29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI was not seeking the opinion of an atheist. Your non belief, in anything, speaks for itself.
I am moved and inspired by the words of Gandalf.
Psst, he didn't exist either.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasGet out of my thread!!!!! 🙂
Here anyone can believe anything they want. Even the 'Intelligent Designer'.
Because *this* is the Spiritual Forum.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @chaney3Your thread? *** Your *** thread? 😀
Get out of my thread!!!!! 🙂
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasYes, you are not welcome here.
Your thread? *** Your *** thread? 😀
Go back to science. 🙂
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @chaney3I am not welcome here? I am not welcome here?
Yes, you are not welcome here.
Go back to science. 🙂
Didn't Jesus himself say "Let everyone came to me"?
And if you think I am not welcome here, what do I care what you think? 😀
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @chaney3If you were not seeking my opinion, why ask me a question?! 🙄
I was not seeking the opinion of an atheist. Your non belief, in anything, speaks for itself.
Originally posted by @kellyjayGenetic defects creep in through random mutation at the molecular level. There's no avoiding them, once an organism reproduces.
In the beginning before the fall there wasn't any genetic defects, even after the fall man' life expectancy was hundreds of years. As time passed that became an important issue, not at first.
There is no evidence that people ever lived for hundreds of years. The fossil record is clear: life expectancy was shorter a few thousands of years ago, not longer, than it is today.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @suzianneBefore the fall, Adam would not have needed or wanted progeny, since he knew not death.
But this is not "nonsense, pseudo-science, and heretical religion". (Well, maybe "heretical religion", as the Book of Jubilees is not modern Protestant [or Catholic] Christian canon. I recognize that it was ruled out of canon at the First Council of Nicea, as well as the First Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, but after all, they [t ...[text shortened]... d" at the point of "God-awareness". I do not believe Adam and Eve were even the "first humans".
Even assuming that Adam was perfect, Noah was not. If the world had been re-populated after a catastrophic flood from only Noah and his immediate family, the genetic-defect issue would have arisen after the flood.
I agree that the OT was written by and for people who lived 3500 or so years ago and were not interested in a factual (astronomical-geological-biological) history of man and the universe; they were embarked on a spiritual journey from polytheism to monotheism, and the OT records that journey in language and symbols appropriate to those people making that journey.
29 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusEvidence? Recorded history is evidence, don't you think? If you are going to dismiss it out
Genetic defects creep in through mutation.
There is no evidence that people ever lived for hundreds of years. The fossil record is clear: life expectancy was shorter a few thousands of years ago, not longer, than it is today.
of hand just say I don't except this could happen because I don't believe in God. Don't say
according to science this isn't true, because of mutations, and when its pointed out to you
that according to the same story you are using science to dismiss, has in it an answer for
that issue, to then move on to some other reason to dismiss it ignoring the your first attempt.
With respect to what evidence supports scripture in the fossil record, that fossil record
is pure conjecture on people's part applying numbers and dates to such things. What we
know is that there were creatures that were fossilized, if it turns out that scripture is true
that means all of the opinions surrounding fossils is false, that means it isn't scripture that
has an issue with reality but mankind.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayRecorded history is evidence of a wholly different sort to fossils and DNA.
Evidence? Recorded history is evidence, don't you think? If you are going to dismiss it out
of hand just say I don't except this could happen because I don't believe in God. Don't say
according to science this isn't true, because of mutations, and when its pointed out to you
that according to the same story you are using science to dismiss, has in it an ...[text shortened]... ing fossils is false, that means it isn't scripture that has
an issue with reality but mankind.
Your point supposes that the Bible is history. That too is disputable. There was a clear agenda in the NT, and it was not historical veracity.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @moonbusAnyone who dismiss' God is going to dismiss the both the OT and the NT, but there
Recorded history is evidence of a wholly different sort to fossils and DNA.
Your point supposes that the Bible is history. That too is disputable. There was a clear agenda in the NT, and it was not historical veracity.
are a lot of people for example the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob as well as
those of Ishmael trace their birth lines back to that first book. It can be disputable
yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @moonbusThe clear agenda in the NT was to share about the Son of God becoming a man. If you
Recorded history is evidence of a wholly different sort to fossils and DNA.
Your point supposes that the Bible is history. That too is disputable. There was a clear agenda in the NT, and it was not historical veracity.
reject that notion than nothing about it is ever going to be historical to you.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayYou want to read the Bible as recorded history? Fine. Then submit the Bible to the same criteria of verification as any other recorded history (Thucydides, Tacitus, right up to present historians). Who is writing the history? What are his credentials, what is his credibility? Who were his sources? Is there an unbroken provenance from the original script to the present-day copy? Is it internally consistent? is it consistent with facts which can be independently verified (e.g. through archaeology, fossils, DNA, radio-carbon dating, genetic dating, other historians of known veracity, etc.)?
Anyone who dismiss' God is going to dismiss the both the OT and the NT, but there
are a lot of people for example the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob as well as
those of Ishmael trace their birth lines back to that first book. It can be disputable
yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
Who, for example, reports Jesus's conversation with Pilate? "What is truth?" etc. Not one of Jesus's disciples went into the trial/interrogation with him; they were scared stiff they'd be executed too. One of them even went so far as to deny him. Who reports this dialog between Jesus and Pilate? Sorry, but that does not stand up to scrutiny as eye-witness testimony. It's drama, pure and simple.
Who reports that Adam was the first man and certifies that there were no other humans on the planet at that time? Adam didn't. Why would he? Did he walk round the entire planet and verify that no one else existed?
There was no historical record of the days of creation before Adam. It was made up later by someone who cannot have witnessed it because there wan't anyone there to witness it.
As for the lists of names in the OT, that was the Jewish form of ancestor worship. The Jews at that time did not believe in the soul's immortality. They believed in reverencing the names and memories of their ancestors. That was why they kept lists of names, to hold their ancestors in reverence.
Originally posted by @moonbusThe Bible isn't one book it is 66 different books, each covering different parts of history
You want to read the Bible as recorded history? Fine. Then submit the Bible to the same criteria of verification as any other recorded history (Thucydides, Tacitus, right up to present historians). Who is writing the history? What are his credentials, what is his credibility? Who were his sources? Is there an unbroken provenance from the original script to ...[text shortened]... of their ancestors. That was why they kept lists of names, to hold their ancestors in reverence.
and covering a variety of topics. What binds them all together with the exception of one,
the book of "Esther", are people's interactions with God. Again, do you think anyone who
does not believe in God is going to accept anything with God in it as historical, even if it
is? Remarkable in my opinion it has around 40 different authors, way over a 1000 years
from the very first book until the last one, and they refer to each other even though they
were years apart and the authors had such various back grounds.
You want modern man made historical proofs, not going to happen. Looking at those
things you actually do accept as historical evidence, are up for constant debate, with
respect to time and linage of species.
The pure and simple truth is, it will be accepted on faith or not, and even your opinions
on evolution will be no different, you believe or not. The difference between the Biblical
faith and the faith we put into science, is straight forward, scripture is true or not, God is
real or not so the stories in them are true or not. Where science is setup with the built in
fail safe, always ready to accept new data showing what we believe is in an error, a self
correcting process to change once we take in new information. So what we believe today
is on solid ground until its not, and we are shown we are wrong, and then we believe the
next thing.
One is either a sure foundation and the other is shifting sand that can change on you
as soon as the next new thing comes along.