Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have GOT to be kidding us. Which version of the "10 Commandments" do you subscribe to.
I am under the law to Christ (1 Cor 9:21). That is to say, I am dead to the law. This is the law, or the covenant, which is given to me, as it was given to Israel. Except it's written on my heart, and not on tablets of stone. As it's written, "I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."
Quote:
Why are they different? Who bought the potter's field?
They aren't different. But parallel accounts in the Bible offer a way to uncover additional meaning when they are compared. Many of these supposed contradictions don't account for the fact that a slightly different perspective is being told, which gives additional meaning. Like who provoked David to take the census of Israel? 1 Chronicles 21:1 says Satan did it. 2 Samuel 24:1 says God did it. The truth is that Satan is just a pawn in the hand of a sovereign God. So there's no contradiction whatsoever. But the difference here gives us additional meaning.
Quote:
Do angles have sex?
A great question for a geometry teacher.
Quote:
Does god have a body (yes in the OT, no in the NT, and you need BOTH to be called "the bible").
God is a Spirit. He is omnipotent. He can do whatever He wants. As the Bible says, the Word was made flesh.
Quote:
Why did the prophecy of Tyre not happen?
It did happen, actually. Tyre was utterly destroyed after this prophecy was given, and in amazing detail. So it most certainly did happen. But I guess you are referring to, "thou shalt be built no more." Some say it's been rebuilt. Well, you have to actually know the Bible to see what it's talking about here. The judgment of Tyre is a picture of a judgment of something called death. Things which are dead live no more. That's the definition of death. That being said, this is why the Bible is consistent. As Jesus said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." That is to say, though he may die, yet shall he live. Just as Jesus died and was risen from the dead. Now, I know precisely what this means, but I shall not describe it any further. I'll only say that if Tyre is indeed considered rebuilt, then that is quite fitting, as God will regather the people He has scattered (Ezekiel 11:17). The regathering of Israel is also a picture of this.
And guess what? Since you admitted that biology is a serious science [...]
I claimed it's a serious science insofar as it studies objective facts. I don't say (or perhaps I phrased it poorly) that all of what's called "biology" is a serious science. That's most certainly not the case. For instance, evolutionary biology is based on conjecture, not real science. But the study of living systems, without the evolutionary slant attached to it, is itself a science. I'm talking about the objective science of anatomy and physiology, genetics, habitats, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Genome sequencing proves human evolution and that Homo Sapiens have been around for some 200,000 years.
No, it doesn't. Actually, there's such a thing as genetic entropy. We can observe that the genome is accumulating mutations (which are deleterious) too quickly to allow for the long ages that evolutionists propound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
And get this. The man who headed the human genome project - geneticist Francis Collins is also a Christian who believes in evolution.
I don't care how well respected he is. He's wrong. The Bible is all I need to know that. And from looking at his Wikipedia page, it appears he accepted some sort of scientific appointment from the pope. So, yeah, no respect from me at all.
The cards are stacked against creationism. It's difficult if not impossible for a creationist to function in a secular academic setting--which has to do with the hive mentality that exists in these institutions and the prejudice that they have against creationism.
I claimed it's a serious science insofar as it studies objective facts. I don't say (or perhaps I phrased it poorly) that all of what's called "biology" is a serious science. That's most certainly not the case. For instance, evolutionary biology is based on conjecture, not real science. But the study of living systems, without the evolutionary slant attached to it, is itself a science. I'm talking about the objective science of anatomy and physiology, genetics, habitats, etc.
No, it doesn't. Actually, there's such a thing as genetic entropy. We can observe that the genome is accumulating mutations (which are deleterious) too quickly to allow for the long ages that evolutionists propound.
I don't care how well respected he is. He's wrong. The Bible is all I need to know that. And from looking at his Wikipedia page, it appears he accepted some sort of scientific appointment from the pope. So, yeah, no respect from me at all.
The cards are stacked against creationism. It's difficult if not impossible for a creationist to function in a secular academic setting--which has to do with the hive mentality that exists in these institutions and the prejudice that they have against creationism.
The reason the odds are stacked against creationism and creationists is because it is pseudoscience conducted by quack religious nutters .
The genetic entropy claim has been thoroughly refuted . Not that you will accept that. But since actual scientific geneticists ( in other words, “not creationist quacksâ€) use genetics to successfully treat diseases , something no creationist would have a clue how to accomplish, the non ridiculous world will stick with the true scientific ideas of real scientists .
The reason the odds are stacked against creationism and creationists is because it is pseudoscience conducted by quack religious nutters .
The genetic entropy claim has been thoroughly refuted . Not that you will accept that. But since actual scientific geneticists ( in other words, “not creationist quacksâ€) use genetics to successfully treat diseases , something no creationist would have a clue how to accomplish, the non ridiculous world will stick with the true scientific ideas of real scientists .
No, it has not been refuted. The teaching of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with something with gene therapy or other scientific advances. Darwin was totally ignorant of DNA, which wasn't discovered until the better part of a century after he published his book. And DNA is information. Just like the characters appearing in this post are information. Only it's much more complex than this. And information always comes from an intelligent source.
I claimed it's a serious science insofar as it studies objective facts. I don't say (or perhaps I phrased it poorly) that all of what's called "biology" is a serious science. That's most certainly not the case. For instance, evolutionary biology is based on conjecture, not real science. But the study of living systems, without the evolutionary slant attached to it, is itself a science. I'm talking about the objective science of anatomy and physiology, genetics, habitats, etc.
Anatomy, physiology, genetics, and even habitats speak to the reality of biological evolution. And contrary to popular belief, evolution (and I don't mean so called micro evolution, but evolution above the species level ) has been and is observable. Evolution is a reality.
''In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can’t run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild.''
No, it doesn't. Actually, there's such a thing as genetic entropy. We can observe that the genome is accumulating mutations (which are deleterious) too quickly to allow for the long ages that evolutionists propound.
Yes it does. All mutations are not deleterious. Again, evolution has been and is observable. And I mean evolution above the species level where one species evolves into another species.
Quote:
I don't care how well respected he is. He's wrong. The Bible is all I need to know that. And from looking at his Wikipedia page, it appears he accepted some sort of scientific appointment from the pope. So, yeah, no respect from me at all.
Here you admit to your bias - 'The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.' That's foolish and not only ignores what the natural sciences have discovered about the natural world but demonstrates an ignorance of why the Bible says what it does.
Quote:
The cards are stacked against creationism. It's difficult if not impossible for a creationist to function in a secular academic setting--which has to do with the hive mentality that exists in these institutions and the prejudice that they have against creationism.
There are various views of creationism such as 'young earth,' 'old earth,' 'intelligent design,' 'evolutionary creationism.' There are Christians who hold to one or another of these creationist views.
You are in deep denial of the reality of the natural world, and all because you have a wooden, overly strict fundamentalist view of the Bible in which you have to believe that the creation and flood stories are literal. They are not literal. And many Christians have no issue with holding both to the Bible and to evolution, and to the fact that the biblical creation and flood stories are not historical events.
Anatomy, physiology, genetics, and even habitats speak to the reality of biological evolution. And contrary to popular belief, evolution (and I don't mean so called micro evolution, but evolution above the species level ) has been and is observable. Evolution is a reality.
''In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can’t run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild.''
Yes it does. All mutations are not deleterious. Again, evolution has been and is observable. And I mean evolution above the species level where one species evolves into another species.
Here you admit to your bias - 'The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.' That's foolish and not only ignores what the natural sciences have discovered about the natural world but demonstrates an ignorance of why the Bible says what it does.
There are various views of creationism such as 'young earth,' 'old earth,' 'intelligent design,' 'evolutionary creationism.' There are Christians who hold to one or another of these creationist views.
You are in deep denial of the reality of the natural world, and all because you have a wooden, overly strict fundamentalist view of the Bible in which you have to believe that the creation and flood stories are literal. They are not literal. And many Christians have no issue with holding both to the Bible and to evolution, and to the fact that the biblical creation and flood stories are not historical events.
The one who is deep denial is you, considering that you reject what the Bible says, and what even Jesus Himself says about the history of the world. I'm not in denial about anything. I know that the world cannot be millions of years old. Comets, magnetic field decay, helium in the atmosphere, C-14 in supposedly old things, dinosaurs being the "dragons" of ancient legends across the world, volcanoes on Io, the failure of the secular models to account to water on earth, etc., etc. I don't know what on earth you're thinking, so strongly opposing the history of the world as told in the scriptures, in favor of the babblings of the godless.
No, it has not been refuted. The teaching of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with something with gene therapy or other scientific advances. Darwin was totally ignorant of DNA, which wasn't discovered until the better part of a century after he published his book. And DNA is information. Just like the characters appearing in this post are information. Only it's much more complex than this. And information always comes from an intelligent source.
You show your ignorance of science . Genetics has a ton to do with evolution. We can now track evolution genetically. That we descend from the great ape family is now beyond question . We share the same Broken gene at the same point on the DNA structure as the great apes like the chimps and bonobos. It is what causes scurvy in the great apes and humans .
Everything evolution claimed pre genetics has been proven by genetic research . And the authenticity of this research has been proven by the ability to use it to treat diseases .
As time goes on you must crawl ever deeper into your cave of ignorance to ignore the truth .
The one who is deep denial is you, considering that you reject what the Bible says, and what even Jesus Himself says about the history of the world. I'm not in denial about anything. I know that the world cannot be millions of years old. Comets, magnetic field decay, helium in the atmosphere, C-14 in supposedly old things, dinosaurs being the "dragons" of ancient legends across the world, volcanoes on Io, the failure of the secular models to account to water on earth, etc., etc. I don't know what on earth you're thinking, so strongly opposing the history of the world as told in the scriptures, in favor of the babblings of the godless.
Oh, the old I'm not the one in denial, it's you who are in denial.
snj90, you don't know much at all about the natural sciences. And as has been said, many, many scientists are believers and therefore are not ''the godless.''
You are certainly in denial. The Bible doesn't give the natural history of the world. Genesis isn't doing natural history. The flood story isn't natural history. It isn't historical at all. It's a legend based on some regional flood that occurred in the past. And many Christians understand and accept this. Why can't you? Well, I know why.
Oh, the old I'm not the one in denial, it's you who are in denial.
snj90, you don't know much at all about the natural sciences. And as has been said, many, many scientists are believers and therefore are not ''the godless.''
You are certainly in denial. The Bible doesn't give the natural history of the world. Genesis isn't doing natural history. The flood story isn't natural history. It isn't historical at all. It's a legend based on some regional flood that occurred in the past. And many Christians understand and accept this. Why can't you? Well, I know why.
You know why? Oh, really? You say I don't know much about the natural sciences. How do you know what I know? What do you know, and how do you know it? The people of God are only a remnant (Romans 9:29, Joel 2:32), so it should be no surprise, biblically speaking, that the world has different ideas about the history of the earth and of the universe than the Bible. Especially when there's scripture that tells us that people in the last days will be willingly ignorant of the flood (2 Peter 3:3-7). Also, that "many Christians" accept this is not impressive to me at all considering the Bible teaches and warns of the great apostasy (1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Thess 2:3-12), and even those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof (2 Tim 3:5-7). As Paul says, evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim 3:13). He's not talking about the world at large then, which was still overwhelmingly pagan by all appearances. I'm not saying that there can be no one in the Lord who believes evolution (though wrongly). And the apostasy started long before the modern theory of evolution first started to be propounded. I'm only saying that the fact that there's such a big deception about this issue is totally understandable (and predicted!), biblically. So this many Christians believe this yada yada garbage is an exceptionally poor, and even counterproductive argument.
You have GOT to be kidding us. Which version of the "10 Commandments" do you subscribe to. Why are they different? Who bought the potter's field? Do angles have sex? Does god have a body (yes in the OT, no in the NT, and you need BOTH to be called "the bible"). Why did the prophecy of Tyre not happen?
I am only scratching the surface on inconsistencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
I am under the law to Christ (1 Cor 9:21). That is to say, I am dead to the law. This is the law, or the covenant, which is given to me, as it was given to Israel. Except it's written on my heart, and not on tablets of stone. As it's written, "I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."
They aren't different. But parallel accounts in the Bible offer a way to uncover additional meaning when they are compared. Many of these supposed contradictions don't account for the fact that a slightly different perspective is being told, which gives additional meaning. Like who provoked David to take the census of Israel? 1 Chronicles 21:1 says Satan did it. 2 Samuel 24:1 says God did it. The truth is that Satan is just a pawn in the hand of a sovereign God. So there's no contradiction whatsoever. But the difference here gives us additional meaning.
A great question for a geometry teacher.
Yes, typos occur, and you knew exactly what I was asking. So, once again, do angels have sex?
Quote:
God is a Spirit. He is omnipotent. He can do whatever He wants. As the Bible says, the Word was made flesh.
Actually, the OT says your god is flesh numerous times.
Genesis 3:8
He spoke to Moses face to face.
Exodus 33:11
Exodus 33:20
Exodus 33:22-23
Exodus 34:5
Deuteronomy 23:12-13
Ezekiel 1:27
Ezekiel 8:2
And, the concept of horns are not of the devil but....God has horns coming out of his hands.
Habakkuk 3:3-4
And then, in the NT, it says differently.
John 4:24
Luke 24:39
The darn bible can't make up it's mind what it should claim.
Quote:
It did happen, actually. Tyre was utterly destroyed after this prophecy was given, and in amazing detail. So it most certainly did happen. But I guess you are referring to, "thou shalt be built no more." Some say it's been rebuilt. Well, you have to actually know the Bible to see what it's talking about here. The judgment of Tyre is a picture of a judgment of something called death. Things which are dead live no more. That's the definition of death. That being said, this is why the Bible is consistent. As Jesus said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." That is to say, though he may die, yet shall he live. Just as Jesus died and was risen from the dead. Now, I know precisely what this means, but I shall not describe it any further. I'll only say that if Tyre is indeed considered rebuilt, then that is quite fitting, as God will regather the people He has scattered (Ezekiel 11:17). The regathering of Israel is also a picture of this.
Weasel words. Tyre was never destroyed by anyone COMPLETELY. Not by Nebuchadnezzar, not by Alexander, who is not mentioned in your bible stories.
It never happened, no matter how you want to spin it. And Tyre exists to this day. So, bible fail. Why are we not surprised.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, yeah, no respect from me at all. 
