser]

When a saved person sins, that is something they dislike and learn from.

Except in the case of creationists they keep doing it because they think they are lying for Jesus.

 

[biggles53]

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.

That's a very long-winded way of saying exactly what I did in a few words......there was an agenda in the formation of the canon. Those books that didn't suit the agenda got axed....!

 

[biggles53]

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.

No...! I'm betting he's referring to the supposed resurrection of all the saints who left their graves, wandered the streets of Jerusalem and were seen by many passers-by....!!

Steve, do you even READ any of this garbage into which you've invested your faith...!?

And those books do NOT support each other..! They vary markedly in the tales they have to tell.....not the least of which is the variant attributed to Paul....

 

[BL2KTN]

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.

Newsflash, I was a believer. Studying it is what showed me it was false. Please, click the link in my signature where I outline why the bible is not the inspired word of God.

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

And you don't throw out the truth just because it doesn't say what you want.

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.

Iranaeus lived in the second century when he selected the four from over thirty. He did so based on the supposed four corners of the world, not based on y our thoughts.

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.

Who says the nativity happened? Only two gospels include it. Again, it's picking the sources based on what you want. You want a nativity? Good, Iranaeus did as well. Paul repeatedly misquotes the Old Testament, editing the actual words to say what he wants. He's included in the New Testament. I would have much rather seen writings by followers of other apostles rather than the thirteenth apostle's work. And apparently ancient erotica (Song of Solomon) is in, but commentaries... nah, not so much.

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.

"The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men." -- Irenaeus

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.

No, that's not what I was saying. Re-read what I said about Matthew reporting the dead coming back to life, learn about it, and then reply to me. I love that you don't even know what's in the gospels you're defending.

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.

I said I hadn't read many of them, not that I hadn't read any of them. Most of them were purposefully destroyed, so unless we find hidden gems like the Gospel of Judas, we'll never know what they said.

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.

How arrogant. I have never said such a thing, and I introduced the Jewish gospels to you which you had never even heard of. This thing we are discussing I dealt with in my formal debate "The Bible is not the Inspired Word of God," and though I have asked you to read it, it is obvious you have not (otherwise you would know I have studied this topic greatly). I have a degree in biblical studies. Your behavior is becoming quite juvenile.

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.

First, you don't destroy what early church fathers thought was scripture. You just don't. But they did.

Second, Matthew didn't appeal to Jews because Matthew can't even read Hebrew. He messes up a prophecy about the messiah and has Jesus riding on two animals at once. He does this because he messes up the words "and" and "even" when reading the prophecy. Can you imagine pretending you speak English but not knowing what "and" means?

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.

I am so unimpressed.

 

[justlookinla]

Newsflash, I was a believer. Studying it is what showed me it was false. Please, click the link in my signature where I outline why the bible is not the inspired word of God.

Is your purpose now in life to convert others to an antichrist, anti-theist worldview?

Why do you believe you evolved, by entirely naturalistic processes, to behave in such a manner?

 

[bhsmte]

Newsflash, I was a believer. Studying it is what showed me it was false. Please, click the link in my signature where I outline why the bible is not the inspired word of God.



And you don't throw out the truth just because it doesn't say what you want.



Iranaeus lived in the second century when he selected the four from over thirty. He did so based on the supposed four corners of the world, not based on y our thoughts.



Who says the nativity happened? Only two gospels include it. Again, it's picking the sources based on what you want. You want a nativity? Good, Iranaeus did as well. Paul repeatedly misquotes the Old Testament, editing the actual words to say what he wants. He's included in the New Testament. I would have much rather seen writings by followers of other apostles rather than the thirteenth apostle's work. And apparently ancient erotica (Song of Solomon) is in, but commentaries... nah, not so much.



"The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men." -- Irenaeus



No, that's not what I was saying. Re-read what I said about Matthew reporting the dead coming back to life, learn about it, and then reply to me. I love that you don't even know what's in the gospels you're defending.



I said I hadn't read many of them, not that I hadn't read any of them. Most of them were purposefully destroyed, so unless we find hidden gems like the Gospel of Judas, we'll never know what they said.



How arrogant. I have never said such a thing, and I introduced the Jewish gospels to you which you had never even heard of. This thing we are discussing I dealt with in my formal debate "The Bible is not the Inspired Word of God," and though I have asked you to read it, it is obvious you have not (otherwise you would know I have studied this topic greatly). I have a degree in biblical studies. Your behavior is becoming quite juvenile.



First, you don't destroy what early church fathers thought was scripture. You just don't. But they did.

Second, Matthew didn't appeal to Jews because Matthew can't even read Hebrew. He messes up a prophecy about the messiah and has Jesus riding on two animals at once. He does this because he messes up the words "and" and "even" when reading the prophecy. Can you imagine pretending you speak English but not knowing what "and" means?



I am so unimpressed.

Same story with me. I was a Christian for 40 years and after a thorough analysis of the NT, I was amazed at what I learned about the objective historicity of the NT.

The bible in general, has been investigated by Christians, who are highly motivated to tell a certain story, but there are independent historians and scholars out there (with impeccable credentials) that can look at it more objectively. Remember when the tobacco companies used to have their own employed scientists state that there is no evidence that smoking is bad for you? Well, the bible has suffered the same fate, which has made objective review of the same more difficult.

What always amazes me, is how little most Christians know about the historicity of the book and or how they are more than willing to ignore evidence that doesn't fit what they want and need to believe.

You will be cast as being led astray (and worse) by some, but you know how it goes, the truth is hard for some to take and they will need to label you a certain way to feel better about themselves.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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."

But being "inspired" by something doesn't mean that they are accurately depicting what inspires them. I could be inspired by a white flower to make a painting, but perhaps I make the flower appear gigantic and blue, only retaining really the basic shape of the plant. I am still inspired by the real flower, but that doesn't mean the resulting work represents it as it is in reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

Doesn't follow. The apostles and believers and Peter did not deny Christ, in fact most died for Him!

The Heaven's Gate cult committed died for their beliefs, too. Does that mean that there really was an alien spacecraft hidden in the Hale-Bopp comet?

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

If I said that liars are those that denieth Zeus, would you become a follower of Zeus? If not, why do you find the argument so compelling?

 

[dad]

The Heaven's Gate cult committed died for their beliefs, too. Does that mean that there really was an alien spacecraft hidden in the Hale-Bopp comet?

Thats nice.

If I said that liars are those that denieth Zeus, would you become a follower of Zeus? If not, why do you find the argument so compelling?

If we wanted a poll of favorite gods we might ask you.

 

[dad]

But being "inspired" by something doesn't mean that they are accurately depicting what inspires them. I could be inspired by a white flower to make a painting, but perhaps I make the flower appear gigantic and blue, only retaining really the basic shape of the plant. I am still inspired by the real flower, but that doesn't mean the resulting work represents it as it is in reality.

No. Not the same thing. Inspiration in the biblical sense was more like possession by God than smelling flowers.

 

[CabVet]

No. Not the same thing. Inspiration in the biblical sense was more like possession by God than smelling flowers.

Is that why there are so many different version of it? Or is that why there are so many different interpretations of the same version?

 

[dad]

Is that why there are so many different version of it? Or is that why there are so many different interpretations of the same version?

Yes, that is why. Most don't know the difference between actually hearing from God and His Spirit and picking daisies.

 

[CabVet]

Yes, that is why. Most don't know the difference between actually hearing from God and His Spirit and picking daisies.

So which of the 40,000 versions is "right"? Let me guess... Yours? And the evidence for that is in your interpretation of the Bible, which is the only "truth", right?

 

[dad]

So which of the 40,000 versions is "right"? Let me guess... Yours? And the evidence for that is in your interpretation of the Bible, which is the only "truth", right?

I am aware of only one holy bible!

 

[CabVet]

I am aware of only one holy bible!

The same one that according to you most don't understand? But you understand it, right?

Yes, that is why. Most don't know the difference between actually hearing from God and His Spirit and picking daisies.

 

[dad]

The same one that according to you most don't understand?

No, a child can understand the important parts of it. It is not what men cannot understand about His word that they run from, but what they can understand.

My comments on inspiration were actually directed at all these versions you spoke about that were so different from each other. Real inspiration is recognizable.

 

[CabVet]

No, a child can understand the important parts of it. It is not what men cannot understand about His word that they run from, but what they can understand.

No, a child cannot understand it, they can be indoctrinated in it, and that is different.

My comments on inspiration were actually directed at all these versions you spoke about that were so different from each other. Real inspiration is recognizable.

Recognizable by whom? You?

 

[dad]

No, a child cannot understand it,

Yes, they sure can.

Recognizable by whom? You?

Jesus recognized Scripture and inspiration. The apostles recognized it. Those that have studied prophesy of the bible understand it had to be inspired. Those that have had miracles and changed lives recognize it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. Not the same thing. Inspiration in the biblical sense was more like possession by God than smelling flowers.

Prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Prove it.

PROVE IT vs GOD DID IT