@Beastt17 the manuscripts, copyed. How do you know this when they were copied? And the other bibles you speak of, they were not included because they were all contradicting to the bibles other parts, even if they were made apart from each of the other parts of the bible. IRemember we had people back then that wanted attention as well, the birth of buda has a virgin concieving a baby before her having a vision, budaism started in the first centry AD a good 67 years after jesus, you can guess th
Re: "the manuscripts, copyed. How do you know this when they were copied?"
-
Can you please explain what you're trying to say? How do I know the manuscripts were copied, when they were copied? If that's your question, we have many, many different copies. You couldn't just go to the local copy shop. Manuscripts had to be copied by hand. And in the 5,700+ COPIES we have, (representing just 27-books), NO TWO ARE ALIKE. They were changed each time they were copied.
@beastt17 im pretty sure that dosent say everyone own slaves its fun, and about the budda, no do you know what young woman ment in the times of jesus? It meant a woman who still hasent marryed anyone, aka a virgin because the hebrews would follow there standards, some slipped obviously, but then explain, because we have evidence that the manuscripts were written hundreds of years apart how in isahia and many parts of the OT it says a virgin will concieve? And it says this in hebrew not greek
Re: "im pretty sure that dosent say everyone own slaves its fun"
-
No one suggested it did. Stop evading. Here is the point: it states that the owner of a slave may beat that slave to death, and as long as the slave doesn't die for a day or two, the slave owner has done nothing wrong. Struggle as you might; you can't change what it's saying and you can't tell me that beating a slave to death (or even owning a slave), is a moral act.
Re: "in isahia and many parts of the OT it says a virgin will concieve?"
-
No, it says (in Hebrew) "almah" will conceive. But the first known mistranslation to the Greek word "parthenos" which means "virgin" is pre-Christian Jewish in a writing known as the Septuagint. That's where the idea first arose. The Hebrew manuscripts say "almah"; "a young woman will conceive".
@Beastt17 were did you get your facts for the story of the apostales? Did you not know that manuscripts of the gospals exist to this day??? This is what im talking about. Dont expect to get everything right because another atheist tells you so. The apostales have proof that they wrote the gospals from there own hands, most if not all that information is wrong. Did you really read exodus 21 20-21? It is saying laws that if a slave owner, for at the time the slave as we know it was not the same a
Re: "Did you not know that manuscripts of the gospals exist to this day?"
-
There are 5,700+ extant Greek NT manuscripts housed in various archives. The oldest is known as P52 and it dates to about 125CE. It's a portion of John about the size of a credit card with writing on both sides. We have NOTHING older than that and NO original manuscripts. If you don't believe me, check with The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Re: "The apostales have proof that they wrote the gospals from there own hands..."
-
I'm afraid I'm going to have to embarrass you here. What is your source for that. Even encyclopedias and Study Bibles will tell you that you're wrong. For example...
...this next commentary on Matthew is from a Study Bible.
"Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?"
Stop trying to insult my intelligence, of course I did. Did you?
--
Re: "It is saying laws that if a slave owner, for at the time the slave as we know it was not the same a..."
-
I'm not sure what happened to the end of that post but nothing you can say changes what it says. It's suggesting that not only is slavery moral, but a slave owner can beat his slave to death, and do nothing immoral. Go READ it.
@Beastt17 about ur comment that jesus would be unkown if not for constantine do you know the history of the apostals? They spread christianity as far south into etheopia and lower and as far east as india, which is why the birth of budosa sounds a lot like christianitys beginingn with the son of man being conceved by a virgin, finally it headed up north into parts of europe, constantne started what we call the catholic church after some time of christianity, get ur facts straightend out
I know the Christian version, and what is supported by historical documentation. Now, do YOU know the history of early Christianity? I'll bet you don't. Let's zip over to Western Syria to find the earliest historical champions of Christianity. They were Satornilus, Cerdo and Meander. In Egypt we find Valentinus, Basilidies and Appeles. All of them were GNOSTIC Christians.
Hush, silly; you've shown you have less than a clue outside of what the church erroneously teaches. I'm giving you a look at what history DEMONSTRATES to be true. Now let's zip over to Asia Minor and we find the earliest Christian teaching from the Apocalypse of John which is a Jewish, not Christian, manuscript. Here we find Ascetic Christianity.
What you fail to note is that Constantine hi-jacked Christianity.
Re: "constantne started what we call the catholic church"
-
Constantine - being in a position of extreme power - presented extreme power to others so that they could come together on what Christianity was to teach. They pushed out the earliest promoters and labeled them "heretics". That's when proto-orthodox Christianity took hold. The council VOTED Jesus to be God. They voted the Trinity as taught in the Latin Vulgate, not in the original Greek texts.
Re; "which is why the birth of budosa sounds a lot like christianitys beginingn with the son of man being conceved by a virgin"
-
No, no, no, the Christian story started with a mistranslation by one of the Greek writers who translated "Almah" (young woman) into the Greek "parthenos" which means "virgin". It fit well with they supposed mystical births of many of the pagan gods and simply persisted. After all, how do you admit your divine writing has a blunder?
Re: "constantne started what we call the catholic church"
-
Again' Constantine was less interested in what the church taught, and far more interested in the political utilization the new church might allow him. So he set up the council will all the power and authority they would need, and immediately afterward, rushed home to have his wife and son killed (another step in his political agenda). Then he put off being baptized until he was sure he was dying.
Now; let's see where else we can get you straightened out on your facts? Do you think the disciples wrote the gospels? Nope! Not a single word of the Bible was written by anyone who knew Jesus. Do you think the Bible is based on original manuscripts? Nope! Not a single original Bible manuscript still exists. Do you think the copies were loyal to the originals? Nope, they were changed every time they were copied.
The four canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. They were assigned authors and we now know these assignments were wrong, on each and every count. For the first 300-years of Christianity, there were more than 30-gospels from which the church fathers eventually chose. And for that 300-years, all 30+ were read as "the word of God". The people who chose the final four never knew Jesus and none of the writers ever knew Jesus. They're just stories
@TucsonDave please check ur channel comments so this conversation can continue, there are many things you are misleaded on like that the bible has no scientific data, yes it actually does
@Beast17 pleas tell me where in the bible it says each of these things, in the bible, jesus was born in aRound AD 0 no ce or bce crap, were do you get all this false information that in the bible it is contradicting itself and that its ok to hold slaves and beat them? Remember you must never use one verse out of context i will go and verifie for it has happend before that people would create misleading information
Re: "tell me where in the bible it says each of these things, in the bible, jesus was born in aRound AD 0"
-
Isn't it always the case that the atheists has to show the Christian what the Bible says and where? At any rate; Matthew 2:1-7 shows that Jesus was born under King Herod. King Herod is known to have died in 4BCE. Luke 2:1 shows Jesus being born under Governor Quirinius and he took the governorship in 6BCE. So you have two births, 10-years apart.
That can be found in Exodus 21:20-21. It clearly states that if a man beats a slave and the slave dies but not for a day or two, the slave owner has done no wrong because the slave was his "property". This is supposed to be God presenting his laws on slavery.
-
Re: "you must never use one verse out of context"
-
Show me the context in which it is moral to beat a slave (or anyone else), to death.
Re: "it has happend before that people would create misleading information"
-
That's true. You've done it right here yourself. You told TucsonDave that he need to check his comments because he was presenting misleading information on the Bible. I read what he had to say and he's spot-on! So YOU are creating misleading information. You should check your comments. When the Bible enters the science fray, it tends to look pathetically comical.
This was one of the final steps. Remember how Constantine had his wife and son killed, then held out until the last moments to be baptized? This is where Bishop Eusebius stepped in as Constantine's personal hatchet man, and wrote a glowing eulogy for Constantine. After the fire at the Library of Alexandria, Eusebius re-wrote much of Christian history. He even translated Josephus' work, after which the Golden Paragraph forgery emerged.
@TucsonDave111 the scientific has not yet verified in evolution, people have concluded without using the very known facts that disprove that theory. And a theory is not the highest place a law is.
@TucsonDave111 now going a bit further with the whole light issue, this is going to sound like im running from the question but it is the truth and what i truly meeant to say, we we not there when god created everything nor do we know what he meant by greater lights, for in the bible there are the scientific mixed with the spiritual wich is why most people think its a load of garbage, so im going to have to say i do not know what god meant but that does not mean for a second the bible is incorr
@TucsonDave111 If you knew anything about atoms, you'd know that at their core, they are made of light. Light/energy is what keeps an atom together. Without light there'd be no atom. Without an atom, there'd be no matter. Without matter, there'd be nothing. This is why light has both particle, and wave properties. There's science for you.
@TucsonDave111 I never said that. Im just saying that either way, the author isn't lying :b
He could've called man light, and he wouldn't have been lying. That's where all matter comes from and that's what all matter is. Im not trying to steer you off topic either, all I was implying that either way, what the author wrote was true :b
@XxAdamJxX 2000 years ago people knew about light and dark. The author didn't know about atoms. Gen 1:16 is simply stating there are 2 lights.
At that time they didn't understand the light was reflecting off the moon. I'd postulate that the creator of the universe knew the moon wasn't a light source. it looks like the bible was written by man.
@TucsonDave111 The bible was written by man. You are correct. I believe the bible, cause I've had my share of encounters with demonic spirits, as well as God. Yeah I understand why you'd question it so much, cause I used to be the same way. I can't defend it because there's no scriptural evidence to back up that claim of the two lights. But like they say, seeing is believing. I've always been a believer, but was lousy at once point. Personal experiences is what strengthened my faith.
@XxAdamJxX According to the bible the one and only true god is Jesus/God. No other gods are real.
Other people from other religions will tell you similar stories about their personal experiences. they know their religion is true because............. This includes followers of Scientology too. I think we all agree that they're not all true.
@TucsonDave111 Because the bible warns of such things. Firstly, there's no such things as "ghosts". The bible clearly states that all spirits that roam the earth are of the nephelim which were wiped out in the global flood. Therefore, we can determine that these are demons. These entities exercise lots of violent and hate on people who are open to them (ghost hunters, witches, palm readers, basically everything that has to do with the occult.) That's how you know that these spirits are evil.
@TucsonDave111 Another thing, with the bible, you can see who's actually running this planet. With the way the governments have been running lately, a global government will come to pass. Revelation speaks of such a system. Where everyone would worship one leader (the anti-christ), and where everyone would be forced to follow one religion. If this comes into effect, you can count on seeing no separate forms of religion, as this would continually cause conflict. The bible is the truth :/
@TucsonDave111 He just has a different view than I do. I take the bible literal. I believe everything that the bible says. One reason why I believe in a global flood, is because dozens of ruins have been found under the ocean. Not just in one place, but globally. Mostly around the coastal regions though.
@XxAdamJxX If the bible is the inerrant word of god. Or the word of god written by man, how is it that it isn't understood by man the same way? If god is a perfect being and wants to save everyone wouldn't his message be crystal clear to everyone?
The bible makes very clear statements. It also specifies that you accept everything, its not an ala carte type religion.
I have never found a Christian that actually follows what the bible says. But they say they're a Christian??
@TucsonDave111 That's because Satan is very real my friend. He's the lord of confusion. Paul clearly stated that we are not at war with flesh and blood, but with spirits. Yes, there are many people that will profess to be christians but won't do what a christian should do. Such as, fornicating as a non-believer would, murdering as a non-believer would, etc. But we are only human....we WILL stumble time to time. If a person seeked Jesus with his heart, he'd/she'd be a changed man/woman.
@XxAdamJxX The Noah Flood story does clearly specify that the highest mountain tops were covered with water. That's what the bible says. Why would 92xtaylor say it didn't happen? He's a Christian.
@TucsonDave111 I have no idea why he would say it did not happen. However, you can believe me if you want to, dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible. If read in hebrew, we would understand A LOT more than what english has to offer. Many words in hebrew do not translate to be the same thing in english. But in the bible, in the book of Job, he speaks of an animal who's tail moved like a cedar tree. Now I don't know about you, but I have never seen an animal who's tail could be compared to that of
@XxAdamJxX Cedar trees don't move. That doesn't seem to be a description of an animal.
Many dinosaurs were small. The size of a chicken or cat. there are many references to animals we see today but none that we now know are dinosaurs today.
On the noah flood I have a couple questions if you don't mind.
@XxAdamJxX Dude, the Creationist view is incorrect. I don't say this to be mean to you, I say this so you can open your mind a little bit more to the Christian faith. Learn about it more and you get more excited about it Christ because you learn the true meanings of the text.
@92xtaylor I try not to worry how this world started. I do know there is a God though and I certainly am already excited :)
Thanks for your concern though. How about...you send me a link to something so I can learn more? I've heard and read so many things that I can't even remember. I've probably already learned what you are suggesting I go and see, but It'd be great if you refreshed my memory :)
@XxAdamJxX Noah collected 2 of each kind of animal. No fish were taken. the salt content for sea life would have died because not enough salt. Fresh water fish would have had too much salt. How did the fish all live?
Where did the water come from? We know there isn't enough water to cover the highest mountains. Where did it go after the flood?
@TucsonDave111 Hmm Im not sure. I do not have the answers to every question. But I am really looking forward to learning about EVERYTHING once I meet God face to face :)
Like I said, Im not here to try and convince you otherwise. You believe what you want okay? I just pray that something personally happens to you so that you may believe. That'd be all the evidence you'd need for the rest of your life.
@XxAdamJxX On the Noah flood. If it was a global flood as the bible states, why did no other culture that was living before, during and after the flood die or have any record of the flood? The pyramids were being build during this time. China has a great historical record with no flood. They didn't all die either.
@TucsonDave111 Hey Dave, check the link I sent Adam, and you will see my reasons why Evolution has nothing to do with the subject of God or Christianity.
just paste it behind the backslash in your url and it should work. Let me know if you have any problems and I'll try to see if I cant help you with them. :)
@TucsonDave111 Yes really. If you have an issue with a person who is well versed in Philosophy, Science, and Theology giving his view of Genesis then be my guest. If you dont like him then go talk to Lennox, Turek, Plantinga, St Agustine, and many more of the top Academic Christian Apologist. They all acknowledge that Evolution and an old Earth/Universe is perfectly compatible with Christian Doctrine. :)
Re: "They all acknowledge that Evolution and an old Earth/Universe is perfectly compatible with Christian Doctrine."
-
While many others disagree. And if you read what the Bible actually says (even though many Christians seem to think it's a sin to not re-write it as you read), it most definitely doesn't accommodate evolution. Perhaps that's why only half of Americans accept it, despite evolution being very well supported science.
@Beastt17 If you take the story of creation as actual then yes, The Bible and Evolution conflict. If you take the story of creation as a metaphor and a poem, then they perfectly co exist.
Re: "If you take the story of creation as a metaphor and a poem, then they perfectly co exist."
-
Sure; because given metaphorical license, you can decide it says anything you want it to say. Is "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" a true story? Of course not. Could we weave it into a metaphor based on a true account?
How do you decide what is, and what isn't intended metaphorically? Easy. If it's wrong given a literal reading, then it's metaphor, right?
@92xtaylor This is a very old and failed attempt used by many apologists. when the bible can be clearly shown to be wrong the "metaphor" card is played. If the bible had been written to point real stories you'd have a small chance.
-
I asked this question last night. Was the Noah Global flood a story of genocide just threaten people or did god actually kill everyone and every thing except for what was on the ark? What benevolent god would kill everyone or threaten to kill everyone?
@TucsonDave111 Its not a "card that im playing it is simply the truth. A story written doesnt have to be true for their to be an actual meaning to it. As for the flood, I have already answered that, I believe it was just a section of the world not the actual whole world. As for science, no. Saying God did something is not a scientific claim, its a philosophical one. It doesnt go in detail the process in which he used. Message me if you like but im done with messages, to little rom
Re: "A story written doesnt have to be true for their to be an actual meaning to it."
-
True, but to pick and choose to suit your own beliefs and ideas is a purely dishonest tactic. You just end up making yourself your own God. And yet, Christianity wouldn't have over 38,000 officially recognized denominations if it weren't for this self-serving process of picking and choosing what to consider literal and what should be metaphorical.
Re: "I believe it was just a section of the world not the actual whole world."
-
Then why does the Bible say, "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."?
And how would that wipe out all evil on Earth? And since it didn't, why didn't an omniscient God know it wouldn't work? Or did he know, and just went ahead and killed billions of people and animals anyway? You're ignoring the Bible.
Re: "Saying God did something is not a scientific claim, its a philosophical one."
-
Uhm.... no. It doesn't work that way. If the Bible says God created the universe, that's NOT a philosophical claim. That's a scientific claim. If it says plants were growing on Earth before the sun existed, that's a scientific claim and one we know to be untrue. If it says the offspring of goats will be patterned after the view of the copulating parents, that's just lunacy.
Re: "It doesnt go in detail the process in which he used."
-
Of course not because the authors didn't have a clue. They were just making it up as best they could. But nearly everywhere they provide even some detail, they're wrong.
Whoa! Firstly, this is a debate. If you want to debate, then do so. Don't send people to watch some video YOU found compelling. We can't debate with William Lane Craig because he's intelligent enough to know that if he opened himself up to a forum such as this, he'd be crushed and ruined in a matter of days.
That said, he's already claimed we're not held to a six-day creation. Yes we are. The Bible not only says so, but defines "Day" SIX TIMES, in just 27-verses.
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
Then he states that Howard Van Till suggests that special creation is not necessary for belief in the God of Christian scripture. SO...?
-
That's known as argument from authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam). That's how you'll find it listed in standard lists of KNOWN FALLACIES. It's a fallacious arguement and WLC most certainly knows that. But it sells what he does to Christians, and thus fuels his financial stability.
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
Let's not forget that I've already pointed out three failures in his lecture, all on a single point, and I'm only 1:01 into the video.
I'm willing to suggest that it's because you don't understand his arguments that you find him so compelling. To anyone engaged in serious discussion on the topic, he's just a bone to be chewed.
Next we find Mr. Craig dusting off the old argument of improbability. And yet it is easily understood that in any system where all outcomes are highly improbable, a highly improbable outcome becomes certain. (Write that down)
Imagine a helicopter hovering over a field 1-mile square. A 1-inch marble is dropped from the helicopter. There are over 4 billion 1-inch squares in the field below (1 - 4 billion chance). Does that mean the marble won't land?
@Beastt17 Im sure you have just destroyed a person holding Doctorates in the subject matter. You should write Oxford, maybe they will put you up against him! Secondly, the topic of our discussion was not William Lane Craig, it was actually the Creation Story and perhaps its impact on Christianity, and my statement about the Old Testament and the Resurrection of Jesus still stands. If you wish to discuss this more, pm me. I really do dislike the comment program.
Re: "Im sure you have just destroyed a person holding Doctorates in the subject matter."
-
There you go making the same fallacious observation Mr. Craig made; argument from authority. The fact is, either I did, or I didn't. So it's up to you (as the one presenting the video), to explain why my criticism of his points aren't valid, and in fact, more compelling on an evidential and basis of reason, than the assertions made by WLC. Go ahead. Try.
In what way does it stand? Do you believe man was created as a fully-formed adult male from the dust of the Earth? Do you believe plants were growing in sub-cryogenic temperatures without sunlight? Do you believe the Earth was somehow covered in liquid water while remaining devoid of an atmosphere? None of those things are at all possible. Why would you believe them? The OT can't even survive it's first page.
@Beastt17 My point, Sir, was that the Old Testament has nothing to do with establishing a true account of the Resurrection. The entire Old Testament can be completely false on every account, and Jesus still could have rose from the dead (which was my entire point of evolution not having to do with Christianity). Allow me to state my conclusion: I am perfectly justified in being a Christian and believing in Evolution as they are not conflicting. No more comments for the moment, hate em
Re: "I am perfectly justified in being a Christian and believing in Evolution as they are not conflicting."
-
Yes they are. The only way out is to do what you just did - reject the Old Testament, and ignore the fallacious nature of the resurrection & ascension accounts.
But in rejecting the OT, you're suggesting that the church fathers who claimed the writings to be divine, were mistaken. Yet they also chose the New Testament writings and proclaimed them to be divine.
@Beastt17 My point, Sir, was that the Old Testament has nothing to do with establishing a true account of the Resurrection. The entire Old Testament can be completely false on every account, and Jesus still could have rose from the dead (which was my entire point of evolution not having to do with Christianity). Allow me to state my conclusion: I am perfectly justified in being a Christian and believing in Evolution as they are not conflicting. No more comments for the moment, hate em
Apparently, you're not familiar with the history of the Bible. The claim of the resurrection came first from the gospel of Mark. It was the first written but it was most certainly not written by Mark or anyone who knew Jesus or witnessed the events. But the oldest copies of 'Mark' don't contain the resurrection or ascension accounts. They were added later by a different (and also unknown), author.
Since we know that a second author added the resurrection and ascension (and indeed, the last 12-verses of 'Mark'), we're left to ask ourselves if the original author was aware of the resurrection and ascension and simply thought them unworthy of mention, or if he was simply writing a version of a popular story, which was later appended by a second author who heard the story somewhat differently. The evidence all supports the latter.
Aren't you just dying to ask how we know Mark didn't write "The Gospel of Mark"?
-
I'm more than prepared to explain the evidence in great detail. I'll give you a few minutes to tell me whether or not you'd like me to do that at this time. (By the way, many Bibles now have double-brackets around the last 12-verses, to denote that they were latter additions by a second author.)
Regardless of your response, the defensible point is that the resurrection and ascension no more happen with Jesus than with Dionysus, Simon (of the Gabrielle Revelation Stone), or any of the other gods of myth, from which the Jesus myth was crafted.
He goes on to represent the improbability of human evolution numerically. It certainly sounds impressive... unless you consider that evolution doesn't suggest humans arose in a singular step. You start with the simplest proto-cell and evolution gladly does the rest. Will it always produce humans? No. But it will produce equally complex forms of life. If you understand evolution, it can't fail to do so.
@92xtaylor I'm back. WLC is trying to build a fallacy. The bible makes some scientific claims. Origin of the universe, creation of life etc. We now know the biblical versions of these accounts are wrong.
Science has answered a great number of these questions. Not all and not with 100% accuracy but we know a great deal. WLC is trying to suggest that there isn't a conflict. That is the lie and the fallacy. For his assertion to be true you'd have to ignore what the bible actually says.
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
@TucsonDave111 a cedar tree in modern days. Also, the animal is compared to have bone as iron, clearly indicating a large animal of unimaginable proportions. He goes on to say how no man's sword could take down this animal, but only his creator (God). If Men could not take this animal down, I am SURE it was no Elephant or any modern animal as such. But then to suggest Man lived along side dinos would totally go against modern science wouldn't it?
There have been claims of finding human footprints along dinosaur footprints. But this only leads to one conclusion. Either science is deceiving us, or the bible is one giant hoax. I accept science to a certain extent. As with the bible, Im standing firm on my faith because of my encounters with both demons and God. No, I am not a loon, I am 100% OKAY. But if I am crazy, then I guess 90% of the human population is as well.
@XxAdamJxX You accept science daily, the computer your using now, Cell phone, GPS, You'll live twice as long as your recent ancestors. The scientific method is proven daily. It's not perfect but it's getting better every day. Most of the world's population does believe in a god. If it was always the same god might be more compelling. Religion has been used as a tool to control people for thousands of years.
Religion with no evidence or the scientific method which you use daily?
@XxAdamJxX Actually, i will just comment it so TucsonDave can see it too hehe. Just put this link behind the youtube part of your link (if you didn't already now how!). here is that link: watch?v=XdVBfIWE6sg
@TucsonDave111 That's how it is with me. However, the remains of Sodom and Gamora have been believed to have been found. What is left of them is exactly has the bible described. Along with brimstone in the area. Pretty intriguing.
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
@TucsonDave111 But maybe if you had an encounter with a demon, you'd understand how real it is. I wouldn't encourage it though cause I wouldn't want anything to happen to you. Things can get really out of hand with non-believers. Im not even kidding. Possessions are real and take place more with non-believers. I don't want to change your views. Jesus did what he had to do and let the people be. So I will do the same. If you don't mind, I'd love to pray for you. Take care brother <3
@TucsonDave111 the main issue i have is that sometimes when i try to write a responce youtube on ipad does not want to send it so what i try to say sounds weak, no one told me to please stop but i feel like they will begin, so is there anyother way, and again i am not trying to run away here just tired of my post not being posted so i sound like an iddiot
@Assultman1001 Thats fare. Does Skype have a good chat option? I haven't touched it in years. Let me know what you think is a better forum to continue.
@TucsonDave111 before i awnser your well thought but also incorrect statements this discussion as it seems is going to get really long, so is there a way you can create a skype so that we may continue this without having people getting mad?
@TucsonDave111 i am not saying anything about the scientific method nor have i said, i am saying that the theory of evelution is just that, a theory not ever the truth until i grow gills and wings, figure of speech btw. The reason the scientific method has not been able to disprove the bible is because it is all correct in everything
@Assultman1001 Now you're being really squirmy. It IS the scientific method that has been used to verify the fact of evolution. It is the scientific method that is also used to produce all the cool technologies that you and I enjoy and use daily. It's why we will live twice as long as our recent ancestors. I know you didn't say anything about it. You're trying to pretend it doesn't apply when it is a key point of hypocrisy for you.
@Assultman1001 Within Science a theory is the highest level of knowledge they have. A theory is a cumulative group of facts that all support the theory. We have more peer reviewed documents that all support the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity. There isn't a single scientific argument that contradicts any fact associated with the theory of evolution. If you could provide one you'd be the most famous person in your lifetime.
@TucsonDave111 is my grammer that bad or are u being real ignorant no offense but seriously what is evolution? The belif that we come from other species to be basic about it, and my girafe expanation was not showing the flaw in creation but in evolution. He said in the bible that he separated the light from the darkness on earth, this can mean a truckload of things. The bible is always correct, now what you get by it may differ on some small parts like that
RE: "this can mean a truckload of things" Lets look again, honestly.
this can mean a truckload of things, And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
God made two lights. That means they each produce light. Either they both do or neither do. This statement is very clear. Explain how you can honestly twist it's meaning.
@baldurus1 you do know all ur translations fro greek are incorrect, i am litarally finding translations from non biased sources and that is not what i am readin dnt be so closed minded
@TucsonDave111 again srry i keep hitting reply trying to type, anywho the light came from or what kind of light. Was it a light from a star he made we may never truly find out but in a sence the moon does emmit light. It reflects light from the sun emmiting it from its own surface and where does it say the moon emmites its own light?
@TucsonDave111 then why are you saying that god does not exist? If you take out all the possible whatever is left that is plausable no matter how improbable you think it is is the awnser. The girraffe along with countless other animals disproves evolution, without evolution the thought that we were made from evolution is obviously incorrect and finally the question rises what created use, if there is nothing else, which there is nothing else then the awnser is god please try to be a bit more o
@Assultman1001 I'm not saying there is no chance of god, only there is no evidence for god.
You made an assertion that a giraffe disproves evolution. This is news to the entire scientific community that uses the foundation of evolution in their jobs every day.
Can you provide scientific data to support your assertion?
In any debate, if one side doesn't provide evidence for it's side, God does not win by default.
Even if so, you'd have to have proof it's your god vs. another.
@baldurus1 yes he was god according to the bible. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. Who was the word? Jesus. This is what the origonal transliation said get ur sources
@Assultman1001 When Jesus commands people to worship him it's a mistranslation from the Greek word revere which was translated to worship. Jesus told people to REVERE his message, not worship.
" and the word was with god, and the word was god." which is a gain a gross misinterpretation from the original Greek which reads ‘and the Word from God.’” Note the FROM.
The sources: the original scripts. Check the facts.
@baldurus1 jesus never said that, seriously were on earth did you hear that? Deffinatly not from the bible. Were ever you got this information if its a bible verse which it is not please tell me what verse it is
@TucsonDave111 we do not have an exact for it doesnt matter that much to use, but we do have a theory from the very first two verses in the bible were it roughly says god created the heavens and earth, but filled with darkness and void of life, then after an unknown ammount of time he said let there be light.
@TucsonDave111 now the sponge soaks up blood when the girraffes head goes down wihich also counter acts the rest of the force that comes from the blood going up from the heart. The amazing girraffe has stumped evolutionist along with some other animals.
@TuscsonDave111 even with that lets say its getting a drink of waterand a lion comes around so it must get away from the danger, but as soon as it gets up it passes out, why? This is because the blood doesnt get to the girrafes brain in time and so the girrafe is dead, a dead girrafe can not reproduce can it? But to counteract this the girraffe was also made with a type of sponge on the bottom of the brain
@Assultman1001 What is your point? Every animal has some horrible biological features.
Some reptiles have one hole they breath through and a different one for air. This a good idea and makes sense. Humans and other mammals have a single hole. Very easy to choke. our eyes have blind spot. Humans aren't fast, strong, able to fly or breath under water.
If you want to make a point I'd love to here it.
99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Pretty bad design.
@TucsonDave111 ok so we have a girrafe from evolution and its having problems getting blood to its head so its heart grows bigger. Finally blood can easily get blood to its head. But this new girraffe needs to get a drink of water so when it bends down its head his head pops off. Why? Because the force of its heart is so great that when going downward the force will pop his head off. Why doesnt it? Thats because the creator made him with a type of cone shaped blockade in its vain going up its
@TucsonDave111 ok so im guessing u havent search teuly into what prokaryotic cells do. They do not evolve into another species of bacteria, no they adapt to the situation just like humans adapt to tempeture after generations. Adaptation does exist. But evolution, the changeong of one species to another by means of reproduction and naturl means, there are many prime examples. But one i remember the most is the girraffe. Now in order for the girraffe to get its blood from its heart to its head, t
@Assultman1001 We have examples of evolution living today and fossils from extinct species.
You're playing the micro evolution vs. macro evolution game.
The scientific method works. It's not perfect but it is better every year. Every day you use cell phones, computers, you have advanced medicine, GPS, etc. You see the products of the scientific method. As soon as this method shows evidence that contradicts the bible story you say it's wrong. This is denial, very biased and dishonest.
@Beastt17 the manuscripts, copyed. How do you know this when they were copied? And the other bibles you speak of, they were not included because they were all contradicting to the bibles other parts, even if they were made apart from each of the other parts of the bible. IRemember we had people back then that wanted attention as well, the birth of buda has a virgin concieving a baby before her having a vision, budaism started in the first centry AD a good 67 years after jesus, you can guess th
Assultman1001 3 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "the manuscripts, copyed. How do you know this when they were copied?"
-
Can you please explain what you're trying to say? How do I know the manuscripts were copied, when they were copied? If that's your question, we have many, many different copies. You couldn't just go to the local copy shop. Manuscripts had to be copied by hand. And in the 5,700+ COPIES we have, (representing just 27-books), NO TWO ARE ALIKE. They were changed each time they were copied.
Beastt17 2 hours ago
@beastt17 im pretty sure that dosent say everyone own slaves its fun, and about the budda, no do you know what young woman ment in the times of jesus? It meant a woman who still hasent marryed anyone, aka a virgin because the hebrews would follow there standards, some slipped obviously, but then explain, because we have evidence that the manuscripts were written hundreds of years apart how in isahia and many parts of the OT it says a virgin will concieve? And it says this in hebrew not greek
Assultman1001 3 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "im pretty sure that dosent say everyone own slaves its fun"
-
No one suggested it did. Stop evading. Here is the point: it states that the owner of a slave may beat that slave to death, and as long as the slave doesn't die for a day or two, the slave owner has done nothing wrong. Struggle as you might; you can't change what it's saying and you can't tell me that beating a slave to death (or even owning a slave), is a moral act.
Beastt17 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "in isahia and many parts of the OT it says a virgin will concieve?"
-
No, it says (in Hebrew) "almah" will conceive. But the first known mistranslation to the Greek word "parthenos" which means "virgin" is pre-Christian Jewish in a writing known as the Septuagint. That's where the idea first arose. The Hebrew manuscripts say "almah"; "a young woman will conceive".
Beastt17 2 hours ago
@Beastt17 were did you get your facts for the story of the apostales? Did you not know that manuscripts of the gospals exist to this day??? This is what im talking about. Dont expect to get everything right because another atheist tells you so. The apostales have proof that they wrote the gospals from there own hands, most if not all that information is wrong. Did you really read exodus 21 20-21? It is saying laws that if a slave owner, for at the time the slave as we know it was not the same a
Assultman1001 4 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "Did you not know that manuscripts of the gospals exist to this day?"
-
There are 5,700+ extant Greek NT manuscripts housed in various archives. The oldest is known as P52 and it dates to about 125CE. It's a portion of John about the size of a credit card with writing on both sides. We have NOTHING older than that and NO original manuscripts. If you don't believe me, check with The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
ht tp: //w ww. csntm. com/
Beastt17 2 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "The apostales have proof that they wrote the gospals from there own hands..."
-
I'm afraid I'm going to have to embarrass you here. What is your source for that. Even encyclopedias and Study Bibles will tell you that you're wrong. For example...
...this next commentary on Matthew is from a Study Bible.
Beastt17 2 hours ago
"Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?"
Beastt17 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "Did you really read exodus 21 20-21?"
-
Stop trying to insult my intelligence, of course I did. Did you?
--
Re: "It is saying laws that if a slave owner, for at the time the slave as we know it was not the same a..."
-
I'm not sure what happened to the end of that post but nothing you can say changes what it says. It's suggesting that not only is slavery moral, but a slave owner can beat his slave to death, and do nothing immoral. Go READ it.
Beastt17 2 hours ago
@Beastt17 evolution is not as people mis believe we
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "evolution is not as people mis believe we"
-
I guess I'll just wait until you come back and finish that sentence.
Beastt17 7 hours ago
@Beastt17 about ur comment that jesus would be unkown if not for constantine do you know the history of the apostals? They spread christianity as far south into etheopia and lower and as far east as india, which is why the birth of budosa sounds a lot like christianitys beginingn with the son of man being conceved by a virgin, finally it headed up north into parts of europe, constantne started what we call the catholic church after some time of christianity, get ur facts straightend out
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "do you know the history of the apostals?"
-
I know the Christian version, and what is supported by historical documentation. Now, do YOU know the history of early Christianity? I'll bet you don't. Let's zip over to Western Syria to find the earliest historical champions of Christianity. They were Satornilus, Cerdo and Meander. In Egypt we find Valentinus, Basilidies and Appeles. All of them were GNOSTIC Christians.
Beastt17 6 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "get ur facts straightend out"
-
Hush, silly; you've shown you have less than a clue outside of what the church erroneously teaches. I'm giving you a look at what history DEMONSTRATES to be true. Now let's zip over to Asia Minor and we find the earliest Christian teaching from the Apocalypse of John which is a Jewish, not Christian, manuscript. Here we find Ascetic Christianity.
What you fail to note is that Constantine hi-jacked Christianity.
Beastt17 6 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "constantne started what we call the catholic church"
-
Constantine - being in a position of extreme power - presented extreme power to others so that they could come together on what Christianity was to teach. They pushed out the earliest promoters and labeled them "heretics". That's when proto-orthodox Christianity took hold. The council VOTED Jesus to be God. They voted the Trinity as taught in the Latin Vulgate, not in the original Greek texts.
Beastt17 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Assultman1001,
-
Re; "which is why the birth of budosa sounds a lot like christianitys beginingn with the son of man being conceved by a virgin"
-
No, no, no, the Christian story started with a mistranslation by one of the Greek writers who translated "Almah" (young woman) into the Greek "parthenos" which means "virgin". It fit well with they supposed mystical births of many of the pagan gods and simply persisted. After all, how do you admit your divine writing has a blunder?
Beastt17 6 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "constantne started what we call the catholic church"
-
Again' Constantine was less interested in what the church taught, and far more interested in the political utilization the new church might allow him. So he set up the council will all the power and authority they would need, and immediately afterward, rushed home to have his wife and son killed (another step in his political agenda). Then he put off being baptized until he was sure he was dying.
Beastt17 6 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "get ur facts straightend out"
-
Now; let's see where else we can get you straightened out on your facts? Do you think the disciples wrote the gospels? Nope! Not a single word of the Bible was written by anyone who knew Jesus. Do you think the Bible is based on original manuscripts? Nope! Not a single original Bible manuscript still exists. Do you think the copies were loyal to the originals? Nope, they were changed every time they were copied.
Beastt17 6 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
The Gospels
-
The four canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. They were assigned authors and we now know these assignments were wrong, on each and every count. For the first 300-years of Christianity, there were more than 30-gospels from which the church fathers eventually chose. And for that 300-years, all 30+ were read as "the word of God". The people who chose the final four never knew Jesus and none of the writers ever knew Jesus. They're just stories
Beastt17 6 hours ago
@TucsonDave please check ur channel comments so this conversation can continue, there are many things you are misleaded on like that the bible has no scientific data, yes it actually does
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Beast17 pleas tell me where in the bible it says each of these things, in the bible, jesus was born in aRound AD 0 no ce or bce crap, were do you get all this false information that in the bible it is contradicting itself and that its ok to hold slaves and beat them? Remember you must never use one verse out of context i will go and verifie for it has happend before that people would create misleading information
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "tell me where in the bible it says each of these things, in the bible, jesus was born in aRound AD 0"
-
Isn't it always the case that the atheists has to show the Christian what the Bible says and where? At any rate; Matthew 2:1-7 shows that Jesus was born under King Herod. King Herod is known to have died in 4BCE. Luke 2:1 shows Jesus being born under Governor Quirinius and he took the governorship in 6BCE. So you have two births, 10-years apart.
Beastt17 7 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "its ok to hold slaves and beat them?"
-
That can be found in Exodus 21:20-21. It clearly states that if a man beats a slave and the slave dies but not for a day or two, the slave owner has done no wrong because the slave was his "property". This is supposed to be God presenting his laws on slavery.
-
Re: "you must never use one verse out of context"
-
Show me the context in which it is moral to beat a slave (or anyone else), to death.
Beastt17 7 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Re: "it has happend before that people would create misleading information"
-
That's true. You've done it right here yourself. You told TucsonDave that he need to check his comments because he was presenting misleading information on the Bible. I read what he had to say and he's spot-on! So YOU are creating misleading information. You should check your comments. When the Bible enters the science fray, it tends to look pathetically comical.
Beastt17 7 hours ago
@Assultman1001,
-
Eusebius
-
This was one of the final steps. Remember how Constantine had his wife and son killed, then held out until the last moments to be baptized? This is where Bishop Eusebius stepped in as Constantine's personal hatchet man, and wrote a glowing eulogy for Constantine. After the fire at the Library of Alexandria, Eusebius re-wrote much of Christian history. He even translated Josephus' work, after which the Golden Paragraph forgery emerged.
Beastt17 5 hours ago
Thanks for the respectful discussion everyone.
It's late. I'm headed to bed.
We can't make things better without honest open discussion.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 watch?v=0QsgY115EFc&feature=channel_video_title
Here you go :)
Pretty cheesy but its better than nothing. You should try looking into other things yourself. That's what I always do on my spare time :b
Goodnight brother. God bless you <3
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 the scientific has not yet verified in evolution, people have concluded without using the very known facts that disprove that theory. And a theory is not the highest place a law is.
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 Well...............Many fields of science are founded specifically on evolution.
So the theory of gravitational pull hasn't been proven either?
A survey done in 1989 showed that 700 scientists did give credence to the creation science version. That was 700 out of 480,000 scientists.
It's clear that the scientific community is aligned on this topic. It's only the blind faith crowd that suggests otherwise. Easy to google this.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 now going a bit further with the whole light issue, this is going to sound like im running from the question but it is the truth and what i truly meeant to say, we we not there when god created everything nor do we know what he meant by greater lights, for in the bible there are the scientific mixed with the spiritual wich is why most people think its a load of garbage, so im going to have to say i do not know what god meant but that does not mean for a second the bible is incorr
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 Genesis 1:16 is very clear. It's also wrong. The moon is not a light like the sun.
How can you say that the bible is correct? Bats are birds?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Psalms 8:3 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained"
Its called the moon.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX What does this have to do with Genesis 1:16?
God made the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made the stars.
The moon is NOT a light. The sun is a star. Whoever wrote this didn't know either of these facts.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Are they both still not lights? Afterall, all matter IS light....that's a fact.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX All matter is light? Where did you get that? I'd love to have a source.
A rock at the bottom of the ocean 5 miles down emits light?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 If you knew anything about atoms, you'd know that at their core, they are made of light. Light/energy is what keeps an atom together. Without light there'd be no atom. Without an atom, there'd be no matter. Without matter, there'd be nothing. This is why light has both particle, and wave properties. There's science for you.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX thanks for educating me cuz i'm such a hick.
Your argument is suggesting that the atoms of material on the moon actually emit light.
That's what Gen 1:16 states.
If that was true we'd always see a full moon, never a half or crescent.
Did I miss something or was this some way to steer me off topic?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 I never said that. Im just saying that either way, the author isn't lying :b
He could've called man light, and he wouldn't have been lying. That's where all matter comes from and that's what all matter is. Im not trying to steer you off topic either, all I was implying that either way, what the author wrote was true :b
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX 2000 years ago people knew about light and dark. The author didn't know about atoms. Gen 1:16 is simply stating there are 2 lights.
At that time they didn't understand the light was reflecting off the moon. I'd postulate that the creator of the universe knew the moon wasn't a light source. it looks like the bible was written by man.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Anyway, have a nice day man :)
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Pretty common. All the christians are are 100% sure the bible is true but can't defend the most basic discussion.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 The bible was written by man. You are correct. I believe the bible, cause I've had my share of encounters with demonic spirits, as well as God. Yeah I understand why you'd question it so much, cause I used to be the same way. I can't defend it because there's no scriptural evidence to back up that claim of the two lights. But like they say, seeing is believing. I've always been a believer, but was lousy at once point. Personal experiences is what strengthened my faith.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX According to the bible the one and only true god is Jesus/God. No other gods are real.
Other people from other religions will tell you similar stories about their personal experiences. they know their religion is true because............. This includes followers of Scientology too. I think we all agree that they're not all true.
How do we decide which is true and which is not?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Because the bible warns of such things. Firstly, there's no such things as "ghosts". The bible clearly states that all spirits that roam the earth are of the nephelim which were wiped out in the global flood. Therefore, we can determine that these are demons. These entities exercise lots of violent and hate on people who are open to them (ghost hunters, witches, palm readers, basically everything that has to do with the occult.) That's how you know that these spirits are evil.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Now I'm really confused. 92xtaylor just got through telling me there wasn't a global flood.
Both of you are Christians and you don't even agree.
Read the thread below.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Another thing, with the bible, you can see who's actually running this planet. With the way the governments have been running lately, a global government will come to pass. Revelation speaks of such a system. Where everyone would worship one leader (the anti-christ), and where everyone would be forced to follow one religion. If this comes into effect, you can count on seeing no separate forms of religion, as this would continually cause conflict. The bible is the truth :/
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 He just has a different view than I do. I take the bible literal. I believe everything that the bible says. One reason why I believe in a global flood, is because dozens of ruins have been found under the ocean. Not just in one place, but globally. Mostly around the coastal regions though.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX If the bible is the inerrant word of god. Or the word of god written by man, how is it that it isn't understood by man the same way? If god is a perfect being and wants to save everyone wouldn't his message be crystal clear to everyone?
The bible makes very clear statements. It also specifies that you accept everything, its not an ala carte type religion.
I have never found a Christian that actually follows what the bible says. But they say they're a Christian??
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 That's because Satan is very real my friend. He's the lord of confusion. Paul clearly stated that we are not at war with flesh and blood, but with spirits. Yes, there are many people that will profess to be christians but won't do what a christian should do. Such as, fornicating as a non-believer would, murdering as a non-believer would, etc. But we are only human....we WILL stumble time to time. If a person seeked Jesus with his heart, he'd/she'd be a changed man/woman.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX You claim to be a christian and so does 92xtaylor. You believe quite different things.
Maybe he's right and you're wrong. How do you know?
I am an atheist and haven't seen any evidence for any god or Satan.
How do we know. Personal experience can't be trusted because our minds are prone to error.
Why wouldn't Satan give you a personal experience that makes you believe it was Jesus?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX The Noah Flood story does clearly specify that the highest mountain tops were covered with water. That's what the bible says. Why would 92xtaylor say it didn't happen? He's a Christian.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Never the less, temptation will always reside as we are flesh.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 I have no idea why he would say it did not happen. However, you can believe me if you want to, dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible. If read in hebrew, we would understand A LOT more than what english has to offer. Many words in hebrew do not translate to be the same thing in english. But in the bible, in the book of Job, he speaks of an animal who's tail moved like a cedar tree. Now I don't know about you, but I have never seen an animal who's tail could be compared to that of
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Cedar trees don't move. That doesn't seem to be a description of an animal.
Many dinosaurs were small. The size of a chicken or cat. there are many references to animals we see today but none that we now know are dinosaurs today.
On the noah flood I have a couple questions if you don't mind.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Dude, the Creationist view is incorrect. I don't say this to be mean to you, I say this so you can open your mind a little bit more to the Christian faith. Learn about it more and you get more excited about it Christ because you learn the true meanings of the text.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor I try not to worry how this world started. I do know there is a God though and I certainly am already excited :)
Thanks for your concern though. How about...you send me a link to something so I can learn more? I've heard and read so many things that I can't even remember. I've probably already learned what you are suggesting I go and see, but It'd be great if you refreshed my memory :)
thanks :b
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Certainly, I would love to share some great videos. Mind if I message you some links to a few you tube videos?
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Noah collected 2 of each kind of animal. No fish were taken. the salt content for sea life would have died because not enough salt. Fresh water fish would have had too much salt. How did the fish all live?
Where did the water come from? We know there isn't enough water to cover the highest mountains. Where did it go after the flood?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 How do you know every fish lived?
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX I'd assume most died. But why save the land animals and not the fish and other sea life?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Hmm Im not sure. I do not have the answers to every question. But I am really looking forward to learning about EVERYTHING once I meet God face to face :)
Like I said, Im not here to try and convince you otherwise. You believe what you want okay? I just pray that something personally happens to you so that you may believe. That'd be all the evidence you'd need for the rest of your life.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XxAdamJxX On the Noah flood. If it was a global flood as the bible states, why did no other culture that was living before, during and after the flood die or have any record of the flood? The pyramids were being build during this time. China has a great historical record with no flood. They didn't all die either.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX These seem like very basic questions that someone would need to address before this story could be taken seriously.
Blind faith isn't a good quality.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Hey Dave, check the link I sent Adam, and you will see my reasons why Evolution has nothing to do with the subject of God or Christianity.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor Again not knowing the specifics about the origin of life we still have 2 different claims about life today.
the bible claims that all life was created by god in it's current state.
Evolution claims that life evolved over billions of years. All life came from a common ancestor.
The bible is making a scientific claim that no scientific data supports. Evolution is supported by science. Science has tons of data on this.
The bible is making a scientific claim that is wrong.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@92xtaylor oops.. I don't see any link?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Here is the link: watch?v=XdVBfIWE6sg
just paste it behind the backslash in your url and it should work. Let me know if you have any problems and I'll try to see if I cant help you with them. :)
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor WLC, Really???
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Yes really. If you have an issue with a person who is well versed in Philosophy, Science, and Theology giving his view of Genesis then be my guest. If you dont like him then go talk to Lennox, Turek, Plantinga, St Agustine, and many more of the top Academic Christian Apologist. They all acknowledge that Evolution and an old Earth/Universe is perfectly compatible with Christian Doctrine. :)
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor And they'd all be wrong. Science is demonstrable.
They make hollow assertions. They make a lot of money doing it.
I'm headed to bed. If you have more comments tonight I'll reply in the morning.
G'night
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "They all acknowledge that Evolution and an old Earth/Universe is perfectly compatible with Christian Doctrine."
-
While many others disagree. And if you read what the Bible actually says (even though many Christians seem to think it's a sin to not re-write it as you read), it most definitely doesn't accommodate evolution. Perhaps that's why only half of Americans accept it, despite evolution being very well supported science.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@Beastt17 If you take the story of creation as actual then yes, The Bible and Evolution conflict. If you take the story of creation as a metaphor and a poem, then they perfectly co exist.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "If you take the story of creation as a metaphor and a poem, then they perfectly co exist."
-
Sure; because given metaphorical license, you can decide it says anything you want it to say. Is "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" a true story? Of course not. Could we weave it into a metaphor based on a true account?
How do you decide what is, and what isn't intended metaphorically? Easy. If it's wrong given a literal reading, then it's metaphor, right?
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor This is a very old and failed attempt used by many apologists. when the bible can be clearly shown to be wrong the "metaphor" card is played. If the bible had been written to point real stories you'd have a small chance.
-
I asked this question last night. Was the Noah Global flood a story of genocide just threaten people or did god actually kill everyone and every thing except for what was on the ark? What benevolent god would kill everyone or threaten to kill everyone?
TucsonDave111 2 days ago
@TucsonDave111 Its not a "card that im playing it is simply the truth. A story written doesnt have to be true for their to be an actual meaning to it. As for the flood, I have already answered that, I believe it was just a section of the world not the actual whole world. As for science, no. Saying God did something is not a scientific claim, its a philosophical one. It doesnt go in detail the process in which he used. Message me if you like but im done with messages, to little rom
92xtaylor 2 days ago
@92xtaylor So regarding the flood. The bible clearly states that it happened.
how/why do you deny the word of the bible?
Now you run away?
TucsonDave111 2 days ago
@92xtaylor So now you're suggesting that part of the bible is fiction?
what biblical reference can you provide to support this. If you have a source it should show exactly what parts of the bible are true vs. fiction.
I'm looking forward for the data to support your claim.
TucsonDave111 2 days ago
@TucsonDave111
"part of the bible is fiction"
Half of genesis, every supernatural event.
That's alot of unsubstantiated stuff there.
Mathenaut 1 day ago
@Mathenaut Ya, Genesis makes a lot of scientific claims. We know today they're wrong.
People still put themselves through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to accept their religion.
Indoctrinate them when they're young, you'll have them for life.
TucsonDave111 1 day ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "A story written doesnt have to be true for their to be an actual meaning to it."
-
True, but to pick and choose to suit your own beliefs and ideas is a purely dishonest tactic. You just end up making yourself your own God. And yet, Christianity wouldn't have over 38,000 officially recognized denominations if it weren't for this self-serving process of picking and choosing what to consider literal and what should be metaphorical.
Beastt17 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "I believe it was just a section of the world not the actual whole world."
-
Then why does the Bible say, "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."?
And how would that wipe out all evil on Earth? And since it didn't, why didn't an omniscient God know it wouldn't work? Or did he know, and just went ahead and killed billions of people and animals anyway? You're ignoring the Bible.
Beastt17 5 hours ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "Saying God did something is not a scientific claim, its a philosophical one."
-
Uhm.... no. It doesn't work that way. If the Bible says God created the universe, that's NOT a philosophical claim. That's a scientific claim. If it says plants were growing on Earth before the sun existed, that's a scientific claim and one we know to be untrue. If it says the offspring of goats will be patterned after the view of the copulating parents, that's just lunacy.
Beastt17 5 hours ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "It doesnt go in detail the process in which he used."
-
Of course not because the authors didn't have a clue. They were just making it up as best they could. But nearly everywhere they provide even some detail, they're wrong.
Beastt17 5 hours ago
@Beastt17 watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c&feature=g-all-f&context=G20d7a8fFAAAAAAAAAAA
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Whoa! Firstly, this is a debate. If you want to debate, then do so. Don't send people to watch some video YOU found compelling. We can't debate with William Lane Craig because he's intelligent enough to know that if he opened himself up to a forum such as this, he'd be crushed and ruined in a matter of days.
That said, he's already claimed we're not held to a six-day creation. Yes we are. The Bible not only says so, but defines "Day" SIX TIMES, in just 27-verses.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
William Lane Craig (second fail)
-
Then he states that Howard Van Till suggests that special creation is not necessary for belief in the God of Christian scripture. SO...?
-
That's known as argument from authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam). That's how you'll find it listed in standard lists of KNOWN FALLACIES. It's a fallacious arguement and WLC most certainly knows that. But it sells what he does to Christians, and thus fuels his financial stability.
Beastt17 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Beastt17 First off, this is not a debate in the slightest, this is merely a discussion. Secondly, using a ref for your established thought is perfectly fine, especially when your ref holds degrees in Theology and Philosophy. Thirdly, Just because people wish to "crush" WLC in a forum, it doesn't logically conclude that therefore, Dr Craig is wrong. And Finally, The entire Old Testament can be found completely false, that would do nothing to effect the Resurrection of Jesus.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Time Element
-
Let's not forget that I've already pointed out three failures in his lecture, all on a single point, and I'm only 1:01 into the video.
I'm willing to suggest that it's because you don't understand his arguments that you find him so compelling. To anyone engaged in serious discussion on the topic, he's just a bone to be chewed.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: WLC Blunders
-
Next we find Mr. Craig dusting off the old argument of improbability. And yet it is easily understood that in any system where all outcomes are highly improbable, a highly improbable outcome becomes certain. (Write that down)
Imagine a helicopter hovering over a field 1-mile square. A 1-inch marble is dropped from the helicopter. There are over 4 billion 1-inch squares in the field below (1 - 4 billion chance). Does that mean the marble won't land?
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Shall I continue deconstructing William L Craig's simplistic arguments? Or have you seen enough?
Beastt17 3 days ago
@Beastt17 Im sure you have just destroyed a person holding Doctorates in the subject matter. You should write Oxford, maybe they will put you up against him! Secondly, the topic of our discussion was not William Lane Craig, it was actually the Creation Story and perhaps its impact on Christianity, and my statement about the Old Testament and the Resurrection of Jesus still stands. If you wish to discuss this more, pm me. I really do dislike the comment program.
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "Im sure you have just destroyed a person holding Doctorates in the subject matter."
-
There you go making the same fallacious observation Mr. Craig made; argument from authority. The fact is, either I did, or I didn't. So it's up to you (as the one presenting the video), to explain why my criticism of his points aren't valid, and in fact, more compelling on an evidential and basis of reason, than the assertions made by WLC. Go ahead. Try.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "the Old Testament"
-
In what way does it stand? Do you believe man was created as a fully-formed adult male from the dust of the Earth? Do you believe plants were growing in sub-cryogenic temperatures without sunlight? Do you believe the Earth was somehow covered in liquid water while remaining devoid of an atmosphere? None of those things are at all possible. Why would you believe them? The OT can't even survive it's first page.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@Beastt17 My point, Sir, was that the Old Testament has nothing to do with establishing a true account of the Resurrection. The entire Old Testament can be completely false on every account, and Jesus still could have rose from the dead (which was my entire point of evolution not having to do with Christianity). Allow me to state my conclusion: I am perfectly justified in being a Christian and believing in Evolution as they are not conflicting. No more comments for the moment, hate em
92xtaylor 3 days ago
Comment removed
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "I am perfectly justified in being a Christian and believing in Evolution as they are not conflicting."
-
Yes they are. The only way out is to do what you just did - reject the Old Testament, and ignore the fallacious nature of the resurrection & ascension accounts.
But in rejecting the OT, you're suggesting that the church fathers who claimed the writings to be divine, were mistaken. Yet they also chose the New Testament writings and proclaimed them to be divine.
Beastt17 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Beastt17 My point, Sir, was that the Old Testament has nothing to do with establishing a true account of the Resurrection. The entire Old Testament can be completely false on every account, and Jesus still could have rose from the dead (which was my entire point of evolution not having to do with Christianity). Allow me to state my conclusion: I am perfectly justified in being a Christian and believing in Evolution as they are not conflicting. No more comments for the moment, hate em
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Re: "the Resurrection of Jesus still stands"
-
Apparently, you're not familiar with the history of the Bible. The claim of the resurrection came first from the gospel of Mark. It was the first written but it was most certainly not written by Mark or anyone who knew Jesus or witnessed the events. But the oldest copies of 'Mark' don't contain the resurrection or ascension accounts. They were added later by a different (and also unknown), author.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Mark - The Resurrection of Jesus
-
Since we know that a second author added the resurrection and ascension (and indeed, the last 12-verses of 'Mark'), we're left to ask ourselves if the original author was aware of the resurrection and ascension and simply thought them unworthy of mention, or if he was simply writing a version of a popular story, which was later appended by a second author who heard the story somewhat differently. The evidence all supports the latter.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
Aren't you just dying to ask how we know Mark didn't write "The Gospel of Mark"?
-
I'm more than prepared to explain the evidence in great detail. I'll give you a few minutes to tell me whether or not you'd like me to do that at this time. (By the way, many Bibles now have double-brackets around the last 12-verses, to denote that they were latter additions by a second author.)
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor
-
Regardless of your response, the defensible point is that the resurrection and ascension no more happen with Jesus than with Dionysus, Simon (of the Gabrielle Revelation Stone), or any of the other gods of myth, from which the Jesus myth was crafted.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor,
-
WLC Blunders and sleight-of-hand
-
He goes on to represent the improbability of human evolution numerically. It certainly sounds impressive... unless you consider that evolution doesn't suggest humans arose in a singular step. You start with the simplest proto-cell and evolution gladly does the rest. Will it always produce humans? No. But it will produce equally complex forms of life. If you understand evolution, it can't fail to do so.
Beastt17 3 days ago
@92xtaylor I'm back. WLC is trying to build a fallacy. The bible makes some scientific claims. Origin of the universe, creation of life etc. We now know the biblical versions of these accounts are wrong.
Science has answered a great number of these questions. Not all and not with 100% accuracy but we know a great deal. WLC is trying to suggest that there isn't a conflict. That is the lie and the fallacy. For his assertion to be true you'd have to ignore what the bible actually says.
TucsonDave111 2 days ago
@92xtaylor WLC is very good at spinning words. He's never provided a single piece of evidence to support the existence of god.
did you look at my notes below? The bible makes scientific claims that we know are wrong.
The bible jumped into the science ring. Science didn't chase the bible down a dark alley and attack it.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
Comment removed
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 a cedar tree in modern days. Also, the animal is compared to have bone as iron, clearly indicating a large animal of unimaginable proportions. He goes on to say how no man's sword could take down this animal, but only his creator (God). If Men could not take this animal down, I am SURE it was no Elephant or any modern animal as such. But then to suggest Man lived along side dinos would totally go against modern science wouldn't it?
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111
There have been claims of finding human footprints along dinosaur footprints. But this only leads to one conclusion. Either science is deceiving us, or the bible is one giant hoax. I accept science to a certain extent. As with the bible, Im standing firm on my faith because of my encounters with both demons and God. No, I am not a loon, I am 100% OKAY. But if I am crazy, then I guess 90% of the human population is as well.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX You accept science daily, the computer your using now, Cell phone, GPS, You'll live twice as long as your recent ancestors. The scientific method is proven daily. It's not perfect but it's getting better every day. Most of the world's population does believe in a god. If it was always the same god might be more compelling. Religion has been used as a tool to control people for thousands of years.
Religion with no evidence or the scientific method which you use daily?
Good talk
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 I've had all the evidence I need :)
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Actually, i will just comment it so TucsonDave can see it too hehe. Just put this link behind the youtube part of your link (if you didn't already now how!). here is that link: watch?v=XdVBfIWE6sg
92xtaylor 3 days ago
@92xtaylor Thanks :)
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX It sounds more like personal experience vs. evidence.
Am I right?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 That's how it is with me. However, the remains of Sodom and Gamora have been believed to have been found. What is left of them is exactly has the bible described. Along with brimstone in the area. Pretty intriguing.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@XxAdamJxX Interesting, Okay. Being used as evidence for the existence of a supernatural god? That's a stretch.
did they find a pillar of salt?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TucsonDave111 No but they found what seems to be an actual modern looking city that has been transformed by enormous amount of heat. I'll try to find the link of the actual video footage for you. Hold up.
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 But maybe if you had an encounter with a demon, you'd understand how real it is. I wouldn't encourage it though cause I wouldn't want anything to happen to you. Things can get really out of hand with non-believers. Im not even kidding. Possessions are real and take place more with non-believers. I don't want to change your views. Jesus did what he had to do and let the people be. So I will do the same. If you don't mind, I'd love to pray for you. Take care brother <3
XxAdamJxX 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 the main issue i have is that sometimes when i try to write a responce youtube on ipad does not want to send it so what i try to say sounds weak, no one told me to please stop but i feel like they will begin, so is there anyother way, and again i am not trying to run away here just tired of my post not being posted so i sound like an iddiot
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 Thats fare. Does Skype have a good chat option? I haven't touched it in years. Let me know what you think is a better forum to continue.
Thanks
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 before i awnser your well thought but also incorrect statements this discussion as it seems is going to get really long, so is there a way you can create a skype so that we may continue this without having people getting mad?
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 I don't have or use Skype. I appreciate you wanting to have a discussion. Is there another reason you don't want to continue here?
I know SpringChickn doesn't like me commenting. Did he ask you to stop this discussion?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 so please tell me now that the theory of evolution has been disporved by a girafe what made use how we are please tell me what
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 So far you've made this assertion but no scientist thinks this is an issue at all.
Please provide some details. Thanks
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 i am not saying anything about the scientific method nor have i said, i am saying that the theory of evelution is just that, a theory not ever the truth until i grow gills and wings, figure of speech btw. The reason the scientific method has not been able to disprove the bible is because it is all correct in everything
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 Now you're being really squirmy. It IS the scientific method that has been used to verify the fact of evolution. It is the scientific method that is also used to produce all the cool technologies that you and I enjoy and use daily. It's why we will live twice as long as our recent ancestors. I know you didn't say anything about it. You're trying to pretend it doesn't apply when it is a key point of hypocrisy for you.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 Within Science a theory is the highest level of knowledge they have. A theory is a cumulative group of facts that all support the theory. We have more peer reviewed documents that all support the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity. There isn't a single scientific argument that contradicts any fact associated with the theory of evolution. If you could provide one you'd be the most famous person in your lifetime.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 RE: The bible is always correct.
-
Bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, curing leprosy with birds, Noah flood.
Really, I'd like you to address these simple issues.
These things don't sound like they came from an all knowing supernatural being.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 is my grammer that bad or are u being real ignorant no offense but seriously what is evolution? The belif that we come from other species to be basic about it, and my girafe expanation was not showing the flaw in creation but in evolution. He said in the bible that he separated the light from the darkness on earth, this can mean a truckload of things. The bible is always correct, now what you get by it may differ on some small parts like that
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 Where did I ask what evolution was?
RE: "this can mean a truckload of things" Lets look again, honestly.
this can mean a truckload of things, And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
God made two lights. That means they each produce light. Either they both do or neither do. This statement is very clear. Explain how you can honestly twist it's meaning.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@baldurus1 you do know all ur translations fro greek are incorrect, i am litarally finding translations from non biased sources and that is not what i am readin dnt be so closed minded
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 again srry i keep hitting reply trying to type, anywho the light came from or what kind of light. Was it a light from a star he made we may never truly find out but in a sence the moon does emmit light. It reflects light from the sun emmiting it from its own surface and where does it say the moon emmites its own light?
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 RE" in a sence the moon does emmit light
-
Genesis 1:16,
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 If it helps even the score I could try to reply via my Android Tablet.
:-o
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 I said I'd provide a link for our previous discussion.
-
ht tp: // free thought pedia . com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
links to full Studies are at the bottom.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave the light came from how
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 acording to genesis it says got said let there be light, he did not specificy where the
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 then why are you saying that god does not exist? If you take out all the possible whatever is left that is plausable no matter how improbable you think it is is the awnser. The girraffe along with countless other animals disproves evolution, without evolution the thought that we were made from evolution is obviously incorrect and finally the question rises what created use, if there is nothing else, which there is nothing else then the awnser is god please try to be a bit more o
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 I'm not saying there is no chance of god, only there is no evidence for god.
You made an assertion that a giraffe disproves evolution. This is news to the entire scientific community that uses the foundation of evolution in their jobs every day.
Can you provide scientific data to support your assertion?
In any debate, if one side doesn't provide evidence for it's side, God does not win by default.
Even if so, you'd have to have proof it's your god vs. another.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@baldurus1 yes he was god according to the bible. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. Who was the word? Jesus. This is what the origonal transliation said get ur sources
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 When Jesus commands people to worship him it's a mistranslation from the Greek word revere which was translated to worship. Jesus told people to REVERE his message, not worship.
" and the word was with god, and the word was god." which is a gain a gross misinterpretation from the original Greek which reads ‘and the Word from God.’” Note the FROM.
The sources: the original scripts. Check the facts.
baldurus1 3 days ago
@baldurus1 jesus never said that, seriously were on earth did you hear that? Deffinatly not from the bible. Were ever you got this information if its a bible verse which it is not please tell me what verse it is
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 Luke 19:27
baldurus1 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 we do not have an exact for it doesnt matter that much to use, but we do have a theory from the very first two verses in the bible were it roughly says god created the heavens and earth, but filled with darkness and void of life, then after an unknown ammount of time he said let there be light.
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 That isn't a theory. According to Genesis he created light before he created the Sun.
Also according to Genesis the moon emits light. It also shows that whoever wrote the bible doesn't know that the sun is a star.
the bible makes many scientific claims that we know are wrong. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
What do you think the age of the earth is?
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
I find this offensive - I must flag it.
benaberry 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 now the sponge soaks up blood when the girraffes head goes down wihich also counter acts the rest of the force that comes from the blood going up from the heart. The amazing girraffe has stumped evolutionist along with some other animals.
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 So you suggest the "God did It" explanation solves this mystery?
Science is OK to say it doesn't know everything. It does know a lot. It knows volumes more than it did 200 years ago.
Religion doesn't have any evidence to show it really knows anything and suggests it has all the answers.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TuscsonDave111 even with that lets say its getting a drink of waterand a lion comes around so it must get away from the danger, but as soon as it gets up it passes out, why? This is because the blood doesnt get to the girrafes brain in time and so the girrafe is dead, a dead girrafe can not reproduce can it? But to counteract this the girraffe was also made with a type of sponge on the bottom of the brain
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 What is your point? Every animal has some horrible biological features.
Some reptiles have one hole they breath through and a different one for air. This a good idea and makes sense. Humans and other mammals have a single hole. Very easy to choke. our eyes have blind spot. Humans aren't fast, strong, able to fly or breath under water.
If you want to make a point I'd love to here it.
99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Pretty bad design.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 ok so we have a girrafe from evolution and its having problems getting blood to its head so its heart grows bigger. Finally blood can easily get blood to its head. But this new girraffe needs to get a drink of water so when it bends down its head his head pops off. Why? Because the force of its heart is so great that when going downward the force will pop his head off. Why doesnt it? Thats because the creator made him with a type of cone shaped blockade in its vain going up its
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@TucsonDave111 ok so im guessing u havent search teuly into what prokaryotic cells do. They do not evolve into another species of bacteria, no they adapt to the situation just like humans adapt to tempeture after generations. Adaptation does exist. But evolution, the changeong of one species to another by means of reproduction and naturl means, there are many prime examples. But one i remember the most is the girraffe. Now in order for the girraffe to get its blood from its heart to its head, t
Assultman1001 3 days ago
@Assultman1001 We have examples of evolution living today and fossils from extinct species.
You're playing the micro evolution vs. macro evolution game.
The scientific method works. It's not perfect but it is better every year. Every day you use cell phones, computers, you have advanced medicine, GPS, etc. You see the products of the scientific method. As soon as this method shows evidence that contradicts the bible story you say it's wrong. This is denial, very biased and dishonest.
TucsonDave111 3 days ago