KFC, i pointed that out to you several times. Here it is again: In the preface of the current Bible(NRSV) it says "it was found that King James Version contains many errors that called for a revision". It proceeds to mention several more revisions till we reach this NRSV. I dont know how clearly you want them to say it.

OK, this may shock you, TA, but a PREFACE is not actually Scripture. No authority holds them to be inspired.

The preface refers to errors in a TRANSLATION, NOT errors in the Bible itself.

Sorry, but you swung and missed on your claim that the Bible claims to be "just a collection of books" and "found in error".

And they are not at odds. Mutual misunderstanding is at the heart of the problem.

On one hand, some Scientists extrapolate Darwin's theory to prove that there was no direct creation of Adam while ignoring Darwin's own statement that his work does not exclude Creation. On the other hand, some theologians extrapolate on Religious texts to prove scientists wrong about evolution ignoring the fact that nothing that God said implies that Man's time on Earth is 6000-10,000 yrs.

I guess, some people love to create their own controversies so they can argue about it.

Thanks for the enlightenment. However, the preface of any book tells you its origin, authenticity and how it was written and who wrote it. You can ignore it as much as you wish but at least the authority publishing it (and it is the highest christian authority in the USA) were honest enough to tell it as it is.

And you must be kidding. Errors are errors regardless of the reason. And of course it is because of translation, misunderstanding and recollection and so many other reasons. I never said there is no such thing as a "Bible" that contains God's actual uncorrupted words. The current one is not that Bible. The one now being used is what its preface describe as: Collection of translations of religious scriptures of different origins and eras. It never once says that it is the actual words of God or any of the prophets mentioned in the text proper.

And sure enough, when you read it you sure find some verses that clearly are coming from God. but others are just someone is recounting incidents or sayings they heard and/or their expalnation of them.

To hold that ALL of it is the actual words of God is a great misunderstanding of what the Book itself say. And it serves no purpose other than to give others reasons to undermine the whole idea of the religion and its Sacred texts.

ZYDOR POSTS:



LULA POSTS:

ZYDOR, AS PROMISED, HERE IS MY REPLY. YOU CAN SEE IT'S RATHER LENGTHY, BUT I WANTED TO BE THOROUGH.


Zydor,

The Hypostatic Union is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church. Infallibe means it the truth and contains no errors.

You say-----”Then to top it all there is the hypostatic union concept to which all the Major Christian Religions signed up to in 451AD..”

In 451, there were no “major Christian religions”. In 451, there was only one Christian religion the one which Christ established in 33AD. It’s now known as Catholicism.

Here’s some background. In Genesis 3, just before Almighty God drove Adam and Eve (who had fallen from grace into Original Sin) out of Garden of Paradise, He gave them a promise of a Redeemer. The Redeemer God promised is God Who so humbled Himself by coming down to earth in the form of true-Man, Jesus Christ (the Incarnation). In the Gospels, we read of Christ’s birth, of His 3 years of public ministry, in which Christ Himself testifies to His Divinity, by doing countless miracles (like raising Lazurus from the dead) and by saying “I and the Father are one”, and of His Death and Resurrection. One might have anticipated that the Founder of Christianity would not leave His Revelation to the uncertain fate---that in order to assure permanency He would make use of obvious means that is to say He would organize a society which after His death would function as a court of appeal and decide controversies about the meaning of His doctrine. Scripture reveals that He did found a society, the Church appointing Peter as its head (our first Pope) and the 12 Apostles as the foundation stones. Just before Christ ascended into Heaven, He gave His own authority first to St. Peter and then the other Apostles, entrusted to them His teachings and His 7 Sacraments, and commissioned them to go and teach that Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life to all nations until the End of the world. He promised the Holy Spirit would be with His Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail. In 33AD, on the Feast of the First Pentecost, the 50th day after the Pasch, He sent the Holy Spirit down upon the Apostles, disciples and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pentecost marks the birth of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ.

We read in the Book of Acts of the growth of the Infant Church in spite of persecution by the Jews, of St. Stephen’s martyrdom and St.Paul’s conversion and baptism into the Faith. St.Peter established his See at Rome and St.Paul and the other Apostles and disciples appointed their successors to carry out Christ’s mission.

Shortly before the middle of the first century the fledgling Catholic Church made its appearance on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Within a few years the missionary voyages of St.Paul and other Apostles had carried the new Faith abroad to various communities established by the Jews of the Dispersion. Episcopal sees grew and multiplied; bishops attained an authoritative influence in their own churches and over the surrounding districts and as occasion required, the pope exercised his universal authority.

Concurrently with the spread of the true Faith of Christ, there came a need for clarification of its significance. Under the care of the hierarchy, doctrine was formulated and sacramental discipline organized.

In Acts 15, we read the account of the Church’s first Council which is an assembly of the leaders (Bishops) of the Church to consider and make decisions on ecclesiastical matters on doctrine, discipline, liturgy and the life of the Church. After the missions of St.Paul had brought in many Gentile converts, some of the Jewish Christians insisted that circumcision was still necessary for salvation. and a clamor arose. To settle it, the Apostles held a Council in Jerusalem about 51AD and being guided to their conclusions by the Holy Spirit, issued a decree denying the necessity of circumcision and ruling only that the Gentiles should abstain “from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. 15:29. The final decree was then sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.


The doctrines of the Faith in the Church today are the developed form of the teachings communicated first by Jesus Christ to His Apostles and to the Christians in the first century. The Church takes her teaching from Divine Revelation--both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture and the oral or unwritten word, known as Sacred Tradition which together form the Deposit of the Faith. The Dep. of Faith is the fullness of Christ’s religious Truth unmixed with error because it’s guided by the Holy Spirit. Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine while the Church, a historical and visible entity dating back to St.Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession, is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting the this complete Christian rule of Faith that followers of Christ can know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach. St.Matt. 28:20. It is only by accepting this Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole Truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that Truth.

Because religious truth is real, permanent and invariable, heresy is real for heresy is nothing else than a distortion of religious truth. It’s a corruption of and attack upon the one true Faith of Christ. We know from St.John’s Book of the Apocalypse that by the end of the first century that various heretical sects had developed each attempting to pass off false doctrine for true doctrine.

In the second century, we know from history and the writings of the Church Fathers that the Infant Church endures continuous persecution by the Roman emperors and attacks upon the Faith by pagan and heathen philosophers. The Gnostic and Montanist heresies develop and these are condemned by Pope Eleutherius 175-189.

In the third century, persecution continues and there are many saintly martyrs for the Faith. The Manichean and Anti-Trinitarian heresies develop. St.Augustine refuted Manicheasm and it was finally condemned once for all at the Twelfth General Council, the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. All these heresies agitate against the nature of the divine sonship of Jesus Christ and the three Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the Divine Unity.

During the 3rd century, the Roman Empire had to fight for life against the barbarian hordes pounding at its frontiers. The Emperors anxious to consolidate their defenses, came to the conclusion that the old Roman gods of which there were many must either conquer or submit. Despite the fury of the persecution the Empire went down to defeat and Christianity continued to grow.

During the fourth century, Christianity spreads. The Church is established in Armenia, Iberia, and Abyssinia. Christians formed so large a percentage of the population, that in 313, Constantine’s Edict of Milan gave freedom to the Church in the hope of restoring peace to the Empire. The Roman empire becomes Christian. Christianity continued to develop its doctrine and its discipline.

Arianism was the first great heresy that rocked the Infant Church. It’s founder, Arius (d. 336) denied that Christ was God, saying He was inferior to the Father. The Church's champion against Arianism was St.Athanasius, and the heresy was condemned at the first General Council of the Church, held at Nicea in 325 who supported the orthodox Faith.

After Arianism, the Macedonians, the Nestorians, Pelagains, and Donatists raised controversial issues denying the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, etc, and again, Councils of bishops met at Ephesus 431, and Constantinople in 381 to define the Faith more precisely, to check these heresies , and to direct the rapidly growing Christian community. The teaching of the Church was more gradually shaped by the Doctors of the Church, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysotom, Ambrose, and etc.

It’s the heresy of Monophysitism also called Eutychianism is named after Eutyches, a monk, who denied the two natures in Christ. It was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which defined once and for all the doctrine of the Incarnation. Those condemning it were all the prelates at Ephesus and by the theological schools at Alexandria and Antioch some of those were St.Jerome, Augustine, and Pope Leo I.

The history of the 4th and 5th centuries clearly demonstrates the fact that but for the universal authority exercised by the Bishop of Rome, Christianity could not have continued as an undivided Faith. Pope Leo I, the Great, was a man of great action and scholar. He withstood Attila the Hun in his march against Rome, and also defined the Catholic Faith on the two natures of Christ in a letter to the patriarch of Constantinople.

Pope Gelasius made plain the claim of the papacy to the supremacy in the field of doctrine and morals. The Acacian schism of 482 divided Constantinople for 40 years. The emperor attempted to dominate both the religious and political sphere.

The Great heresy and schism was led by Photius who was intruded into the See of Constantinople in 857. He was deposed and condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869, but the Schism was later completed by the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius who in 1054 rejected the supremacy of the Pope and established the so-called Greek “orthodox” Church which is heretical because it teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Father and the Son.

Stubbyfinger posts:



Since the source of all knowledge is God, I agree the explosion of scientific knowledge will grow. As science develops and our knowledge of it, I think that will turn the tide on atheistic science and that will soon reach it's twilight. The future belongs to those who can reconcile God with science.

Evidently from your statement, you don't know that modern science is proving a young earth, much, much, much younger than 4.5 million years Stubbyfinger.

Modern science has shown that radioactive dating is not trustworthy. That uniformaitarianism which is the belief that present day weather and erosion rates have been basically the same for all time can't be proved.

We know the amount of radiogenic Helium in the atmosphere is far too little for the earth to be older than 2 million years old. The human population of the earth suggests a young earth as does the power of the magnetic field and the saltiness of the ocean.

Since the source of all knowledge is God, I agree the explosion of scientific knowledge will grow. As science develops and our knowledge of it, I think that will turn the tide on atheistic science and that will soon reach it's twilight. The future belongs to those who can reconcile God with science. Evidently from your statement, you don't know that modern science is proving a young earth, much, much, much younger than 4.5 million years Stubbyfinger. Modern science has shown that radioactive dating is not trustworthy. That uniformaitarianism which is the belief that present day weather and erosion rates have been basically the same for all time can't be proved. We know the amount of radiogenic Helium in the atmosphere is far too little for the earth to be older than 2 million years old. The human population of the earth suggests a young earth as does the power of the magnetic field and the saltiness of the ocean.

First there’s no such thing as “atheistic science”, there may be scientist whom are atheist but they’re just scientist.

I know that you probable don’t care to read it but a Christian wrote the article I linked and it does address the young earth argument and specifically your statements. But this is exactly what I’m talking about. These are old creationist arguments that were proven false decades ago and your still spewing them out as modern science. A Christian scientist in not a real scientist, they will not look for anything that appears to contradict what they already believe to be true and they rarely do any research at all. They simply try and cast doubt on any science that appears to contradict their truth. If they were to accidentally discover something that didn’t fit with their truth they have and will ignore it. This is not science and you will only find opinions by following it.

Here is a Christian perspective on Radiometric Dating. I will copy the preface and you can decide if you want to read the rest or not.
Link

“Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating”.

“This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community”.

I’m not surprised you mentioned the helium in the atmosphere even as you say it suggest a younger earth but still much older than 10000 years and proof that the Bible is in error. But you don’t care about evidence that proves the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. You just want to cast doubt on the prevailing science.

The helium argument is a fatal oversimplification of a complex problem. Some other possible explanations.

“The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 106 ions/cm2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 ± 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. In the estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss”.

It’s funny I was just watching a program last night talking about the evidence in the genetic record that suggest at least one near mass extinction of humans, down to a few thousand I believe. Life was pretty tough for early humans.

The rest is bad science as well, you a free to believe what you will but don’t try and pass it off as science. If you read for yourself instead of just regurgitating old false arguments made by people who care nothing about the truth, you’ll see how silly it is.

With all due respect, SF, pull your head out of the sand.

Darwinian Evolution Theory is nothing other than an atheistic dogma and has been masqueraded for years in the schools of the world as fact. That is atheistic science at work. It's not the science that I'm griping about no, not at all, but rather the blatantly false interpretation of it. Why in schools, is there no teaching the other side of the debate?

Atheists claim that science has provided them with proofs that religion and the idea of God are superstitions based on ignorance or myths. We don't need those ideas they say. God, Redemption, Original Sin, Jesus Christ, Genesis all belong to the realm of fairy tales.


If science really does have undeniable evidence that our view is fairytales, then where's the beef? There isn't any, it's all been based on false interpretation. Since science doesn't have any proof to support the atheists claims, the use of science against God is a trick...It isn't with me, but it is with many a fifth grader who starts school believing he was created by God and gets indoctrinated in one sided atheistic evolutionary theory and leaves school questioning his faith. That's atheistic science at work.

I'm one of those first in line whose willing to look at the vast realm of science in the essence of obtaining knowledge without prejudice.

We need not be afraid of truth. The objective is to uncover truth both in science and religion.

I'm a firm believer of science, true science will without a doubt in my mind strengthen my Faith.

I appreciate the link.

Bottom line re: radiometric dating 1---did you know that scientists have done radioactive dating on rocks of known age and come up with dates that were wrong by millions and millions of years? 2---It is virtually impossible for scientists to know how much radioactive material was present in the rock in the first place when the rocks were first formed. This means they can't tell how much has decayed. 3--Ever hear of polonium radio halos? what I like to call God's fingerprints? Are these sending shock waves through the true believers of "the earth is 4.5 billions of years old" crowd. In countries all over the world, rocks, generally granite, have been found with these little halos. (what a great description, huh?) These radio halos with only polonium atoms shouldn't be there if the rocks had formed slowly. But they are there.

Yes, Lula, I agree. True Science always leads us back to God. Many scientists over the years have come to Christ as a result of their findings and we don't have to go that far back to find many of the most famous true Scientists were Christians.

Science and Chrisitianity are like matching gloves. The right hand and the left go quite nicely together.

It's when we start talking theories and pseudo science and try to match it up with Christianity we run amok.

Try as they might, Atheistic Science has yet to disprove the existence of God. Not for lack of trying tho.

Since I mentioned Christians who were Scientists I thought it would be nice if I included a few names. Here's some famous Scientists you may know. I've also heard that many astronauts that have orbited space come back stronger in their faith than when they left. What do they see up there that brings about this change?

John Philoponus late 6th Century Aristotle's early Christian critic
Hugh of St. Victor c. 1096-1141 theologian of science
Robert Grosseteste c. 1168-1253 reform-minded bishop-scientist
Roger Bacon c. 1220-1292 Doctor Mirabiles
Dietrich von Frieberg c. 1250-c. 1310 the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow
Thomas Bradwardine c. 1290-1349 student of motion
Nicole Oresme c. 1320-1382 inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 grappler with infinity
Georgias Agricola 1495-1555 founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont 1579-1644 founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi 1618-1663 discoverer of the diffraction of light Catholic
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662 mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle 1627-1691 founder of modern chemistry
John Ray 1627-1705 cataloger of British flora and fauna Calvinist (denomination?)
Isaac Barrow 1630-1677 Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1632-1723 discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno 1638-1686 founder of geology
James Bradley 1693-1762 discoverer of the aberration of starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist c. 1700-1748 inventor of the Leyden jar
Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 classifer of all living things
Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 the prolific mathematician
John Dalton 1766-1844 founder of modern atomic theory
Thomas Young 1773-1829 first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light
David Brewster 1781-1868 researcher of polarized light
William Buckland 1784-1856 geologist of the Noahic flood
Adem Sedgwick 1785-1873 geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel 1788-1827 the physicist of light waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888 popular naturalist
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre 1894-1966 the prist who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory

That's atheistic science at work

No that’s Atheist selectively using science to prove what they believe, sound familiar? There is no connection between science and atheism. Scientists come from all different faiths. All the links I provided you were a Christian perspective of science showing that they’re not at odds with mainstream Christianity, just not the fundamentalist view of it.

I appreciate the link.

THEN READ IT! It is explained quite clearly why this sometimes occurs. I’ll give a reason, new volcanic flows picking up rocks from old ones, then not melting them enough to reset their clock. Now you have two different ages of rocks that may appear to be from the same eruption.

And again polonium halos are old news and have been explained for a decade. This is a waste of time but here’s a link. Link

Here’s one of my own. We know a great deal about our sun, more than we do about our own oceans, hence we know a great deal about other suns (stars). Their fusion processes are well understood. For a star to go supernova it must exhaust all its fuel, first hydrogen then helium. This takes billions of years. Christians don’t even question it when scientists say our sun will start to the switch to helium in about 2.5 billion years and die in 10. If we could calculate exactly how much hydrogen a sun had we could tell you the day a star would go nova almost like an atomic clock. How then have humans witnessed several suns go nova if they were all created 6000 years ago? Those were some fast burning stars; ours could go any day now huh.

I agree with this. As long as you're talking true Science here.

But I am a young earther. I do not believe in the billions of years at all. This is something that cannot be proven. One thing not talked about much is the fact that from a Christian POV God created the earth with age. It wasn't a baby earth but one with fully mature everything including humans.

When Mt St. Helens blew up the Scientists had to do some back tracking. I went to see this lopsided Volcano 15 years after it first blew. It was amazing even then to see what had happened even 15 years earlier. They said the whole thing became a mini labatory for scientists. One of the things they were watching were how the diff layers were being formed in Spirit Lake.

This lake was completely covered by all the huge trees surrounding it. The huge basin of water completely emptied as the lava and rocks rushed into it sending the water up for miles around bringing down trees by the sheer force and emptying back into the basin. When we were there it looked like a war zone for miles. New growth was just starting to sprout.

Anyway the trees brought down by this force of water were now completly covering the huge lake. You couldn't even see the water I don't think. These trees eventually completly submerged bit by bit, making diff layers.

One catastrophe, many layers is what happened. Before this they had always believed each layer meant a diff catastrophe with thousands/millions of years in between. This killed that theory. But it doesn't stop anything. They still use that theory to advance their thinking.

TA:



So you're saying the bible even says it has errors in it because you're reading the preface and it tells you so? First of all the preface (as Gid pointed out) is not the holy writ of God. Nor is the KJV for that matter.

Second, I agree the KJV has a few errors (nothing serious) so we're in agreement. But the KJV is not the original language of God's word.

There are NO errors in the original Hebrew and Greek. The KJV is just a revision of Hebrew and Greek. That's all. The errors contained are miniscule and have no bearing on the main ideas of what the scripture is teaching us.

God's word HAS no error in it, nor does God's word admit it does. I'd suggest you read Psalm 119 for reference to what the word of God says about the word of God. That is, if you're really interested in being educated on such matters .

I agree with Gid. Nice try. But it's still a strikeout.

Yes, SF, I know what you're saying..it's all too familiar. To me, Darwinian Evolution Theory is atheistic "science" masquerading as scientific fact.


Your use of the word "prove" is the kicker....Atheists believe there is no God; thus no Creator. They developed and use the Darwinian Evolution Theory as a means to that end. The end is to get others to believe as they do--there is no God; no Creator.

Adnauseum asks in the title of his article, how do JUsers feel about Dawkins? For beginners, I think he's insincere. If he's a true believer that God doesn't exist, then why isn't he busting his buns trying to prove it instead of writing books that razz guys like Pat Robertson? Exactly whose fancy is he tickling by saying things like "To be fair much of the Bible is not systematically evil.." What are we to garner from this---that only a small fraction of the Bible (like maybe Genesis)is systematically evil? This seems like a vain attempt to discredit Almighty God to me and for that I say, shame on him.

Have you ever noticed the fact that proponents of the belief system of Atheism have never proven there is no God or that He is not the Creator, yet this seems to go unmentioned?

What gauls me to no end is that it's most often these very proponents who refuse to allow the Creaton side of the debate in public schools. There is no freedom of inquiry, of investigation in order to learn the truth of the matter studied allowed. Why's that? Yet, they have 'freedom' to deny God as interpretated by the Christian religion.

I never said God's words contain error. You keep going around in circles. The text describes in details its origins and how it was done. It is clearly not an authentic representation of God's words. It is full of contradictory statements that you try to justify through a lengthy essays and round-about logic.

I am not going to quote here what it says, it is a 4 page document with amazingly honest representation of what happened before the Bible we now have reached the printing press.

It is not my intention to try to change your or anyone else's mind. I just wanted to point out a fact. You and others are free to ignore it or strike it out as you say.

Why do i want to point that out? Two reasons:

1-I believe that many here are honest believers in God. But they say things that actually undermine that God and their belief in Him based on shaky unsubstantiated statements by theologians. I just wanted to alert all to the problem. That is all. but everyone is certainly free to choose their own way.

2-Many unbelievers, or doubters, use what the current Bible say as a proof for doubting the existence of God and the reality of messengers, prophets and the message they delivered from God. They do that based on a document that is not a true representation of God or His message. I wanted to tell them dont judge based on a shaky document.

Lula/KFC

These two statements represent what i meant in #66. By saying that you play right in their hands. Darwin's theory have nothing to do with Atheism. It has existed for eons before Darwin. And you cant prove a negative. That is why they dont bother.

it is a logical fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on proving the positive. why do you think they say "innocent till proven guilty"? because no one can prove that someone didnt do somthing. you can only prove that someone did something.

when you say what you did they say no wonder you believe in God. If you say illogical or contradictory things, people will doubt ALL what you say.

It has everything to do with atheism. Darwinian Evolution Theory is based on the idea that macro-evolution can explain the entire natural world without God. Its entire premise is that there is no God....and

ThinkAloud, that is as negative as you can get.

and thanks for pointing that out. It is a negative because no one has ever seen anything evolve into anything else...nor have they come up with any positive evidence of transitional forms...nor are animals getting more and more complex over time.

Ape to man evolution theory isn't real science...that's why I call it atheistic "science".

I call it lies from Satan myself, but 'atheistic "science"' works too.

Have you read Johnathan Sarfati, "Exploding Stars point to Young earth" 1997? He gives an excellent argument against billions of years for the universe.

He explains the third stage remnants of supernovas are missing.

the first stage expands about 23 light years over a period of 300 years and then a blast wave forms. the 2nd stage expands to about 350 light years distance until it starts to lose energy over a period of time of 120,000 years. The 3rd stage expands to 1,500 light years over 6 millions years time.

Compared to 2,260 2nd stage and 5,000 3rd stage which supernova remnants should be observed from earth if the universe is billions of years old (earth time), only 200 second stage supernova remnants have been observed, and you guessed it zero 3rd stage Supernova remnants have been observed. If the universe is billions of years old, we should have observed about 5,000 3rd stage remnants.

I’ve never really understood the mindset of someone who when faced with the evidence that modern science presents us can still remain a young earth fundamentalist. I now understand, you simple don’t allow yourself to be faced with it. You ignore anything contrary to what you believe. I guess accepting everything on faith is what it takes.

Have you read Johnathan Sarfati, "Exploding Stars point to Young earth" 1997? He gives an excellent argument against billions of years for the universe. He explains the third stage remnants of supernovas are missing.

Mr. Safarti is a chemist who is employed as a writer for Answers in Genesis. There are books on the skunk ape more scientifically accurate than his. For one thing he’s a liar, there are third stage supernova remnants.

“One of the most important assertions that the YECs make is that there are no third-stage, i.e. SNRs in the radiative stage Indeed, the very presence of just one third-stage SNR would completely destroy the YEC argument for a young Universe, as the amount of time a SNR takes to reach this stage is way beyond anything that the YEC time scale allows.
So, are there any actual third-stage SNRs? There have been dozens of papers published over the last several decades examining and discussing actual radiative SNRs - quite an achievement considering how, according to YECs, they don't actually exist! Despite what the YECs say, radiative SNRs do actually exist. A brief reading of the relevant literature reveals the following Galactic SNRs that are in the radiative phase (and there are others):” Link

His own formula is based on 25 SN per millennia that he says shows the universe to be 6000 years old, actually his forula calculates to 11700 years. Plus we haven’t observed a SN for 300 years. And he knows that, he’s a smart fellow. Not to mention supergiants live a minimum of 10 million years so they would have to start dying the day they were created. I know, God created old supergiants. This isn’t science, it’s postulating and whenever that runs into a wall you just sit God on top of that wall and you keep on trucking.

Science and religion have to remain separate. Evolution is not a way to explain our beginnings without God; it’s a way to explain our beginnings in terms we can understand. It’s not atheistic or ant-God in any way. The processes that happen all around us appear to obey laws that we are capable of understanding. The more we look the more we understand but once you use God as a crutch to explain our world you might as we just stop and go home. Science has to stand on its own or its discoveries have no meaning. Even if science is just figuring out how God did it he obviously didn’t make that completely impossible. A class in Creation wouldn’t last a day. “See the person next to you and all those trees outside the window” God did that and we don’t know how, class dismissed. The only teaching left would involve the Bible and now you’re in church not a science class. Now you can say it’s blasphemy to even try to explain our universe in terms we can understand and we should just accept it as a miracle by God. But you can’t have it both ways. You must let science be science and God’s creation be God’s creation.

stubbyfinger posts:

I read the link that supposedly debunks Safarti's claim. Then I googled Safarti and read just as many debunkings of the debunker of Safarti.

A few years ago everyone was ga-ga over Stephen Dawking's black hole theory. Today he sees it differently. Get my drift?

If you want to believe, i.e. have faith, in cosmic Evolution theory, then explain how matter always existed; and then, how that matter by chance over billions of years developed into the universe. Now, that takes some incredibel faith! I choose to believe that God, as a reliable eye-witness to His own creation of all matter of the universe, and, as the principle Author of Genesis, knew what He was writing about when He used the Hebrew word "Yom".




What good is understanding our beginnings is that understanding is not true? Macro-Evolution is provably not true.

Yes, Jythier, we're talking the same language. While I defined the practical application, you defined the source.

stubbyfinger posts:


No, I can't agree. There can't be any conflict between science and religion becasue God is the source of all truth whether in the natural or material or in the spiritual sphere of man.

The conflict is only when the scientist who with his bit of pseudo scientific knowledge tries to use it to refute the unchangable laws of God as they apply to religion and morality.

I agree with ya Lula. True Science and Religion fit perfectly together. There is some mention of Science in the bible and it's been proven correctly stated. When we read scripture and see that "the earth hangs on nothing" and the earth described as "the circle of the earth." (both written a couple thousand years before this was discovered) we know that the bible's take on science is right on.