stop listening to the poisonous lies of church heads and do the research independently, better yet go to Egypt and see the evidence of where the virgin marry story of immaculate conception originated from, the passage of Isis and Horus predates the identical story of the virgin marry. People must understand how far influence can travel in view of an emerging power structure adopting customs of a fallen super power which Egypt once was before being overwhelmed by thieving outsiders...
for those that follow the Christian belief, Jesus taught spiritual science, which is on par with what most scientist have been discovering. Christianity was a term and title that came after the death of a Jesus, not before. The oldest Christian church is in Ethiopia for a reason, before the rise of Christianity via greco-romans, the idea's for such an establishment came from the Egyptian spiritual system, the evidence is still there as well as the commonalities of stories and events.
religion is humans fallible interpretation to relate to a creator of it all in the spiritual sense... can any christian put down the bible and provide evidence that a god gave humans christianity and any other religion for that matter? Spiritualism is a direct instinctive link back to the source of it all, religion is an indirect disturbance to control how individuals link to the source. No one was created to be carbon copies in thoughts but to observe truth and make a choice... for self
"Science is man's fallible INTERPRETATION of general revelation"
Note>>FALLIBLE!!!!
1:tending to err: liable to make mistakes
2:not true: liable to be wrong or misleading
Knowledge that is based on ultimate truth, then, can only be provided by God the Creator, who knows everything and is the source of truth. Christ said, “I am . . . the truth” (John 14:6). Note any claim to knowledge that contradicts what Christ said and what God’s Word says is false.
this series is intelligent, well thought-out, and lacks condescension. i have enjoyed it thoroughly and highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning about this wonderful universe. great job!
The Theory of Gravity is just a theory. Science comes up with theories and all of them are lies. The Bible is infallible.
For example the theory of gravity says that jumping up from the earth will bring me back down. But it's only a theory and not a law because there may be one time that I jump up and do not come back down. It's just a theory. That's why I don't jump up anymore. If I knew that gravity was a fact or law I would trust it more. I don't want to jump off the earth accidentally.
What is fundamentally wrong with this presentation, is that like most modern intellectuals, it attempts to divide reality up into "science" on one hand and "theology" on the other, when in fact no historical scientist prior to the 19th Century did this. Even atheists of old would never consider compelling a theist to divorce what they believed about God from what they believe about science. It is entirely irrational to attempt to do so, as if God somehow, doesn't understand his own physics.
The reason there are so few 'scientific Christians' is because once you take an objective look at the facts of the world around us, faith is not the best explanation.
Conflict is going to happen between made up sky fairy ideas and facts that can be repeated and checked.
@crabbygaz Belief based on evidence is the best explanation. When you have evidence for motion existing apart from Primary Cause, intelligence arising from non-intelligent subatomic particles and conscious awareness arising from non-conscious matter, you be sure and let me and the rest of the sane people on our planet know. Until then, we'll just classify you as embracing the grand delusional gross superstition of magically appearing self-creating universes and move on.
@crabbygaz Gee, I don't know how the universe happens to be here, so let's pretend nobody designed it. Let's pretend that a so-called age of "enlightenment", resulting in the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, the rise of global imperialism, economic and literal slavery, WWI, WWII, a looming WWIII and the weapons of mass destruction and global mass pollution left to our children as science and education's legacy, will nevertheless, somehow save us from our sins. Yeah, sure...
How does anything you have said prove that god made the universe?
I do not pretend to know how the universe started, I do know that it didn't start the way it was described in the bible.
The basic point I am trying to make is that science is an explanation of what we observe, the christian view seems to give credit to god for the good bits and blame the bad bits on sin.
The bible can't all be true. It contradicts itself too much.
@crabbygaz It's easy to say the Bible "contradicts itself too much". It has been my consistent experience with self-contradicting, narrow-minded and poorly educated atheists, it is a lot more difficult to demonstrate exactly where and how the Bible supposedly contradicts itself.
If you cannot see that are contradictions in the bible then what is the point trying to discuss it with you? If a Genesis day is not an actual day as we know 24 hours now, why does it not say so? Why two different accounts of creation?
A loving god sends two she bears to tear 42 children limb from limb, because they call Elisha bald. 2Kings 2:23. That is what ended christianity for me when I was about 12. That god wasn't loving.
Get off your knees and enjoy life. Love, light and peace.
@crabbygaz The sun wasn't created until the 4th "day", thus the story itself clearly indicates these are not 24hr days; people knew long before that time Genesis was written how to calculate a 24hr day, so don't try to pull that crap. And regarding Elijah, the story is about "youths", which does not equal children, probably capable of fighting in war and having children of their own. That is what can happen when someone defies God in their heart, whether in youth or older (continued)
@crabbygaz The Old Testament primarily is about how God treats people without forgiveness, while the New Testament is primarily about how God treats people who want his forgiveness. There is no contradiction except in your own mind, as God is both a God of judgment and forgiveness. That is how God is and God decides what God does, not you. If you don't want Jesus to forgive you, according to the Bible, you will wish that being mauled by two bears was only your punishment.
@crabbygaz It is self-evident that the universe is created. If you are going to contradict what is self-evident, it is up to you to provide evidence to support any such contradiction. For example, it is self-evident that the sun revolves around the earth. For Copernicus to claim otherwise, he had to provide evidence, otherwise he would never have been in the history books. This is common atheist bullshit, to twist science backwards, that has no validity in the historical or present reality.
@crabbygaz ( continued from previous) As Descartes stated as the foundation of science and reason, "Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident." Neither scientists or any other human beings start with "zero". Rather, we accept what we are taught and/or what is self-evident until proven otherwise. That is very clearly the known history of science, from Socrates through Einstein and the modern Francis Collins. You are just pissing in the wind, to pretend otherwise.
@crabbygaz And finally, in case you didn't get it the first time from the two previous posts, the burden of proof remains on anyone who contradicts what is self-evident to provide evidence that what is self-evident is not correct. So, I'm waiting for your evidence that motion can arise from non-motion, intelligence from non-intelligence, conscious awareness from unconscious matter. And it appears I will be waiting for a very, very, very long time. ATHEISM = TOTAL LIE = TOTAL BULLSHIT.
@crabbygaz You already provided two and I debunked both of them. Why should I keep at this silly game? You are clearly not correct about Genesis and you are clearly not correct about Elijah. Who do you want to take on next? Let's see, "you will know the truth and the truth will make you free". Let's see demonstrate by evidence how wrong that is. You might want to consider first, that this saying of Jesus is carved on the wall of the very liberal secular Claremont Colleges, but go ahead...
@crabbygaz Carl Sagan illustrated the history of the universe in his series Cosmos using a calendar month. Nobody complained when he did this, yet you think to criticize the Bible for doing the same with a week. Truly, you jest. And, the NKJV says "youths", not children. The NKJV often corrects errors in the original KJV. Since I don't know Hebrew, then I'll have to take the word of the translators for it. Regardless, you don't decide what God can or can't do.
How can the NKJV correct errors in the KJV? Which one is the infallible word of god?
I didn't make the point about Carl Sagan, you just started that, Carl Sagan didn't claim to have made the universe in a month, god claims to have made the universe in six days.
I asked why Genesis says days if it is not days.
Can you please tell me why it says days?
You are right on one thing, I don't decide what god can do.
@crabbygaz I never said the Bible is infallible and most certainly, no modern translation of the Bible is infallible. The Bible uses a week to illustrate what Carl Sagan used a month to illustrate. Neither the Bible or Carl Sagan claims that the universe was created in a literal week or month. I very clearly demonstrated to you, that there is no such thing as a 24hr day without the sun and as such, the Genesis "days" clearly do not refer to a 24hr day.
@crabbygaz And the last post was my final post to you. I have no desire to debate with someone who is neither reasonable nor rational but rather, no matter how clearly it is demonstrated your position is wrong, you just ignore the evidence and obviously, just want to continue an irrational argument. It is irrational to pretend that it is okay for a scientist like Sagan to illustrate universal timeframes in a month, but somehow God can't do similar using a week. Your position is irrational.
@crabbygaz For your info, a "youth" in ancient times could be someone anywhere between the age of 13 on past 20. A child is someone below what is called the age of accountability, in the Jewish tradition, age 13. My guess is that in the original Hebrew, for which you would have to consult a scholar, the meaning is ambiguous, meaning it is not clear what age is referred to. Like every other language, Hebrew has words that mean more than one thing, which are called "cultural ambiguities".
@crabbygaz For example, the in the story of Noah, the KJV says the whole world was flooded with water. The Hebrew word translated as meaning the whole earth could also be referring to the greater general region, rather than the entire globe, as in Acts when it says men were gathered at Jerusalem from all over the world, the Greek is probably referring to the general Greco/Roman world, rather than the entire globe. These are differences in cultural language definition, rather than errors.
@crabbygaz There are many so-called "errors" in the Bible that are merely differences in cultural language definition. A modern example is the term "deism", meaning quite different in the 17th-18th centuries than the same term does means today. Many early deists, including probably Thomas Paine, believed in a personal, inter-active God. ALL of the other founding fathers, none of who claimed to be deists, believed in a personal, inter-active God, thus it is misleading to call them deists.
@crabbygaz And going back to the Genesis story, what atheists habitually do with this story is, they fail to give God credit for having to come up with a story that bridges thousands of years of scientific and other cultural differences. For example, if somebody in the ancient Fertile Crescent region told a story of quantum mechanics and the known universal reality today, they would be dismissed as a raving lunatic. The Genesis story quite cleverly, bridges these vast cultural barriers.
@crabbygaz In other words, the Genesis story is an outline that matches modern theory similar to how Carl Sagan's use of a calendar month matches modern theory, yet unlike Sagan, it also makes sense to someone living 4,000 or more years ago. Nobody today bothers to consider the reality of other cultures, places and historical time frames and thus, they just jump to all kinds of erroneous conclusions which have no validity in the light of historical reality.
@crabbygaz And finally, the Bible ALWAYS considers the knowledge of the people of the historical time frame who wrote it, just as today God considers our extremely limited knowledge compared to what he knows, when dealing with us. God can't relate to someone alive today the same as to someone living 2000 years from now in terms of their "science", anymore than he could relate to people 4,000 years ago the same as our science today. Grow up !
@crabbygaz Genesis, from a position of someone on the earth looking upward, is 100% accurate based on modern science evidence. It disagrees with the majority opinion of scientists only where modern science doesn't don't know and is only guessing. Because the universe has no center, viewing everything from a position on earth looking out is just as accurate as any other view--the biblical view from Genesis to Revelation, is from the earth looking up, rather than outside looking down on earth.
@crabbygaz And finally, if you are going to pretend around me that God doesn't know how he created the universe, then you might better do a whole lot more reading in the Britannica first and then come back to debate with someone who has. Among other things, the Bible precisely accurately defines a certain type of black hole unknown to since prior to the Hubble telescope. It also precisely accurately defines a great many other things unknown to science until the second half of the 20th Century.
@crabbygaz And I'm quite certain how "happy " you make people supposedly surpasses the lives of Isaiah, Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Aristotle, DaVinci, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Darwin, Einstein, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, King, Chavez and Parks, to name just a drop in a very big bucket of those who believed in God. I'm sure you've done a lot more for humanity than they did, but for whatever reason, the media just hasn't noticed yet.
Just to be clear, I don't think science contradicts scripture. I was referring to the most common interpretation of science in the present amongst scientist.
The road this goes on leaves nothing solid to stand on in scripture. Your system might even work if scientific fields of study and scientific journals weren't dominated by people who have no regard for the authority of scripture. The only thing that comes out of this doctrine of yours will be: Science always trumps Scripture; even though, I believe, that is not your intention. The less we stand on scriptural authority the easier it is for people who don't care for it, to twist it to their will.
glovergj, Do you believe God's word is fallible or just our interpretations? I'm assuming the later. Is there any instance where you take a stand on what the Bible says no matter how ridiculous the most common interpretation of science says it is? Trust of the truth of the Bible isn't reliant on whether or not you take a stand on any principle science may challenge. However the authority of scripture is gone if you're always willing to bend Biblical interpretation to science's will.
Thanks for posting these I subscribed because I find it refreshing that a person of christian faith is not afraid to use a capacity for reason which is said to be the work of the creator.
if the human race can't interpret the bible because of our limitation, how can we trust in the bible if (although god dictated it) it was still MAN who wrote it, in his limitation
heh I'm glad you acept modern science, though I wonder where you base that the bible is true, if it's science is so obviously based upon ancient man, wouldn't the word of god be more accurate? the bible to me just seems to be ancient mans ideas of the universe, and nothing that is any revealed or really important, it's history is false in many parts, it's science is flawed. What is there left to be a Christina based upon?
I do understand many of the points you make. But why does religion always have to be the one to change? When will science give us the same respect and change for religion?
But has science ever changed due to a religious discovery? I can't think of a time that it has.
My main problem really is evolution. I'm an old earth creationist so the age of the earth doesn't bother me. The reinterpretation of parts to fit evolution does.
Ok, well - perhaps you should start with #15 and #16. I don't think re-interpretation of the bible is necessary every time science changes our picture of the universe.
@glovergj reinterpreting it as not true does seem to change. Was Jesus correct when he compared the days of Noah with the coming of the kingdom? Jesus seemed to believe it to be true.
I'm really curious here: What kind of religious "discovery" would you expect science to change for, and what compelling reason could you give for that change to be made?
Actually, archeology has been, if not changed by, then predicted by, the Bible. For instance, things that used to be pointed to as laughable errors in, say, the Gospel of Luke on such matters as names, titles, and even the loaction of a city have seen proven dead accurate.
I'll start with one of the better-known ones. For years, Luke's use of the word "politarchs" with regard to the rulers of Thessalonica (see Acts 17:6) was often pointed to as a glaring error by liberal scholars because the word appeared nowhere else in Greek literature. That has since changed; several discoveries of the word have cropped up in extrabiblical documents; the reason it was so uncommon was that it was only used of officials in that city in a certain historical period.
So, contrary to the notion that "politarch" was an error, it actually turns out to be an example of his remarkable cling to precise accuracy, as in another example, Herod the tetrarch. You have, I am sure, heard of King Herod (Herod Antipas, to be precise). Well, Herod was never actually elevated to royal status by the emperor, although his Jewish subjects called him king. So not only was Luke more accurate than modern scholars, but he even trumped the people of his own time!
The one that really gets me in another tetrarch, a man identified as tetrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Historians again made a fuss because the only known Lysanias was a king who lived some 50 years before. Even before this was debunked, I would have laughed. In my whole elementary and high school careers I never once failed to have a classmate with my same name or a similar one; surely in 50 years a name could pop up at least twice. Again, inscriptions were found...
@AngelicSnowGirl I like glovergj's response, but I wanted to pipe in here. The problem that many secularists, atheists, whatever, have with the religious is just what you asked for . . automatic respect and ignoring of the evidence we observe? Do you honestly expect anyone who accepts science data to simply ignore or drop that data just because you expect them to, in order to fit *your* beliefs? It's that kind of behavior that gets us riled up about education and freedom of/from religion.
@AngelicSnowGirl Science never admits it's wrong. The theory of evolution as taught in may own high school classes in the sixties is almost entirely wrong compared to what scientists currently believe, yet no educator or scientist has ever apologized for teaching me wrong. Rather, they just change and tweak the definition and go right on calling it "evolution", even though any moron who has actually studied the evidence knows God created life to be able to adapt and change so it can survive.
@richardaberdeen What is actually going on in the real world, right under the noses of ivory tower self-contradicting elitists, is "life in transition", not evolution. All of life is in a constant state of transition; as such, "new" species do not "evolve" from already complete species as the term "evolution" implies. Rather, the SAME life form changes and adapts to a point that scientists now call it a "new" species. God created life to be in transtion, to adapt & change so life can survive
@AngelicSnowGirl Science is about EVIDENCE! And following that evidence WHEREVER it leads, NOT forcing it to go in a predetermined direction that suits your mythical delusions.
So if references to the "heart" in the bible, weren't to be taken literally, then perhaps it might have been a great time for god to explain to his creation, what the heart and brain functions were really about.
Instead, god always seems to just go-with-the-flow of what his creation was already assuming, albeit, wrongly.
To ME, this clearly shows the bible was written by mortals and not any creator god.
Also, things in space do in fact collide, all the time and sometimes into US.
So what I hear you saying is that it is impossible for evolution to be true. So it is impossible for God to create a universe in such a way that evolution could happen. So, obviously, there are limitations to God's power. If there are limitations to God's power, he is NOT omnipotent and thus not God.
Evolution should be taught in a private school as well as creation science, even though creation science is fact. Basic science should not revolve around evolution. Evolution isn't science. Evolution didn't get us to the moon, it didn't help educate mechanical engineers, it didn't train a doctor to perform brain surgery, Evolution is a completely useless theory and serves no purpose other than to make people think there is no God.
Brother, you seriously need to re-think your position about the Bible, and God. There's a verse in the Bible where God says,"i sit on the "circle" of the earth", there's even verses where he talks about the CORE of the earth,the CRUST,and MANTLE. You have no idea how much science related facts are in the Bible that people didn't understand back then for instance, the bible says hell is in the core of the earth, which also implies a round earth, because a flat one won't have a core.
"there's even verses where he talks about the CORE of the earth,the CRUST,and MANTLE."
Could you point us to those verses? I am not aware of any place in the bible that mentions anything like those. This would contradiction traditional Hebrew cosmology which described a three-layered universe.
I concur with ProConstitutioner here. The Bible is not fallible like glover seems to think. Evolution is because it is mans fallible Ideas about origins. The Bible's concept about origins does not need constant revision and has never been proven wrong whereas all of mans pseudoscience about origins needs to be continually revised as their ideas get proved wrong. I seriously doubt anyone ever believed the heart was the organ where thoughts originated.
Evolution is not compatible with the Christian religion because it's purpose is to make people disbelieve the Bible. The Bible is not Just another book. Theistic evolution is veiled atheism. You might as well just say there is no God.
If there were millions of years of death and suffering before Adam sinned then there is no reason for anyone to get saved by Jesus because there is nothing to be saved from. The curse that God put on the Earth because of Adams sin would then have happened before Adam sinned, which would make the Bible fallible. If you can't believe all of it(The Bible) then why trust any of it?
"I seriously doubt anyone ever believed the heart was the organ where thoughts originated. "
There you would be wrong. Ancient Egyptians would throw away the brain during mummification because they believed it was an insignificant organ.They believed the heart (the ib) was the seat of all intellect, feelings and even the will
Considering the Egyptians were doing mummification over 5000 years ago and even oldest estimates for the Torah place it no older than the 15th century B.C, it is more likely the Israelites got the belief from the Egyptians.
Actually if you look at the history of mediterranean cultures, it was almost universal that they believed the brain served only to cool blood and that the heart was the center of intellect. (Assuming they were advanced enough to make those kinds of observations.)
I still do not believe that the Jews or the Christians ever actually believed that the physical heart housed the intellect. It's just an Idea you are putting in the Bible that suits your beliefs. Just like you would likely add your Ideas about evolution into the Bible when they never were in there.
You are being very dishonest. Neither Gordon nor I have ever said there anything to about adding our "Ideas about evolution into the Bible when they never were in there." In the videos and his book all Gordon has ever said is that the evolution does not disagree with the Bible, which I support.
Floppyjoe777, it is YOU who are adding something to the Bible, as it nowhere says the brain is the seat of the intellect. You are assuming something that is not in the Bible and is contrary to what everyone believed at that time. It wasn't until 1000 years after Christ that we have records indicating the brain does anything like what we now know. You are being dishonest by ignoring both the historical facts and by adding things to the Bible that do no support your beliefs.
Evolution does disagree with the Bible. According to evolution trees and plants evolved after the sun was formed, but according to the Bible plants and trees were created before the sun was formed so what you just said is a lie. This is a irreconcilable difference between Creation and evolution. The Bible is infallible. Mans Ideas about origins are not.
And please don't tell me Genesis is a fable cause if it is then none of the Bible is trustworthy. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible.
Quote"Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." If you do not believe Genesis is true then you will not believe anything Jesus said because he rose from the dead.
"And please don't tell me Genesis is a fable cause if it is then none of the Bible is trustworthy."
Nonsense. By the same "logic" one could say that because the Bible says bats are birds, which is not correct, then "none of the Bible is trustworthy".
If YOU insist that the Bible is completely without error and others read passages that are obviously wrong, they will not listen to you and turn from God. What have you accomplished?
In reference to Luke 16:31 and "listening to Moses". If you are going to take all of that 100% literally, then you have no choice but to agree that slavery is OK. A man has the right to sell his children and unlike the son, the daughter will not.
Do you think that this is OK? Well, you MUST, if you "hear Moses".
"According to evolution trees and plants evolved after the sun was formed". Apparently someone is trying to deceive you. Evolution does not saying anything about when plants were created. Evolution is only about changes in species over time.
People who believe in the religion of evolution are trying to deceive me. If there were millions of years between the time trees evolved and the sun was formed there would have been no photosynthesis possible and the plants and trees would have died.
2 Timothy 3:1-4 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2 Timothy 3:5-7 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Might I recommend that you read 'The Lost World of Genesis One' by John Walton'? You don't have to agree with everything he says but you could at least understand the reasoning behind the points he makes.
Millions of years of death and suffering before Adams fall into sin being called very good by God is an unacceptable compromise to my intellect and to the true nature of my God. You are deceiving yourselves.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Floppyjoe777: I see no one calling God a "liar". It seems you believe God dictated the Bible so that everything in it is word-for-word what God said. Other people see that Bible as inspired by God, but the authors were not taking dictation from God. The result is misinterpretations and errors. How do you explain the contradictions in the Bible? Here's just one of **many**:
Solomon could very easily have had 4000 horses and had more built in case he wanted to increase the number to 40,000. The twelve thousand horsemen is not an invalid number because where I work we have two machines that melt rubber where at least 4 people and probably many more are trained to use this machine. Therefore he could have had more horsemen then horses.
You are arguing from YOUR chosen conclusion that the Bible "must" be inerrant and therefore you add things to the Bible to explain things. You are not supposed to add anything. You are supposed to take it literally, exactly the way it is written and not add things because certain passages are uncomfortable for you.
The Bible is the Words Of God. It is a supernaturally inspired book unlike any other book. God promised to preserve it and he has. You start with the ASSUMPTION that it is just like any other book and treat it as such looking for error in it.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I once believed that the Bible was the 100% infallible, inerrant word of God until I started using my God-given intellect and actually read it. The Bible contradicts itself with things as simple as whether someone had children or not. You can read them yourself and there is no logical explanation for these errors. So your are left with just a couple of choices. Either you no longer believe the Bible to be inerrant, but you continue to believe in God. Or you say it is all nonsense.
Leviticus 11:13-19 refers to fowls as things that fly. In verse 11:20 it talks of fowls that creep and includes insects. You must be reading from a currupt New Version of the Bible. I'll get to the others when I have more time after work today.
Leviticus 11:19 talks about birds and the bat is NOT a bird: (NIV) "These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat"
Most insects have at least four legs that touch the ground when they walks.
True but the Bible says **all** fours. You are adding something that is not there, which you are not allowed to do. You MUST read it 100% literally or you are allowed to take things metaphorically, including the creation story. You cannot have it both ways.
There are obvious things that we do not take literally and those things are poetry and assimilation and such. But History we treat as history. Jesus said I am the Door. We know he is not a literal door. I don't have to take everything literally 100% But you choose to call the Bible a fable by what you are doing. You know very well that Genesis is not a metaphor. You have been brainwashed by society to believe it is and your objection to the creation account shows your hidden agenda.
"There are obvious things that we do not take literally". Agreed. Genesis is one of them. Not believing it as a play-by-play description of what happened will not damn me to hell for eternity.
God will not try to trick us. Therefore, the fossil and geological records are true. Therefore, evolution is true. People like you who deny what is in front of their eyes and force this outdated beliefs on others are pushing people away from God. My agenda is to help people find God, not turn them away.
I see no proof of evolution it the fossil record. The oldest known bat in the fossil record looks exactly like a bat. there is no evidence that it evolved from something else or that it changed into something else. You also read things into your scientific evidence that is not there. All organisms in the fossil record are fully formed. nothing in transition from one kind of organism into another type. You can't even prove that a single cell evolved into another type of organism.
Of course all the organisms are 'fully formed'? How can any organism ever be anything but, and how does evolution predict that they aren't? What exactly do you think a transitional fossil is?
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
Also the oldest bats in the fossil record are not the same as modern bats, they didn't have the ability to echolocate. That was something which emerged later.
Onychonycteris finneyi, at 52 million years old, lacks essential features around the ear that enable bats to echolocate.
Also, most Christians don't have this 'the-Bible-trumps-all-other-ways-of-knowing' approach to theology, and telling people that they have to reject all of modern science in order to embrace Christianity is not a very productive method of evangelising.
The idea that the earth is 6-10 thousand years old has comparable scientific credibility to the idea that it is flat.
Balabaw2: Admittedly I was surprised to hear from a Catholic priest that Catholics are not biblical literalists and the big bang theory was actually first proposed by a Catholic priest. I live in Germany and I can confirm German Christians are not literalists either.
Evolution isn't true science. I do not tell people to reject science. You can't prove evolution therefore it is not scientific but a religious belief.
>>You can't prove evolution therefore it is not scientific but a religious belief.
There is very little in science that you can "prove". It is not about "proving" anything. It is about the ability to describe the universe in a consistant manner. Using the principles of evolution you can say which fossils apprear in certain layers and they DO! Dig down to certain layers and you know which fossils are their. That's science, not religion. You are an IDIOT!!!
>>Secular evolution websites have an agenda to disprove the Bible...
More bullshit. They are only interested in science. Did you know the Vatican says that evolution is NOT inconsistent with the Bible? So, you are saying that a BILLION Catholics are wrong and only your pathetic little sect is right? How arrogant!! Your channel says you read the KJV. Did you know it contains text that was not in the original? That is, the KJV is NOT the true Bible? That makes you a heretic!
It seems to me that *your* agenda is being right and NOT helping people find God. How many people have been turned away from God because of your outdated beliefs? How much of what you profess is out of arrogance and pride for fear that YOU are wrong? What good is it that you gain the satisfaction of being right, but others loose their soul?
I'm helping people find the God of the Holy Bible and not one of their own making where God's Word needs to be sliced and diced to conform to their desired description of "Their god". What good is lying to people in telling them evolution is true and that the Bible is full of fables. You are destroying peoples faith and not bringing people to God.
Well which church is the "true" one. The Catholic Church? The Vacatin has said that neither evolution or the Big Bang are in conflict with scripture. The Pentacostals? Do YOU speak in tongues? What about the Appalachian Snake handlers? Are THEY the "true" church.
I strengthen people's faith by telling them you can see God's creation all around and STILL believe in Him even if there are fanatics who still think the Bible is 100% representation of the world, when it iobviously isn't.
Floppyjoe777: Please point us all to the passage in scripture that say that by believing in evolution and the big bang you will NOT be saved.
If evolution and the Big Bang are impossible, that means God could not have created the universe in a way that they could exist. So he not omnipontent and therefore NOT God. If you read Genesis as 100% literal you must read other places as a100% literal. For example, do YOU believe a woman must remain silent in church?
If you believe in evolution then you do not believe that the Bible is God's word. You think it is a concoction of man. You can still be saved but you will not do what God wants you to like telling people the Gospel. All people are sinners because of the literal fall into sin in the garden of eden. God cursed the earth because the wages of sin is death. God sent Jesus to pay the penalty for all sin. You must be born again and receive this free gift from God to go to heaven. Repentance will
Gospel=Adam sinned and mankind fell. God cursed the Earth because the wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. You must accept this free gift and be born again to go to heaven. Repentance is lived out by the saved individual.
Free gift??? What a load of bullshit!!! In exchange for this gift, you have to worship a God who has ordered genocide, allowed rape and sexual slavery, ordered the murder of children, and supports the oppression of woman. So don't go off about this being a "free" gift. You must subjugate yourself in order to get that "gift".
And by the way, don't go off about those things not being in the BIble, they ARE!!!! If you say they aren't you haven't read it. So cut the BULLSHIT!!!
Lev 11:6 The creature here has been translated Hare from the Hebrew arnebeth an extinct animal. The English translators for lack of a better word called this animal a hare. This is also the case with several other animals in this chapter
Point me to a non-apologetic site that says arnebeth is an "extinct animal". You are again reading something into the Bible that is not there. First, this is the same translation used in the German Luther Bible of 1545. Second, the Arabic word "arnabat" still means a female rabbit. Further, although there have been a number of non-specific translations for that word, the common consensus is that it was at least related to the modern hare and thus not a ruminant.
I'm talking the Hebrew word not Arabic. Your Bible sources are no doubt from corrupt New versions of the Bible as well as their corrupt underlying texts.
"I'm talking the Hebrew word not Arabic." Both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages and have the same root. Common things tend to be similar words. So the logical conclusion is that the word does mean "hare" or a similar animal and thus not a ruminant. Therefore, the bible has a mistake and is not 100% inerrant.
Heb. arnebeth, an unidentified animal, but certainly not a hare, possessing as it is said to, characteristics not possessed by the hare. The supposed error in the text is due entirely to the translators' assumption that the English hare and the ancient "arnebeth" were identical. A hare does not have a hoof either so the thing decribed is not a hare.
Jeremiah 32:6-9 speaks of buying a field for silver and Zechariah does not mention the buying part. The author of Matthew is giving priority to Jeremiah for "speaking" the prophecy and likely had Zechariah in mind as well.
"Jeremiah 32:6-9 speaks of buying a field for silver"
Simply because Jer 32:6 talks about a "field" you have to stretch things a great deal to make any kind of connection. Also Jer 32:6 talks about the city of Anathoth, the Potters Field is in Jerusalem. They are not talking about the same field.
2 Samuel 21:8 2 Samuel 21:8 "...and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:" brought up the 5 sons of Adriel her sisters husband whom she had been given to in 1 Samuel 18:19
"2CH 22:2 vs 2KI 8:26: How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?"
Ahaziah' father was Jehoram was 40 years old when he died. The verse Chronicles says Azahiah was 42 but likely it is twenty 22 as the passage in Samuel has preserved.
"2CH 36:1 vs JER 22:11: Who was Josiah's successor?"
The three sons of good king Josiah each occupied the throne of Judah for a short time and the all did evil. Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:32) Jahoiakim (2Kings 23:37) and Zedekiah(2 Kings (24:19)
What am I adding? Both values are there. You are assuming it is an error when you do not know if in fact God came to him on more than one occasion offering a different punishment for David's sin. The Bible does not say in one place that he evolved creatures and in another that he created them with divine fiat. Why would you add evolution into it?
"What am I adding?" That God came to him on more than one occasion. That is not in the Bible. Therefore, you are adding it. In a courtroom, if two witnesses give conflicting information, "Both values are there". No one assumes that the crime occurred twice.
"Why would you add evolution into it?"
Because I say the Bible is NOT a science or history book. The Bible simply says God created the animals. Where does it say he snapped his fingers and they magically appeared in their current form?
It says he created in six days, and to reproduce after their kind You can't stretch that. All the major doctrines of the Bible are founded in Genesis. If you call it allegory then the doctrine of salvation is meaningless. Why would you even bother being a Christian then and why do you then insist on deceiving people with this evolution nonsense?
The story of the woman taken in adultery as described in John 8:1-11 was added centuries later. Also it contradicts the OT as the man should have also been punished. Obviously it was made up.
Mark 16:9-20 was added later. Some manuscripts end at Mark 16:8, some have a different ending.
The Manuscripts in the Vatican have a wide open space left for these verses showing that they are supposed to be there but were left out by the heretics.
"The Manuscripts in the Vatican": I am sure you can point me to a reliable source for your information. If you made that up, then it would be lying and lying is an abomination, just like homosexuality.
BTW, a "wide open space" at the END of a text does not prove something was left out. Just the opposite. It proves that the newer text was added later, like the ending of Mark.
Interesting you mention the Vatican. The Catholics are not biblical literalists. Do you know who first formulated the theory of the Big Bang? Fr. Georges LeMaitre! (a catholic priest)
The Vatican also supports evolution. In Feb. 2009 Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture said ". In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God". The Vatican has repeatedly said neither evolution or the big bang contradict the Bible.
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology".
Pope John Paul II stated that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis." Pope Benedict XVI has warned about literal interpretations of the Bible. (google "Vatican evolution")
In fact, MOST of the Christian churches in the world believe in evolution and the big bang.
How do you account for the fact that there are a number of things that were not in the original manuscripts, but still exist in the Bible today? That is, they were added later. That really does not sound like God "preserved" it.
According to the Bible, the moon is stuck onto a solid firmament. If we believe the images, videos and personal reports of the Apollo astronauts, no such structure was observed. How was it that this structure was missed?
By the way, the understanding of evolution is a key aspect of modern immunology. So the next time someone offers you a vaccination, tell them its useless.
I was just looking for a quick run down on the theory of theistic evolution ( feel free to direct me to that) but wanted to say, I really enjoyed your first video, seems balanced and not to close to the fringe...looking forward to watching the rest of your videos. Bless you brother.
Thanks. I don't start talking about evolution until #10, but I prefer folks to watch the entire series. The groundwork needs to be laid before those latter lessons can be understood in the proper context. Enjoy!
Jesus said that he had not come to change the law (the Old Testament) and does not repudiate the laws of Leviticus as far as I know.The 10 Commandments are OLD TESTAMENT! Are these'out'? Why not? I had a cousin who was brought up in a fundamentalist family. When he turned his back on the faith he threw out the associated morality, alas. Far better to have a 'independent' moral code perhaps. Furthermore, we have many interpretations of morality even within religions.
Science is not God's revelation the Bible is God's revelation.
Creationism is a viewpoint as is naturalism. The problem is the cult of Darwinian naturalism wants to be the authority and author of all truth regardless of what science or common sense dictates.
Everything you are is a gift from God. Every thought that you have, every breath you take and every beat of your heart. You have not earned anything. You owe him everything but you have chosen an occupation designed to credit yourself (creature) and not God (creator)! When you turn your back on him and boast of man's accomplishments (and your accomplishments) he still loves you and longs for you to return to him in full worship and awe.
'God has defined right and wrong..'. Thank god that MOST people do not try to derive their morality from the bible. The Old Testament laws are barbaric and immoral; stoning disobedient children or non virgin brides WAS NEVER moral. Countless studies show that humans have an inate sense of right and wrong, scores of successful societies who never heard of jesus (China for thousands of years etc) had MORALITY. Do you seriously think that 'pre-Moses' folks thought MURDER was fine?? Come on!!
Everyone has a conscience whether they are a Christian or not. Consciences aren't learned, they are ingrained in everyone. However, the Bible is a guide for your conscience. If you keep doing something against your conscience, then eventually your conscience won't have a problem with what you are doing because it becomes a norm to it. That's why the Bible serves as a mirror, a curb, and a guide for your conscience. And btw, we don't follow Old Testament civil laws anymore. Ever heard of the NT?
Good point. Christ cut through the confusion that comes when the letter of the law gets bent towards the self-serving purposes of man -- which inevitably happens with any moral code. "Love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't leave you much wiggle room.
This has been flagged as spam show
stop listening to the poisonous lies of church heads and do the research independently, better yet go to Egypt and see the evidence of where the virgin marry story of immaculate conception originated from, the passage of Isis and Horus predates the identical story of the virgin marry. People must understand how far influence can travel in view of an emerging power structure adopting customs of a fallen super power which Egypt once was before being overwhelmed by thieving outsiders...
majordrill 6 days ago
Comment removed
majordrill 6 days ago
for those that follow the Christian belief, Jesus taught spiritual science, which is on par with what most scientist have been discovering. Christianity was a term and title that came after the death of a Jesus, not before. The oldest Christian church is in Ethiopia for a reason, before the rise of Christianity via greco-romans, the idea's for such an establishment came from the Egyptian spiritual system, the evidence is still there as well as the commonalities of stories and events.
majordrill 6 days ago
religion is humans fallible interpretation to relate to a creator of it all in the spiritual sense... can any christian put down the bible and provide evidence that a god gave humans christianity and any other religion for that matter? Spiritualism is a direct instinctive link back to the source of it all, religion is an indirect disturbance to control how individuals link to the source. No one was created to be carbon copies in thoughts but to observe truth and make a choice... for self
majordrill 6 days ago
Did you hear what He said?????
"Science is man's fallible INTERPRETATION of general revelation"
Note>>FALLIBLE!!!!
1:tending to err: liable to make mistakes
2:not true: liable to be wrong or misleading
Knowledge that is based on ultimate truth, then, can only be provided by God the Creator, who knows everything and is the source of truth. Christ said, “I am . . . the truth” (John 14:6). Note any claim to knowledge that contradicts what Christ said and what God’s Word says is false.
Drblackinstien 11 months ago
this series is intelligent, well thought-out, and lacks condescension. i have enjoyed it thoroughly and highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning about this wonderful universe. great job!
helicopterscantdance 1 year ago
The Theory of Gravity is just a theory. Science comes up with theories and all of them are lies. The Bible is infallible.
For example the theory of gravity says that jumping up from the earth will bring me back down. But it's only a theory and not a law because there may be one time that I jump up and do not come back down. It's just a theory. That's why I don't jump up anymore. If I knew that gravity was a fact or law I would trust it more. I don't want to jump off the earth accidentally.
updownleftrightinout 1 year ago
@updownleftrightinout Wow, almost had me there. Nice one.
batencho 11 months ago
What is fundamentally wrong with this presentation, is that like most modern intellectuals, it attempts to divide reality up into "science" on one hand and "theology" on the other, when in fact no historical scientist prior to the 19th Century did this. Even atheists of old would never consider compelling a theist to divorce what they believed about God from what they believe about science. It is entirely irrational to attempt to do so, as if God somehow, doesn't understand his own physics.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
The reason there are so few 'scientific Christians' is because once you take an objective look at the facts of the world around us, faith is not the best explanation.
Conflict is going to happen between made up sky fairy ideas and facts that can be repeated and checked.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz Belief based on evidence is the best explanation. When you have evidence for motion existing apart from Primary Cause, intelligence arising from non-intelligent subatomic particles and conscious awareness arising from non-conscious matter, you be sure and let me and the rest of the sane people on our planet know. Until then, we'll just classify you as embracing the grand delusional gross superstition of magically appearing self-creating universes and move on.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
So an invisible sky fairy with a book that contradicts itself at every turn to back him up is the best alternative.
I do not know how the universe began, but the religion start is just stupid.
Carry on believing in your book if that is what you want and let the rest of the world move on.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz Gee, I don't know how the universe happens to be here, so let's pretend nobody designed it. Let's pretend that a so-called age of "enlightenment", resulting in the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, the rise of global imperialism, economic and literal slavery, WWI, WWII, a looming WWIII and the weapons of mass destruction and global mass pollution left to our children as science and education's legacy, will nevertheless, somehow save us from our sins. Yeah, sure...
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
How does anything you have said prove that god made the universe?
I do not pretend to know how the universe started, I do know that it didn't start the way it was described in the bible.
The basic point I am trying to make is that science is an explanation of what we observe, the christian view seems to give credit to god for the good bits and blame the bad bits on sin.
The bible can't all be true. It contradicts itself too much.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz It's easy to say the Bible "contradicts itself too much". It has been my consistent experience with self-contradicting, narrow-minded and poorly educated atheists, it is a lot more difficult to demonstrate exactly where and how the Bible supposedly contradicts itself.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
If you cannot see that are contradictions in the bible then what is the point trying to discuss it with you? If a Genesis day is not an actual day as we know 24 hours now, why does it not say so? Why two different accounts of creation?
A loving god sends two she bears to tear 42 children limb from limb, because they call Elisha bald. 2Kings 2:23. That is what ended christianity for me when I was about 12. That god wasn't loving.
Get off your knees and enjoy life. Love, light and peace.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz The sun wasn't created until the 4th "day", thus the story itself clearly indicates these are not 24hr days; people knew long before that time Genesis was written how to calculate a 24hr day, so don't try to pull that crap. And regarding Elijah, the story is about "youths", which does not equal children, probably capable of fighting in war and having children of their own. That is what can happen when someone defies God in their heart, whether in youth or older (continued)
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz The Old Testament primarily is about how God treats people without forgiveness, while the New Testament is primarily about how God treats people who want his forgiveness. There is no contradiction except in your own mind, as God is both a God of judgment and forgiveness. That is how God is and God decides what God does, not you. If you don't want Jesus to forgive you, according to the Bible, you will wish that being mauled by two bears was only your punishment.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Get off your knees and enjoy life.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz It is self-evident that the universe is created. If you are going to contradict what is self-evident, it is up to you to provide evidence to support any such contradiction. For example, it is self-evident that the sun revolves around the earth. For Copernicus to claim otherwise, he had to provide evidence, otherwise he would never have been in the history books. This is common atheist bullshit, to twist science backwards, that has no validity in the historical or present reality.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Get off your knees and enjoy life. I do.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz ( continued from previous) As Descartes stated as the foundation of science and reason, "Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident." Neither scientists or any other human beings start with "zero". Rather, we accept what we are taught and/or what is self-evident until proven otherwise. That is very clearly the known history of science, from Socrates through Einstein and the modern Francis Collins. You are just pissing in the wind, to pretend otherwise.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Get off your knees and enjoy life. I do. i make life better for people.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz And finally, in case you didn't get it the first time from the two previous posts, the burden of proof remains on anyone who contradicts what is self-evident to provide evidence that what is self-evident is not correct. So, I'm waiting for your evidence that motion can arise from non-motion, intelligence from non-intelligence, conscious awareness from unconscious matter. And it appears I will be waiting for a very, very, very long time. ATHEISM = TOTAL LIE = TOTAL BULLSHIT.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Get off your knees and enjoy life. I do. I make life better for people.
Pick any book of the bible and I will give a contradiction from it.
Are you going to be judged for your deeds, or by your faith?
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz You already provided two and I debunked both of them. Why should I keep at this silly game? You are clearly not correct about Genesis and you are clearly not correct about Elijah. Who do you want to take on next? Let's see, "you will know the truth and the truth will make you free". Let's see demonstrate by evidence how wrong that is. You might want to consider first, that this saying of Jesus is carved on the wall of the very liberal secular Claremont Colleges, but go ahead...
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
OK, lets go back a bit then.
Why does it say that the Earth was made in six days, if they were not days?
What were they?
My KJV says that there came forth little children out of the city. Why does it say little children if it doesn't mean little children.
And if they are older, that makes it ok to have them killed by bears does it?
We could play this game for days. I can point out problems with the bible and you will defend it. You seem fixed in your belief, as do I.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz Carl Sagan illustrated the history of the universe in his series Cosmos using a calendar month. Nobody complained when he did this, yet you think to criticize the Bible for doing the same with a week. Truly, you jest. And, the NKJV says "youths", not children. The NKJV often corrects errors in the original KJV. Since I don't know Hebrew, then I'll have to take the word of the translators for it. Regardless, you don't decide what God can or can't do.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
How can the NKJV correct errors in the KJV? Which one is the infallible word of god?
I didn't make the point about Carl Sagan, you just started that, Carl Sagan didn't claim to have made the universe in a month, god claims to have made the universe in six days.
I asked why Genesis says days if it is not days.
Can you please tell me why it says days?
You are right on one thing, I don't decide what god can do.
crabbygaz 1 year ago
@crabbygaz I never said the Bible is infallible and most certainly, no modern translation of the Bible is infallible. The Bible uses a week to illustrate what Carl Sagan used a month to illustrate. Neither the Bible or Carl Sagan claims that the universe was created in a literal week or month. I very clearly demonstrated to you, that there is no such thing as a 24hr day without the sun and as such, the Genesis "days" clearly do not refer to a 24hr day.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz And the last post was my final post to you. I have no desire to debate with someone who is neither reasonable nor rational but rather, no matter how clearly it is demonstrated your position is wrong, you just ignore the evidence and obviously, just want to continue an irrational argument. It is irrational to pretend that it is okay for a scientist like Sagan to illustrate universal timeframes in a month, but somehow God can't do similar using a week. Your position is irrational.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz For your info, a "youth" in ancient times could be someone anywhere between the age of 13 on past 20. A child is someone below what is called the age of accountability, in the Jewish tradition, age 13. My guess is that in the original Hebrew, for which you would have to consult a scholar, the meaning is ambiguous, meaning it is not clear what age is referred to. Like every other language, Hebrew has words that mean more than one thing, which are called "cultural ambiguities".
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz For example, the in the story of Noah, the KJV says the whole world was flooded with water. The Hebrew word translated as meaning the whole earth could also be referring to the greater general region, rather than the entire globe, as in Acts when it says men were gathered at Jerusalem from all over the world, the Greek is probably referring to the general Greco/Roman world, rather than the entire globe. These are differences in cultural language definition, rather than errors.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz There are many so-called "errors" in the Bible that are merely differences in cultural language definition. A modern example is the term "deism", meaning quite different in the 17th-18th centuries than the same term does means today. Many early deists, including probably Thomas Paine, believed in a personal, inter-active God. ALL of the other founding fathers, none of who claimed to be deists, believed in a personal, inter-active God, thus it is misleading to call them deists.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz And going back to the Genesis story, what atheists habitually do with this story is, they fail to give God credit for having to come up with a story that bridges thousands of years of scientific and other cultural differences. For example, if somebody in the ancient Fertile Crescent region told a story of quantum mechanics and the known universal reality today, they would be dismissed as a raving lunatic. The Genesis story quite cleverly, bridges these vast cultural barriers.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz In other words, the Genesis story is an outline that matches modern theory similar to how Carl Sagan's use of a calendar month matches modern theory, yet unlike Sagan, it also makes sense to someone living 4,000 or more years ago. Nobody today bothers to consider the reality of other cultures, places and historical time frames and thus, they just jump to all kinds of erroneous conclusions which have no validity in the light of historical reality.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz And finally, the Bible ALWAYS considers the knowledge of the people of the historical time frame who wrote it, just as today God considers our extremely limited knowledge compared to what he knows, when dealing with us. God can't relate to someone alive today the same as to someone living 2000 years from now in terms of their "science", anymore than he could relate to people 4,000 years ago the same as our science today. Grow up !
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz Genesis, from a position of someone on the earth looking upward, is 100% accurate based on modern science evidence. It disagrees with the majority opinion of scientists only where modern science doesn't don't know and is only guessing. Because the universe has no center, viewing everything from a position on earth looking out is just as accurate as any other view--the biblical view from Genesis to Revelation, is from the earth looking up, rather than outside looking down on earth.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz And finally, if you are going to pretend around me that God doesn't know how he created the universe, then you might better do a whole lot more reading in the Britannica first and then come back to debate with someone who has. Among other things, the Bible precisely accurately defines a certain type of black hole unknown to since prior to the Hubble telescope. It also precisely accurately defines a great many other things unknown to science until the second half of the 20th Century.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@crabbygaz And I'm quite certain how "happy " you make people supposedly surpasses the lives of Isaiah, Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Aristotle, DaVinci, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Darwin, Einstein, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, King, Chavez and Parks, to name just a drop in a very big bucket of those who believed in God. I'm sure you've done a lot more for humanity than they did, but for whatever reason, the media just hasn't noticed yet.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Just to be clear, I don't think science contradicts scripture. I was referring to the most common interpretation of science in the present amongst scientist.
DiscipleTube1 1 year ago
The road this goes on leaves nothing solid to stand on in scripture. Your system might even work if scientific fields of study and scientific journals weren't dominated by people who have no regard for the authority of scripture. The only thing that comes out of this doctrine of yours will be: Science always trumps Scripture; even though, I believe, that is not your intention. The less we stand on scriptural authority the easier it is for people who don't care for it, to twist it to their will.
DiscipleTube1 1 year ago
glovergj, Do you believe God's word is fallible or just our interpretations? I'm assuming the later. Is there any instance where you take a stand on what the Bible says no matter how ridiculous the most common interpretation of science says it is? Trust of the truth of the Bible isn't reliant on whether or not you take a stand on any principle science may challenge. However the authority of scripture is gone if you're always willing to bend Biblical interpretation to science's will.
DiscipleTube1 1 year ago
Thanks for posting these I subscribed because I find it refreshing that a person of christian faith is not afraid to use a capacity for reason which is said to be the work of the creator.
It is a great service that you are doing.
mtheoryrules 1 year ago
The way you talk about Special & General revelation as if they are a religious equivalent to special and general relativity is a disgrace. 1* FU
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
These terms have been around since the 17th century. They are religious terms and have nothing to do with general and special relativity.
glovergj 1 year ago 5
if the human race can't interpret the bible because of our limitation, how can we trust in the bible if (although god dictated it) it was still MAN who wrote it, in his limitation
configuludrc 1 year ago
This guy is right, up to a point. The tricky part is where the point lies.
Omnitrix12 2 years ago
heh I'm glad you acept modern science, though I wonder where you base that the bible is true, if it's science is so obviously based upon ancient man, wouldn't the word of god be more accurate? the bible to me just seems to be ancient mans ideas of the universe, and nothing that is any revealed or really important, it's history is false in many parts, it's science is flawed. What is there left to be a Christina based upon?
wolfwing1 2 years ago
I do understand many of the points you make. But why does religion always have to be the one to change? When will science give us the same respect and change for religion?
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
Science does change. It changes all the time because just when we think we understand something, we make a new discovery that changes everything.
Even though the Bible doesn't change, our interpretation of it does. There has to be communication between scientists and theolgians.
glovergj 2 years ago
But has science ever changed due to a religious discovery? I can't think of a time that it has.
My main problem really is evolution. I'm an old earth creationist so the age of the earth doesn't bother me. The reinterpretation of parts to fit evolution does.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
Ok, well - perhaps you should start with #15 and #16. I don't think re-interpretation of the bible is necessary every time science changes our picture of the universe.
glovergj 2 years ago
@glovergj reinterpreting it as not true does seem to change. Was Jesus correct when he compared the days of Noah with the coming of the kingdom? Jesus seemed to believe it to be true.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Angelic:
I'm really curious here: What kind of religious "discovery" would you expect science to change for, and what compelling reason could you give for that change to be made?
mediusnacht 2 years ago
Actually, archeology has been, if not changed by, then predicted by, the Bible. For instance, things that used to be pointed to as laughable errors in, say, the Gospel of Luke on such matters as names, titles, and even the loaction of a city have seen proven dead accurate.
Omnitrix12 2 years ago
@Omnitrix12
Examples?
makinuptherules 1 year ago
I'll start with one of the better-known ones. For years, Luke's use of the word "politarchs" with regard to the rulers of Thessalonica (see Acts 17:6) was often pointed to as a glaring error by liberal scholars because the word appeared nowhere else in Greek literature. That has since changed; several discoveries of the word have cropped up in extrabiblical documents; the reason it was so uncommon was that it was only used of officials in that city in a certain historical period.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
So, contrary to the notion that "politarch" was an error, it actually turns out to be an example of his remarkable cling to precise accuracy, as in another example, Herod the tetrarch. You have, I am sure, heard of King Herod (Herod Antipas, to be precise). Well, Herod was never actually elevated to royal status by the emperor, although his Jewish subjects called him king. So not only was Luke more accurate than modern scholars, but he even trumped the people of his own time!
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
The one that really gets me in another tetrarch, a man identified as tetrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Historians again made a fuss because the only known Lysanias was a king who lived some 50 years before. Even before this was debunked, I would have laughed. In my whole elementary and high school careers I never once failed to have a classmate with my same name or a similar one; surely in 50 years a name could pop up at least twice. Again, inscriptions were found...
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
...proving Luke right. As it says in the book of Romans, let God be found true, even though every man be found a liar.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
@AngelicSnowGirl Evolution is a FACT! If the bible teaches anything else then it's obviously WRONG! Stop making excuses to try to make it fit.
kusalaviro 1 year ago
@AngelicSnowGirl google 'paths of the sea'
AlanMathewPolson 11 months ago
Great clips..
I am having a major battle with evolutionist AronRa and his side kicks.
I am giving them a good argument as they have not the real answers only riddles...
QAndyRa 2 years ago
@AngelicSnowGirl I like glovergj's response, but I wanted to pipe in here. The problem that many secularists, atheists, whatever, have with the religious is just what you asked for . . automatic respect and ignoring of the evidence we observe? Do you honestly expect anyone who accepts science data to simply ignore or drop that data just because you expect them to, in order to fit *your* beliefs? It's that kind of behavior that gets us riled up about education and freedom of/from religion.
RhunDraco 1 year ago
@AngelicSnowGirl Science never admits it's wrong. The theory of evolution as taught in may own high school classes in the sixties is almost entirely wrong compared to what scientists currently believe, yet no educator or scientist has ever apologized for teaching me wrong. Rather, they just change and tweak the definition and go right on calling it "evolution", even though any moron who has actually studied the evidence knows God created life to be able to adapt and change so it can survive.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen What is actually going on in the real world, right under the noses of ivory tower self-contradicting elitists, is "life in transition", not evolution. All of life is in a constant state of transition; as such, "new" species do not "evolve" from already complete species as the term "evolution" implies. Rather, the SAME life form changes and adapts to a point that scientists now call it a "new" species. God created life to be in transtion, to adapt & change so life can survive
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@AngelicSnowGirl Science is about EVIDENCE! And following that evidence WHEREVER it leads, NOT forcing it to go in a predetermined direction that suits your mythical delusions.
kusalaviro 1 year ago
So if references to the "heart" in the bible, weren't to be taken literally, then perhaps it might have been a great time for god to explain to his creation, what the heart and brain functions were really about.
Instead, god always seems to just go-with-the-flow of what his creation was already assuming, albeit, wrongly.
To ME, this clearly shows the bible was written by mortals and not any creator god.
Also, things in space do in fact collide, all the time and sometimes into US.
ATF
AtheistToothFairy 2 years ago
God created TIME &
God is the only one who can create LIFE
The Root of Evolution came from Nothing
For God created everything & he stretched out the Heavens.
Evolution is a Deception from Satan
SPITVIPAH02 2 years ago
Gee thanks. That was really constructive.
glovergj 2 years ago
So what I hear you saying is that it is impossible for evolution to be true. So it is impossible for God to create a universe in such a way that evolution could happen. So, obviously, there are limitations to God's power. If there are limitations to God's power, he is NOT omnipotent and thus not God.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Yes.
glovergj 2 years ago
Evolution should be taught in a private school as well as creation science, even though creation science is fact. Basic science should not revolve around evolution. Evolution isn't science. Evolution didn't get us to the moon, it didn't help educate mechanical engineers, it didn't train a doctor to perform brain surgery, Evolution is a completely useless theory and serves no purpose other than to make people think there is no God.
ProConstitutioner 2 years ago
Brother, you need to keep watching!
glovergj 2 years ago
how about..........no
ProConstitutioner 2 years ago
Forgive me, I assumed you were open minded. How silly of me -- why watch something if you already have it all figured out?
Why did you come here in the first place?
glovergj 2 years ago
Brother, you seriously need to re-think your position about the Bible, and God. There's a verse in the Bible where God says,"i sit on the "circle" of the earth", there's even verses where he talks about the CORE of the earth,the CRUST,and MANTLE. You have no idea how much science related facts are in the Bible that people didn't understand back then for instance, the bible says hell is in the core of the earth, which also implies a round earth, because a flat one won't have a core.
ProConstitutioner 2 years ago
"there's even verses where he talks about the CORE of the earth,the CRUST,and MANTLE."
Could you point us to those verses? I am not aware of any place in the bible that mentions anything like those. This would contradiction traditional Hebrew cosmology which described a three-layered universe.
jimmo42 2 years ago
I concur with ProConstitutioner here. The Bible is not fallible like glover seems to think. Evolution is because it is mans fallible Ideas about origins. The Bible's concept about origins does not need constant revision and has never been proven wrong whereas all of mans pseudoscience about origins needs to be continually revised as their ideas get proved wrong. I seriously doubt anyone ever believed the heart was the organ where thoughts originated.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Evolution is not compatible with the Christian religion because it's purpose is to make people disbelieve the Bible. The Bible is not Just another book. Theistic evolution is veiled atheism. You might as well just say there is no God.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
If there were millions of years of death and suffering before Adam sinned then there is no reason for anyone to get saved by Jesus because there is nothing to be saved from. The curse that God put on the Earth because of Adams sin would then have happened before Adam sinned, which would make the Bible fallible. If you can't believe all of it(The Bible) then why trust any of it?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"I seriously doubt anyone ever believed the heart was the organ where thoughts originated. "
There you would be wrong. Ancient Egyptians would throw away the brain during mummification because they believed it was an insignificant organ.They believed the heart (the ib) was the seat of all intellect, feelings and even the will
jimmo42 2 years ago
Well I certainly do not believe the Egyptians got their beliefs about the seat of the intellect from the Christian or Jewish Bibles.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Considering the Egyptians were doing mummification over 5000 years ago and even oldest estimates for the Torah place it no older than the 15th century B.C, it is more likely the Israelites got the belief from the Egyptians.
Actually if you look at the history of mediterranean cultures, it was almost universal that they believed the brain served only to cool blood and that the heart was the center of intellect. (Assuming they were advanced enough to make those kinds of observations.)
jimmo42 2 years ago
I still do not believe that the Jews or the Christians ever actually believed that the physical heart housed the intellect. It's just an Idea you are putting in the Bible that suits your beliefs. Just like you would likely add your Ideas about evolution into the Bible when they never were in there.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
You are being very dishonest. Neither Gordon nor I have ever said there anything to about adding our "Ideas about evolution into the Bible when they never were in there." In the videos and his book all Gordon has ever said is that the evolution does not disagree with the Bible, which I support.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Floppyjoe777, it is YOU who are adding something to the Bible, as it nowhere says the brain is the seat of the intellect. You are assuming something that is not in the Bible and is contrary to what everyone believed at that time. It wasn't until 1000 years after Christ that we have records indicating the brain does anything like what we now know. You are being dishonest by ignoring both the historical facts and by adding things to the Bible that do no support your beliefs.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Evolution does disagree with the Bible. According to evolution trees and plants evolved after the sun was formed, but according to the Bible plants and trees were created before the sun was formed so what you just said is a lie. This is a irreconcilable difference between Creation and evolution. The Bible is infallible. Mans Ideas about origins are not.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
And please don't tell me Genesis is a fable cause if it is then none of the Bible is trustworthy. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible.
Quote"Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." If you do not believe Genesis is true then you will not believe anything Jesus said because he rose from the dead.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"And please don't tell me Genesis is a fable cause if it is then none of the Bible is trustworthy."
Nonsense. By the same "logic" one could say that because the Bible says bats are birds, which is not correct, then "none of the Bible is trustworthy".
If YOU insist that the Bible is completely without error and others read passages that are obviously wrong, they will not listen to you and turn from God. What have you accomplished?
jimmo42 2 years ago
In reference to Luke 16:31 and "listening to Moses". If you are going to take all of that 100% literally, then you have no choice but to agree that slavery is OK. A man has the right to sell his children and unlike the son, the daughter will not.
Do you think that this is OK? Well, you MUST, if you "hear Moses".
jimmo42 2 years ago
"According to evolution trees and plants evolved after the sun was formed". Apparently someone is trying to deceive you. Evolution does not saying anything about when plants were created. Evolution is only about changes in species over time.
jimmo42 2 years ago
People who believe in the religion of evolution are trying to deceive me. If there were millions of years between the time trees evolved and the sun was formed there would have been no photosynthesis possible and the plants and trees would have died.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
2 Timothy 3:1-4 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
2 Timothy 3:5-7 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
When you call God a liar you have a form of godliness but deny the power therof.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Might I recommend that you read 'The Lost World of Genesis One' by John Walton'? You don't have to agree with everything he says but you could at least understand the reasoning behind the points he makes.
JT898 2 years ago
Millions of years of death and suffering before Adams fall into sin being called very good by God is an unacceptable compromise to my intellect and to the true nature of my God. You are deceiving yourselves.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Floppyjoe777: I see no one calling God a "liar". It seems you believe God dictated the Bible so that everything in it is word-for-word what God said. Other people see that Bible as inspired by God, but the authors were not taking dictation from God. The result is misinterpretations and errors. How do you explain the contradictions in the Bible? Here's just one of **many**:
1KI 4:26 vs 2CH 9:25
Was it 4000 or 40,000?
If you want more, I'll give them to you.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Solomon could very easily have had 4000 horses and had more built in case he wanted to increase the number to 40,000. The twelve thousand horsemen is not an invalid number because where I work we have two machines that melt rubber where at least 4 people and probably many more are trained to use this machine. Therefore he could have had more horsemen then horses.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
You are arguing from YOUR chosen conclusion that the Bible "must" be inerrant and therefore you add things to the Bible to explain things. You are not supposed to add anything. You are supposed to take it literally, exactly the way it is written and not add things because certain passages are uncomfortable for you.
jimmo42 2 years ago
The Bible is the Words Of God. It is a supernaturally inspired book unlike any other book. God promised to preserve it and he has. You start with the ASSUMPTION that it is just like any other book and treat it as such looking for error in it.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
I once believed that the Bible was the 100% infallible, inerrant word of God until I started using my God-given intellect and actually read it. The Bible contradicts itself with things as simple as whether someone had children or not. You can read them yourself and there is no logical explanation for these errors. So your are left with just a couple of choices. Either you no longer believe the Bible to be inerrant, but you continue to believe in God. Or you say it is all nonsense.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Ok so what is the next supposed contradiction?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
LEV 11:13-19: A bat is not a bird
LEV 11:6 hares do not chew their cud
MAT 27:9-10 mentions Jeremiah, but it is actually Zechariah
2SA 6:23 vs 2SA 21:8: No child or five sons?
2CH 22:2 vs 2KI 8:26: How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
2CH 36:1 vs JER 22:11: Who was Josiah's successor?
2SA 24:13 vs 1CH 21:12: How many years of famine?
jimmo42 2 years ago
Leviticus 11:13-19 refers to fowls as things that fly. In verse 11:20 it talks of fowls that creep and includes insects. You must be reading from a currupt New Version of the Bible. I'll get to the others when I have more time after work today.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Leviticus 11:19 talks about birds and the bat is NOT a bird: (NIV) "These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat"
jimmo42 2 years ago
Also note Leviticus 11:20
"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you."
There are no insects that "walk on all fours".
jimmo42 2 years ago
Leviticus 11:20 KJV (Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. )
I reject the NIV Bible and its underlying texts as the Word of God.
This proves that A bat is a fowl or flying creature.
Most insects have at least four legs that touch the ground when they walks.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Most insects have at least four legs that touch the ground when they walks.
True but the Bible says **all** fours. You are adding something that is not there, which you are not allowed to do. You MUST read it 100% literally or you are allowed to take things metaphorically, including the creation story. You cannot have it both ways.
jimmo42 2 years ago
There are obvious things that we do not take literally and those things are poetry and assimilation and such. But History we treat as history. Jesus said I am the Door. We know he is not a literal door. I don't have to take everything literally 100% But you choose to call the Bible a fable by what you are doing. You know very well that Genesis is not a metaphor. You have been brainwashed by society to believe it is and your objection to the creation account shows your hidden agenda.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"There are obvious things that we do not take literally". Agreed. Genesis is one of them. Not believing it as a play-by-play description of what happened will not damn me to hell for eternity.
jimmo42 2 years ago
My agenda is not "hidden". It is out in the open.
God will not try to trick us. Therefore, the fossil and geological records are true. Therefore, evolution is true. People like you who deny what is in front of their eyes and force this outdated beliefs on others are pushing people away from God. My agenda is to help people find God, not turn them away.
jimmo42 2 years ago
I see no proof of evolution it the fossil record. The oldest known bat in the fossil record looks exactly like a bat. there is no evidence that it evolved from something else or that it changed into something else. You also read things into your scientific evidence that is not there. All organisms in the fossil record are fully formed. nothing in transition from one kind of organism into another type. You can't even prove that a single cell evolved into another type of organism.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Of course all the organisms are 'fully formed'? How can any organism ever be anything but, and how does evolution predict that they aren't? What exactly do you think a transitional fossil is?
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
Also the oldest bats in the fossil record are not the same as modern bats, they didn't have the ability to echolocate. That was something which emerged later.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
How do you determine that those fossil bats could not echolocate? You have no way of knowing that.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Onychonycteris finneyi, at 52 million years old, lacks essential features around the ear that enable bats to echolocate.
Also, most Christians don't have this 'the-Bible-trumps-all-other-ways-of-knowing' approach to theology, and telling people that they have to reject all of modern science in order to embrace Christianity is not a very productive method of evangelising.
The idea that the earth is 6-10 thousand years old has comparable scientific credibility to the idea that it is flat.
Balabaw2 2 years ago
Balabaw2: Admittedly I was surprised to hear from a Catholic priest that Catholics are not biblical literalists and the big bang theory was actually first proposed by a Catholic priest. I live in Germany and I can confirm German Christians are not literalists either.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Evolution isn't true science. I do not tell people to reject science. You can't prove evolution therefore it is not scientific but a religious belief.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
>>You can't prove evolution therefore it is not scientific but a religious belief.
There is very little in science that you can "prove". It is not about "proving" anything. It is about the ability to describe the universe in a consistant manner. Using the principles of evolution you can say which fossils apprear in certain layers and they DO! Dig down to certain layers and you know which fossils are their. That's science, not religion. You are an IDIOT!!!
moonlightdancer77 2 years ago 2
"I see no proof of evolution it the fossil record. "
Just where did YOU look? Or are you taking the word of creationist website that obviously have an agenda which includes deceiving people.
melreynolds61 2 years ago
Secular evolution websites have an agenda to disprove the Bible and the God of the Bible with their atheistic religion
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
>>Secular evolution websites have an agenda to disprove the Bible...
More bullshit. They are only interested in science. Did you know the Vatican says that evolution is NOT inconsistent with the Bible? So, you are saying that a BILLION Catholics are wrong and only your pathetic little sect is right? How arrogant!! Your channel says you read the KJV. Did you know it contains text that was not in the original? That is, the KJV is NOT the true Bible? That makes you a heretic!
moonlightdancer77 2 years ago
It seems to me that *your* agenda is being right and NOT helping people find God. How many people have been turned away from God because of your outdated beliefs? How much of what you profess is out of arrogance and pride for fear that YOU are wrong? What good is it that you gain the satisfaction of being right, but others loose their soul?
jimmo42 2 years ago
I'm helping people find the God of the Holy Bible and not one of their own making where God's Word needs to be sliced and diced to conform to their desired description of "Their god". What good is lying to people in telling them evolution is true and that the Bible is full of fables. You are destroying peoples faith and not bringing people to God.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Well which church is the "true" one. The Catholic Church? The Vacatin has said that neither evolution or the Big Bang are in conflict with scripture. The Pentacostals? Do YOU speak in tongues? What about the Appalachian Snake handlers? Are THEY the "true" church.
I strengthen people's faith by telling them you can see God's creation all around and STILL believe in Him even if there are fanatics who still think the Bible is 100% representation of the world, when it iobviously isn't.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Floppyjoe777: Please point us all to the passage in scripture that say that by believing in evolution and the big bang you will NOT be saved.
If evolution and the Big Bang are impossible, that means God could not have created the universe in a way that they could exist. So he not omnipontent and therefore NOT God. If you read Genesis as 100% literal you must read other places as a100% literal. For example, do YOU believe a woman must remain silent in church?
jimmo42 2 years ago
If you believe in evolution then you do not believe that the Bible is God's word. You think it is a concoction of man. You can still be saved but you will not do what God wants you to like telling people the Gospel. All people are sinners because of the literal fall into sin in the garden of eden. God cursed the earth because the wages of sin is death. God sent Jesus to pay the penalty for all sin. You must be born again and receive this free gift from God to go to heaven. Repentance will
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Gospel=Adam sinned and mankind fell. God cursed the Earth because the wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. You must accept this free gift and be born again to go to heaven. Repentance is lived out by the saved individual.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Free gift??? What a load of bullshit!!! In exchange for this gift, you have to worship a God who has ordered genocide, allowed rape and sexual slavery, ordered the murder of children, and supports the oppression of woman. So don't go off about this being a "free" gift. You must subjugate yourself in order to get that "gift".
And by the way, don't go off about those things not being in the BIble, they ARE!!!! If you say they aren't you haven't read it. So cut the BULLSHIT!!!
moonlightdancer77 2 years ago
Lev 11:6 The creature here has been translated Hare from the Hebrew arnebeth an extinct animal. The English translators for lack of a better word called this animal a hare. This is also the case with several other animals in this chapter
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Point me to a non-apologetic site that says arnebeth is an "extinct animal". You are again reading something into the Bible that is not there. First, this is the same translation used in the German Luther Bible of 1545. Second, the Arabic word "arnabat" still means a female rabbit. Further, although there have been a number of non-specific translations for that word, the common consensus is that it was at least related to the modern hare and thus not a ruminant.
jimmo42 2 years ago
I'm talking the Hebrew word not Arabic. Your Bible sources are no doubt from corrupt New versions of the Bible as well as their corrupt underlying texts.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"I'm talking the Hebrew word not Arabic." Both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages and have the same root. Common things tend to be similar words. So the logical conclusion is that the word does mean "hare" or a similar animal and thus not a ruminant. Therefore, the bible has a mistake and is not 100% inerrant.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Heb. arnebeth, an unidentified animal, but certainly not a hare, possessing as it is said to, characteristics not possessed by the hare. The supposed error in the text is due entirely to the translators' assumption that the English hare and the ancient "arnebeth" were identical. A hare does not have a hoof either so the thing decribed is not a hare.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
Jeremiah 32:6-9 speaks of buying a field for silver and Zechariah does not mention the buying part. The author of Matthew is giving priority to Jeremiah for "speaking" the prophecy and likely had Zechariah in mind as well.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"Jeremiah 32:6-9 speaks of buying a field for silver"
Simply because Jer 32:6 talks about a "field" you have to stretch things a great deal to make any kind of connection. Also Jer 32:6 talks about the city of Anathoth, the Potters Field is in Jerusalem. They are not talking about the same field.
jimmo42 2 years ago
If you take the verses in Matthew 27:9-10 literally then we know that the prophecy was "spoken" by Jeramiah an not necessarily written down.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
2 Samuel 6:23 No children of her own.
2 Samuel 21:8 2 Samuel 21:8 "...and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:" brought up the 5 sons of Adriel her sisters husband whom she had been given to in 1 Samuel 18:19
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel"
"brought up" is a mistranslation . It should be "bore". Even the German translation of the Luther Bible of 1542 uses "bore" and not "brought up".
jimmo42 2 years ago
"2CH 22:2 vs 2KI 8:26: How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?"
Ahaziah' father was Jehoram was 40 years old when he died. The verse Chronicles says Azahiah was 42 but likely it is twenty 22 as the passage in Samuel has preserved.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"The verse Chronicles says Azahiah was 42 but likely it is twenty 22"
So what you are saying is that Chronicles got it wrong with 42 if likely "it is twenty 22". So you are admitting that the Bible is NOT inerrant.
jimmo42 2 years ago
"2CH 36:1 vs JER 22:11: Who was Josiah's successor?"
The three sons of good king Josiah each occupied the throne of Judah for a short time and the all did evil. Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:32) Jahoiakim (2Kings 23:37) and Zedekiah(2 Kings (24:19)
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"The three sons of good king Josiah ..."
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the word "successor". Look up the definition and then try again.
jimmo42 2 years ago
"2SA 24:13 vs 1CH 21:12: How many years of famine?"
It is possible that God posed this question to David on more than one occasion with differing quantities.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"It is possible that God posed this question..."
You are adding something that is not there. Either you take the Bible at face value or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
jimmo42 2 years ago
What am I adding? Both values are there. You are assuming it is an error when you do not know if in fact God came to him on more than one occasion offering a different punishment for David's sin. The Bible does not say in one place that he evolved creatures and in another that he created them with divine fiat. Why would you add evolution into it?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"What am I adding?" That God came to him on more than one occasion. That is not in the Bible. Therefore, you are adding it. In a courtroom, if two witnesses give conflicting information, "Both values are there". No one assumes that the crime occurred twice.
"Why would you add evolution into it?"
Because I say the Bible is NOT a science or history book. The Bible simply says God created the animals. Where does it say he snapped his fingers and they magically appeared in their current form?
jimmo42 2 years ago
It says he created in six days, and to reproduce after their kind You can't stretch that. All the major doctrines of the Bible are founded in Genesis. If you call it allegory then the doctrine of salvation is meaningless. Why would you even bother being a Christian then and why do you then insist on deceiving people with this evolution nonsense?
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
The story of the woman taken in adultery as described in John 8:1-11 was added centuries later. Also it contradicts the OT as the man should have also been punished. Obviously it was made up.
Mark 16:9-20 was added later. Some manuscripts end at Mark 16:8, some have a different ending.
jimmo42 2 years ago
The Manuscripts in the Vatican have a wide open space left for these verses showing that they are supposed to be there but were left out by the heretics.
Floppyjoe777 2 years ago
"The Manuscripts in the Vatican": I am sure you can point me to a reliable source for your information. If you made that up, then it would be lying and lying is an abomination, just like homosexuality.
BTW, a "wide open space" at the END of a text does not prove something was left out. Just the opposite. It proves that the newer text was added later, like the ending of Mark.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Interesting you mention the Vatican. The Catholics are not biblical literalists. Do you know who first formulated the theory of the Big Bang? Fr. Georges LeMaitre! (a catholic priest)
The Vatican also supports evolution. In Feb. 2009 Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture said ". In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God". The Vatican has repeatedly said neither evolution or the big bang contradict the Bible.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology".
Pope John Paul II stated that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis." Pope Benedict XVI has warned about literal interpretations of the Bible. (google "Vatican evolution")
In fact, MOST of the Christian churches in the world believe in evolution and the big bang.
jimmo42 2 years ago
"God promised to preserve it and he has."
How do you account for the fact that there are a number of things that were not in the original manuscripts, but still exist in the Bible today? That is, they were added later. That really does not sound like God "preserved" it.
jimmo42 2 years ago
"Evolution didn't get us to the moon":
According to the Bible, the moon is stuck onto a solid firmament. If we believe the images, videos and personal reports of the Apollo astronauts, no such structure was observed. How was it that this structure was missed?
By the way, the understanding of evolution is a key aspect of modern immunology. So the next time someone offers you a vaccination, tell them its useless.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Beautifully stated! (very concise, articulate and coherent)
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago
I was just looking for a quick run down on the theory of theistic evolution ( feel free to direct me to that) but wanted to say, I really enjoyed your first video, seems balanced and not to close to the fringe...looking forward to watching the rest of your videos. Bless you brother.
Alionekk 2 years ago
Thanks. I don't start talking about evolution until #10, but I prefer folks to watch the entire series. The groundwork needs to be laid before those latter lessons can be understood in the proper context. Enjoy!
glovergj 2 years ago
is this vid a creationist vid?
thejesusfreak919 2 years ago
Jesus said that he had not come to change the law (the Old Testament) and does not repudiate the laws of Leviticus as far as I know.The 10 Commandments are OLD TESTAMENT! Are these'out'? Why not? I had a cousin who was brought up in a fundamentalist family. When he turned his back on the faith he threw out the associated morality, alas. Far better to have a 'independent' moral code perhaps. Furthermore, we have many interpretations of morality even within religions.
derek24hudson 2 years ago
Science is not God's revelation the Bible is God's revelation.
Creationism is a viewpoint as is naturalism. The problem is the cult of Darwinian naturalism wants to be the authority and author of all truth regardless of what science or common sense dictates.
Uaz31 2 years ago
Who said that science was God's revelation? That would be silly.
glovergj 2 years ago
Everything you are is a gift from God. Every thought that you have, every breath you take and every beat of your heart. You have not earned anything. You owe him everything but you have chosen an occupation designed to credit yourself (creature) and not God (creator)! When you turn your back on him and boast of man's accomplishments (and your accomplishments) he still loves you and longs for you to return to him in full worship and awe.
mrjonesington 2 years ago
'God has defined right and wrong..'. Thank god that MOST people do not try to derive their morality from the bible. The Old Testament laws are barbaric and immoral; stoning disobedient children or non virgin brides WAS NEVER moral. Countless studies show that humans have an inate sense of right and wrong, scores of successful societies who never heard of jesus (China for thousands of years etc) had MORALITY. Do you seriously think that 'pre-Moses' folks thought MURDER was fine?? Come on!!
derek24hudson 2 years ago
Everyone has a conscience whether they are a Christian or not. Consciences aren't learned, they are ingrained in everyone. However, the Bible is a guide for your conscience. If you keep doing something against your conscience, then eventually your conscience won't have a problem with what you are doing because it becomes a norm to it. That's why the Bible serves as a mirror, a curb, and a guide for your conscience. And btw, we don't follow Old Testament civil laws anymore. Ever heard of the NT?
HailZeon57 2 years ago
Good point. Christ cut through the confusion that comes when the letter of the law gets bent towards the self-serving purposes of man -- which inevitably happens with any moral code. "Love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't leave you much wiggle room.
glovergj