I'm really not too sure how you can reject the age of the Earth being in the low billions of years, every indication we have for the date points to it - dating by radioactive decay, geological examination (hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary rock build-ups, mountain ranges which conform to the idea of plate tectonics and then erosion), the fossil record, the observable history of asteroid impacts on the Earth and other observable bodies in the solar system, examination of other stars and galaxies (which allow us to examine all stages of their lifecycles).
All the means and methods of dating used to date the age of the earth are still relying on a predicited age, and observed amounts of time (i.e.: half life, decay constant, etc) which we can obtain results for here and now, are then projected onto the presupposed timescale of the earths age. To apply legitimate results obtained by scientific research, carried out in our lifetime, to a presupposed number(thought up by men just a few generations ago), and then claim it as fact even though it's unobservable and untestable, is bad science... in fact it isn't science when it crosses outside of our physical world.
Simply the fact that we can detect EM radiation from things billions of light years away indicates the universe is that age (admittedly not the Earth, but my understanding of Creation is that it is meant to be a fairly all encompassing event).
Because something is billions of light years away, doesn't add value to the evolution theory. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), billions of light years doesn't discredit this opening verse of the Bible. For something so complex as the earth and everything in it to evolve (from nothing might I add), the odds would be next to nil. For a universe, billions if not trillions or more light years across to evolve from absolutely nothing has even more drastically minute odds. Evolving planets or stars have never been observed, and even if they claim that a small change in formation constitutes evolution, well the only way they can support it, is if they project that small observed change onto that preconceived timeline.
My Grandmother was a Roman Catholic and I asked her once about how she viewed Genesis (annoying teenager sniping at his elders religion basically), she said (from memory, this was over ten years ago) she viewed the early books of the bible as chronicling the journey of the Jewish people towards an understanding of God - that much of the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally, but it was still a vital guide towards knowledge of God. I find this explanation quite a lot easier to buy than the idea that God buried the fossils in order to test our faith or whatever.
The Roman Catholic Church and their views, do not necessarily line up with Christianity as taught in the Bible. I'm not saying that there aren't Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, but the Reformation came about due to the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Saying that the Old Testament was mostly symoblic rather than literal can put one on shakey ground, wherein it encourages a low-view of the Bible, even though it is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). Also, "the idea that God buried the fossils", is not a view held by anyone I've talked to or even heard about. Many Young Earth Creationists do however believe that fossils were buried during a world-wide flood, as per the account in the Bible (Genesis 6-8), which is very plausible.
Now while any Christian obviously holds that the bible comes from God, the simple fact that we have different sects of Christianity with differing scriptures surely must indicate that men have had input into the bible.
Tis true, there are many different sects, and I'm not sure if by that you mean "sects" as in "denominational divisions", or as in "cults". Either way, different denominations within the Christian Church do have slightly different interperetati
ok, but this hardly weakens evolution, while the copious evidence that the Earth is a few billion does rather knock a literal interpretation of Genesis on the head. Entire major fields of the physical sciences support the conventional age of the Earth - geology, astrophysics etc.
Actually, evolution very much relies on this presupposed, extravagantly large number to explain away developing advancments of DNA and the like. Species for example, scientists have claimed (since Darwin's Theory) that man has evolved from primitive species, and that we have "transitional" forms. Although, they neglect to point out that, in the case of apes evolving into humans, that these "transitional forms" are in fact either true human, or true ape. There are no missing links to prove this aspect of evolution, though many assume there are from what they are taught.
The whole basis that evolution has built it's theory on a presupposed number, is like having a right angle triangle to which we know how long the bottom side is and we know the calculation to obtain the hypotenuse but we don't have the height of the side, so we can either label it indeterminate, or we could use a suggested measurement... or we can make one up. If the measurement is assumed, the size and shape of the triangle in theory appears to be correct, but in reality, the triangle is completely different. In this "case of the triangle", the suggested measurement happens to be the right one.
The only claims against it are from people who need to believe otherwise for religious reasons.
That is a way to put it, mainly because people who base their theories, study and research around this questionable foundation, that was laid down a hundred or so years ago, aren't going to question it, because they've put too much time and effort into studies and research that is based on that theory.
This is kind of what I was digging at when I said I thought you might not really understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the actual origins of life and only deals with what happened to get from the first primitive life to the current state of life on Earth.
Evolution and the origin of life are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is based on a prediction of when life originated. For instance, if evolution was based on the origin of life, as per the accounts of the Bible, it would not be held as a plausible theory because of the time restraints. All they did to make evolution sound like a possible explanation, was stretch that amount of time to such a large extent as can not be comprehended or feasibly tested in our life span. Evolution can not be reliably tested or observed because our lifetimes are much to short to reach any conclusions. We have neither witnessed one species transitioning into another species (if that were even possible), nor have we witnessed new information being added to existing genes. Adaptation within species through mutation, maybe yes, completely new information writing itself out of nowhere, no.
Yes an atheist such as myself might speculate on some method not involving God as the origin of life, but this is 100% entirely separate from evolution. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that contradicts even slightly your belief that life was created by the direct intersession of God.
I'm going to assume that you mean "intervention", I can't seem to make sense of the sentence with the word "intersession". And you're right, the area of evolution that you're referring to doesn't directly contradict with the belief that a god may have created everything, although evolution does contradict with many aspects of the Bible, as authored and revealed to us(everyone in the world) by God.
Science is not about "The Truth", science is about observing the world, building mathematical models based on our observation and then testing those models.
You make a good point. Science is about testing and observing thi
Given that it's been repeatedly proven false the first allegedly begged question is easily answered "No", rendering the second question irrelevant and also easily answered "Nonsense and fairy tales respectively". Not only did you deliberately misquote me, but I fail to see any evidence or reasoning that the Bible has "been repeatedly proven false". Please provide even one (1) legitimate time the Bible has been proved false.
Amazingly, after several thousand years, it is still widely believed all over the world, despite it allegedly being "proven false".
Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I never thought there could be someone capable of typing who'd be incapable of understanding Pascal's wager... Ah, were you on holidays? You missed out on attacking some of my previous posts.
Please, enlighten me with your amazing, insightful interprative capabilities, what is the true meaning of Pascal's Wager? Please let me know if the wikipedia explanation is misleading me into a false sense of understanding of his philosophical theory.
Instead of trolling, you need to at least reply with opposing views on where you think I am misleading. All you're doing is attempting to discredit my posts with no valid arguments. You should try reading posts before clicking the "Reply To This" button, and re-typing words you saw mentioned in the post.
However the scientific arguments for evolution (ie what got us from the first bit of life up to the present day) are so comprehensive and compelling that the only reason I can see to object to it is if you find it incompatible with your faith. Sure, you could put it like that. Although, I would question the methods they utilized to come to their conclusions on evolution. The "evolution" model is based on a presupposition that the world is millions, if not billions of years old. Where did this presuppostion come from, who decided on that period of time? This amount of time is in contradiction to the time period as can be reasonably deduced from the Bible using methods such as genealogy. The entire model of the "theory of evolution" revolves around this presupposed large period of time that was decided upon by men. Men who build things like the Challenger Space Shuttle, Minneapolis Bridge, etc. What I'm getting at is man is not all knowledgable or infallible, man makes mistakes, and lots of them. If the model that evolution is based on is founded on a presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, then I would certainly question where that number came from and who implemented it into the theory of evolution.
Also, the claim that life evolved from absolute nothingness (and I mean absolute), and has since evolved over this "millions of years" presupposition, to what it is today. The notion that something can come from a lack of anything is absurd and is also in contradiction to what the Bible says. God was, is, and is to come. His eternal existence is outside human comprehension. So to claim that nothing was ever created and that space, time, and matter appeared from a void, is contrary to what the Bible says.
If you do think Creationism is reasonable from a purely scientific standard then I really would advise reading up on it. I'm sure this sounds arrogant but there is so much anti-evolution propaganda out there that it is likely that you don't actually understand it properly. Science I don't have a problem with. People can study, observe, and test things in this world to their hearts content. Although, when so-called "scientific" theories, based on these presuppositions as discussed in this post, are being pushed through the education system as fact, then there is a problem, particularly also because it is in opposition to the Gospel. There is propaganda from both sides. The question that needs to be asked is what are the consequences for rejecting the theory of evolution, and what are the consequences for rejecting the Gospel.
You think this is the only story repeated in many civilizations? No, probably not. I was simply pointing out that a majority of ancient cultures all around the world tell the same story. Did all these ancient cultures liaise with each other via the internet, or is it possible they say it because it actually happened?
You can explain it with plagiarism, taking inspiration from older (greek?) works, or even the collective unconscious. I'm sure there are many ways to explain it away, but the explanations all seem to direct one to a common point somewhere in history... maybe it was some world-wide disaster that only left 8 people remaining on earth? Where or who was this material plagiarised from, and who originally said or wrote it? Who would have written these "older (greek?) works" and why would they write about a world-wide flood? What is the root of this co-called "collective unconscious", and where did it stem from?
It begs the question, could this historical book actually be true? If so, what does it teach and tell us?
I see where you're coming from, but I have to say, after reading the article on Blaise Pascal, he makes his case based on probability rather than focusing on what the Gospel says, which God revealed to us through His Son, and is written in the Bible.
He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. This statement, amongst others, shows his lack of understanding of the Bible. "If you lose, you lose nothing"... This is the same philospohical tripe as is still cropping up today. If you look at what the Bible says,
Matthew 25:44-46 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
Choosing between eternal life or damnation is not a trivial decision. Noone is going to force you to accept Jesus (except maybe some cults might), but rejection of Gods Word does have dire consequences.
Does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? I mean do those arguments actually convince you of something, or do you simply know that they are true since you take their conclusions on faith? Sure, that question does pop up every now and then, "What if I'm wrong?". But then I think about it, what if I am wrong, what if this whole time I followed something that some men wrote, and there is no life after death, no judgment, no damnation? Then I evaporate into thin air, into a state of unconsciousness. In that case, I don't see why more people don't off themselves, cause you've probably noticed that life isn't smooth sailing, in fact far from it, and why are people so terrified of dying if there's nothing to be concerned about on the other side. Then there's the alternative, what if the Bible, the inspired Word of God, which is still well and truly alive after thousands of years, is correct? What if the following verse was true:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
If I'm right in accepting that Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice so that I could be free from sin, and he rose again and ascended into heaven, only to come again in the future to restore His church and rid the world of evil, and to replace it with a new heaven and a new earth... then all those that reject Jesus as their Saviour need to be very concerned about what happens to them after this life. Salvation is free, man cannot do anything to rescue himself from death, only God can save man, and it is through grace that we receive salvation. It's so simple, all we have to do is accept that Jesus died for us, believe in Him, and choose to live how God commands, to live by the spirit.
Galatians 5:16-26 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
As far as my faith goes, well you can refer to this verse:
Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Except for that little nagging problem of the only evidence for there being a world wide flood is the bible, and not that the bible happens to back up all the evidence of a world wide flood. Riiight... not only is the Bible clear on the flood but if you look at other sources, they support the Biblical story. I've added a reference below to 'Deluge (mythology)', found on Wikipedia. Not only that, but the layers that fossils are found in could also be attributed to the flood. It's something you can test and observe for yourself. What happans if you place different types of dust, rock and soil in a container, fill it with water, mix it up, and then allow the water to drain or evaporate? Apart from theories, there is no hard evidence to support millions of years in the making. Man just wants to accept something that is in opposition to what the Bible says, and has no interest in even testing theories that involve anything to do with actual historical Biblical accounts.
Genesis 7:19-23 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Consider the following quote from Wikipedia under "Deluge (mythology)":
The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization, which has led to theories that they correspond to an actual (pre)historical event. -
...there is this bizzare trend in the fossil record where the deeper you go the more primitive the organism is. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind that, and I'm not going to try and create an assumption based on my limited knowledge. If there are Young Earth Creationist Scientists that think that issue is worth researching, then I'm sure they can come up with an educated theory on the reasons for why it might have turned out that way. Although, any theory that is pieced together based on that evidence, regardless of which side comes up with the theory, it is still just a theory based on the same set of evidence.
*Author product of 12 years of christian science education, has read the entire bible from start to finish, grew up in household with father who is PhD Systematic Theology and has heard every possible conceivable defense, argument and explanation conceived by the young earth researchers.* Not sure if you're talking about yourself here or someone else, but judging by your opening statement, I take it you haven't really read the Bible. I would suggest you at least re-read Genesis.
[Young Earthers] When they are confronted with it somehow, they either ignore it or pull out some variety of Last Thursdayism: the universe was created with all of the bits already in motion, and the light from distant stars already underway,... You'll find more observable evidence that the planets and other "bits" were set in motion at a particular point, as opposed to the theory that a chaotic explosion caused rocks to become spherical planets, perfectly revolving and orbiting as is needed for the universe to exist as a balanced, functioning universe, which also subsequently allowed for conditions on planet earth to be such as to support life.
...and the fossils neatly buried. Apparently you dogmatically follow the doctrine of the theory of evolution set before you by worldly, deceptive scientists and have been brainwashed into not even considering or exploring alternative possibilities. I have not heard of a Young Earth Creationist that claims that fossils were neatly buried during the creation of the earth. As far as creation scientists can ascertain, is that the fossils exist due to a world wide flood. Coincedentally, there just happens to be a world wide flood written about in the Bible. Interestingly, it is supported by indigenous cultural groups all over the world. The majority, if not all, have stories passed down through their ancestors of a massive flood.
Remember: evidence against scientific hypotheses mean the science is wrong, but evidence against the Bible means the evidence is wrong. Have you considered that evidence against the Bible is wrong, not just for the sake of being wrong, but because it actually is wrong and unproven. You may want to jump on you tube and watch a few presentations from Kent Hovind. He has answers to alot of these questions and false claims. At least then you can consider this issue by looking at both sides of the debate, rather then blindly following writings of misleading men.
Wait, since the Earth is only 6000 years old, how can this be possible? Seriously, how do religious people deal with this sort of thing? I suppose young earth creationists would respond the same to this, the same as they respond to a theory that life evolved from a rock. Seriously, kick your rational mind into gear. Who's going to test this... this educated guess? I don't think you can even call it a hypothesis, simply because we cannot observe or test the result. Anything can happen between 2008 and 20,002,008-40,002,008 that could drastically change the predicted course of events. If the earth were to hypothetically be around for such a long period of time, new discoveries would be made regarding the universe that would make theories of today obsolete. Although the world should be coming to an end well before that time.
You are saying that we have not evolved since the pyramids were built? That we couldn't build precision buildings of that scale today? We could build better pyramids today (including hot and cold running water, electricity, etc) and all without working tens of thousands of slaves to death in the process. No... I believe the structure of my sentence was quite clear. I can confidently state that the pyramids were not built yesterday, nor were they built 10 years ago, we're talking thousands of years ago, when knowledge and technology were not at the same level as today. We can only assume that the Egyptians built the larger sized pyramids at Giza, unless anyone has recently discovered doumented _proof_ that the Egyptians did actually build them.
Evolution is hardly an unproven and untrue theory. That depends on what aspect of evolution you are looking at. If we're referring to the earth magically appearing from nothingness and then life consequently formed from rock over millions of years, and in that time man evolved from animals, and that dinosaurs lived long before man... then yes, that side of it is unproven and untrue and yet still perpetuated in science classes.
Also, children are not taught to just "believe it and that's final", they are shown how it works and, in a proper setting, are encouraged to question the it. Question it within the bounds of what they have been indoctrinated with. Anything outside of those bounds (i.e.: Intelligent Design) is ridiculed.
However, there is far more scientific (that's the testable kind) evidence to support evolution and the age of the universe than there is to prove what most religions teach (morals aside). Actually, no. This "evidence" that has been published in countless textbooks (i.e.: evolving from animals, millions of years old universe, etc.) is baseless doctrine, and is propoganda designed to divert attention from the truth taught in the Bible. There are no links between humans and apes, you're either an ape or you're a human, the missing links are still missing even though there should be millions. The age of the earth (millions of years old) has no hard evidence either, it's a theory, built on speculated models, with which some "scientist" dude(s) made some "educated" guesses based on their own ideas of how old the earth might be.
And just to make it clear, science is not a bad thing, observing and testing our physical surroundings, it is when science is exploited and used as a tool to propose lies in an air to discredit what the Bible teaches, and especially when it is used to fill the minds of impressionable students, who consequently grow up into adults with clouded, indoctrinated minds.
Well, this point is sort of mitigated if science is taught in the respect of science and doesn't touch religion at all. I mean simple by compartmentalizing the information is simple enough to avoid conflicts. Simple saying this is how science sees things and it is how it has built it's basis in the last few years is enough to compartmentalize the issues away from ID, Religion, The CFSM or anything else. Sorry, your sentences are rather difficult to ascertain exactly what point you are putting forward.
Religion only enters into the science classroom when scientific "facts" are pushed through the textbooks that brainwash students into thinking the earth magically appeared out of nothing, and that ultimately, life formed from a rock(which coincedentally appeared out of absolute nothingness).
These so-called scientific "facts" are simply propaganda that give people a deceptive alternative to believing they were created. It gives them a crutch to reject the Bible. Everyone is free to choose to reject it or accept it, but when science classes fool people into thinking there is no God using false scientific claims, that's the point when religion is brought into the science classroom.
At least with ID in the science classroom, it gives the students an alternative to the falsities being plugged down their ear-holes, and allows them to decide on which way they want to go.
There is a huge difference between the religions of ancient Egypt and modern Muslim, between ancient Greek and Roman gods and today's Christianity. Those aren't simply refinements like science makes, but complete rewrites. Even if you look just at the Christian religions, the religious texts themselves have changed between the Hebrew Bible, the old Catholic canon of the synod of Carthage of 397, the "King James" version of 1611, and various protestant versions of modern times. Are you deliberately misleading, or just uninformed? There may be inconsistencies between various ancient and modern religions, and even between completely different religions (i.e.: Ancient Greek and Roman gods compared to Christianity), but as far as Christianity is concerned, it's been the same gospel for the past 2000 or so years, and is consistent with the books of the Old Testament. The Bible has not been rewritten, as you have suggested, it has varying translations, all with the same message, translated from the original texts.
Our knowledge is an evolving thing. So, how do the Pyramids in Egypt fit in? If our knowledge is evolving, how did they build the pyramids, with such precision and scale, back before human knowledge and technology had advanced or "evolved" to what it is today?
Religion encourages us not to think, indeed to "know", without thinking. Should this be taught in schools? Absolutely not. Hmmm... and how is that different from the theory of evolution? Children are taught unproven and untrue theories, based on speculations, and expected to believe it as fact. Any opposition to the theory is frowned upon and ridiculed. There's no thinking involved, you're just supposed to believe it and that's final. And don't get science confused with "mystical science" (i.e.: Big Bang Theory, links between monkey and man, "millions of years ago", etc). Science is testable and observable, "mystical science" is a belief system, a religion if you will.
Emphasizing theory and so on are all attempts at stopping science from being taught in a way that disproves or negates religion. This is also why the problems crop up in small school districts and it isn't a nation wide problem. Most of the science taught in the schools across the country doesn't mention religion at all and that is how it should be. There are no attempts to stop science from being taught, although there are attempts to stop "voodoo science" from being taught, science that is unproven, wrong, and in opposition to what the Bible says. If science is to be taught in schools, it should be testable and observable science, not based on theories that are based on speculations, that some "scientist" developed through guesswork. Science and Religion are not in opposition. "Voodoo Science" (old earth theory) and the Bible are in opposition. "Voodoo Science" is a religion in its own right, not science.
No. Why should there be any need for a creation? Because science can't explain how something can appear out of nothing... still to this day. Anything we create, any materials used, comes from somewhere or something. Even if we could create something "out of thin air", that "thin air" would have still had to come from somewhere. Creation is the explanation, science is a continuous venture to figure out how things came to be, and I suppose we can call it "voodoo science", tries to come up with theories and stories of how everything came to be and then states it as fact, without any factual evidence, in an attempt to make the Bible obsolete.
Time being, as it is, part of the struture of the universe, it is senseless to talk about a time before it, or even the universe changing. It doesn't. The universe _is_. It always has been. Time and space must have come from somewhere. Beyond that, you're just creating your own religion by believing that everything already existed for eternity. There's no scientific evidence that the universe has always existed. Now that's faith!
Let's not forget the approved murders, the restraint of women, the slavery, the torture, the ostracizing...
It is now blatantly obvious that you have not read the Bible, even once. If you had read it even once (let alone 6 times), you would already know that the accusations stated in your post are utterly uninformed. If you had read the Bible, you would know that those events were part of the Old Covenant.
2 Corinthians 3:7-18 The Glory of the New Covenant Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
The New Covenant was also prophesied over 500yrs prior to the coming of Jesus.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Remember, your little suicidal Jewish messiah (who according to himself came for the Jews, not for you)...
As per the following verse, Jesus death and resurrection bought down the division between Jews and Gentiles. Read John 3:16 also, which states that God so loved the _world_ that he gave His one and only Son, that _whoever_ believes in Him will not perish. Hint: When you read the passages look for the capital "L" when the word "law" is used.
Ephesians 2:11-22 One in Christ Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of th
There are plenty of examples of mainstream religious doctrine changing to accommodate scientific discovery. It doesn't happen fast but it is more or less inevitable. You may have a point in some respect, although, the message of Scripture is not altered by trivial scientific discoveries.
Sure, there have been misinterpretations of (mainly Old Testament) passages, but these recent (and not-so-recent) scientific discoveries have neither invalidated the Bible, nor made the Gospel obsolete. A single verse or chapter in the Bible, dependant on what it is, can be taken to mean several different things. I believe that is an attributing factor as to why there are so many denominations. The message is the same, but the doctrines may differ.
Religion is for the intellectually challenged, believers deserve to be pitied as the deluded fools they are, or despised when they attempt to foist their bizarre views on the rest of us, not locked up as a danger to society. Bizarre views? As in, God created everything, or something mysteriously and magically appeared at some point in the history of the universe, which magically turned into rock, and then in turn, life came out of this magical rock. Seriously dude, think about it carefully.
2 Peter 3:3-7 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
The problem is that people "think or act differently from me" in a way that can be actually harmful to me. "Yes of course!! Those fruits of the Spirit are ever so harmful. I hate it when Christians are patient, kind, gentle, self-controlled, etc."
Well, at least that's what we're instructed to do.
Galatians 5:16-26 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Since always, given that they're big enough and moving fast enough that they'll have sufficient energy to shatter/melt and recoalesce (if that's a word). Do you have a reference for evidence of this? I can't think of an instance where two or more rocks colliding with each other creates an orderly sphere. With their theory, they must have provided documented observable proof that this is possible, to support their theory. Also, where did this dust appear from, and where/when did the space, in which the dust is present, form?
As for VendettaMF, I'm still waiting to see this moral, lovable character of yours that you insist on. If your reason lies in a theory that man evolved from a rock, which magically appeared out of thin air, then you should probably start questioning who is being illogical and unreasonable, I'm surprised that your rational mind hasn't allowed you to process this fundamental flaw. Quit trolling with slanderous remarks and come back with some reasonable, logical evidence to support your opposition to my post.
Bible thumpers: Big imaginary fairy created the world 4,000 years ago. Science folk: You're insane, it's all in your head, and I have proof. I believe it is claimed to be 4000BC (i.e.: approx. 6000 years ago). If your proof lies in voodoo science, which claims rocks formed from microscopic interstellar dust over millions of years, I ask you: 1) Where did this said dust originate from, and the space it inhabits?
And probably the more obvious question: 2) Since when does smashing two rocks together, form one nicely spherical rock?
The Bible says a lot of things, it was written by people from what they understood at the time, no god was involved in its writting. The longest recorded lifespan is 122 years and 164 days. There is no evidence of a world wide flood. The Earth was not created in 6 days. The Earth is ~5 billion years old. All life was not created simultaneously. That's an interesting accumulation of assumptions put forward as though fact. I also find it interesting that you included the oldest age statement in amongst your set of assumptions. I do wonder why there is only _one_ "verified" entry of a person exceeding 120yrs in recorded history, out of billions of subjects.
The earth isn't stationary as once thought. ... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) Who's interpretation was that, and when was the last recorded point in history that someone altered the position of the earth?
Diseases are not caused by demons, unless medicine is exorcism. If you don't believe in the spiritual world, then you can rightly make that claim, but it's not something you can disprove unless you were able to see these demons, or lack there-of.
God promises that the Jews will never lose their land or be disturbed again. I'm sure you would have been corrected prior to this discussion, but those references are from the Old Testament, a time before the Jews rejected the Son of God as their Saviour.
God promises that David's throne will be established forever.
Christian response: In the context of 2 Samuel 7:16 and 1 Chronicles 17:14, David's throne refers to Jesus, who is from the line of David. In this sense, God's throne is established forever. Ok, I don't know why you added that in there.
No uncircumcised man will ever enter Jerusalem again. (Isaiah 52:1) That one may or may not have underlying double-meaning, but it still comes from the Old Testament, prior to the New Covenant.
If the age limit to reproduce was pushed back every so many generations, conceivably we could be living much, much longer. That's assuming we can live past 120 years.
Genesis 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really not too sure how you can reject the age of the Earth being in the low billions of years, every indication we have for the date points to it - dating by radioactive decay, geological examination (hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary rock build-ups, mountain ranges which conform to the idea of plate tectonics and then erosion), the fossil record, the observable history of asteroid impacts on the Earth and other observable bodies in the solar system, examination of other stars and galaxies (which allow us to examine all stages of their lifecycles).
All the means and methods of dating used to date the age of the earth are still relying on a predicited age, and observed amounts of time (i.e.: half life, decay constant, etc) which we can obtain results for here and now, are then projected onto the presupposed timescale of the earths age. To apply legitimate results obtained by scientific research, carried out in our lifetime, to a presupposed number(thought up by men just a few generations ago), and then claim it as fact even though it's unobservable and untestable, is bad science... in fact it isn't science when it crosses outside of our physical world.
Simply the fact that we can detect EM radiation from things billions of light years away indicates the universe is that age (admittedly not the Earth, but my understanding of Creation is that it is meant to be a fairly all encompassing event).
Because something is billions of light years away, doesn't add value to the evolution theory. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), billions of light years doesn't discredit this opening verse of the Bible. For something so complex as the earth and everything in it to evolve (from nothing might I add), the odds would be next to nil. For a universe, billions if not trillions or more light years across to evolve from absolutely nothing has even more drastically minute odds. Evolving planets or stars have never been observed, and even if they claim that a small change in formation constitutes evolution, well the only way they can support it, is if they project that small observed change onto that preconceived timeline.
My Grandmother was a Roman Catholic and I asked her once about how she viewed Genesis (annoying teenager sniping at his elders religion basically), she said (from memory, this was over ten years ago) she viewed the early books of the bible as chronicling the journey of the Jewish people towards an understanding of God - that much of the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally, but it was still a vital guide towards knowledge of God. I find this explanation quite a lot easier to buy than the idea that God buried the fossils in order to test our faith or whatever.
The Roman Catholic Church and their views, do not necessarily line up with Christianity as taught in the Bible. I'm not saying that there aren't Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, but the Reformation came about due to the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Saying that the Old Testament was mostly symoblic rather than literal can put one on shakey ground, wherein it encourages a low-view of the Bible, even though it is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Also, "the idea that God buried the fossils", is not a view held by anyone I've talked to or even heard about. Many Young Earth Creationists do however believe that fossils were buried during a world-wide flood, as per the account in the Bible (Genesis 6-8), which is very plausible.
Now while any Christian obviously holds that the bible comes from God, the simple fact that we have different sects of Christianity with differing scriptures surely must indicate that men have had input into the bible.
Tis true, there are many different sects, and I'm not sure if by that you mean "sects" as in "denominational divisions", or as in "cults". Either way, different denominations within the Christian Church do have slightly different interperetati
ok, but this hardly weakens evolution, while the copious evidence that the Earth is a few billion does rather knock a literal interpretation of Genesis on the head. Entire major fields of the physical sciences support the conventional age of the Earth - geology, astrophysics etc.
Actually, evolution very much relies on this presupposed, extravagantly large number to explain away developing advancments of DNA and the like. Species for example, scientists have claimed (since Darwin's Theory) that man has evolved from primitive species, and that we have "transitional" forms. Although, they neglect to point out that, in the case of apes evolving into humans, that these "transitional forms" are in fact either true human, or true ape. There are no missing links to prove this aspect of evolution, though many assume there are from what they are taught.
The whole basis that evolution has built it's theory on a presupposed number, is like having a right angle triangle to which we know how long the bottom side is and we know the calculation to obtain the hypotenuse but we don't have the height of the side, so we can either label it indeterminate, or we could use a suggested measurement... or we can make one up. If the measurement is assumed, the size and shape of the triangle in theory appears to be correct, but in reality, the triangle is completely different. In this "case of the triangle", the suggested measurement happens to be the right one.
The only claims against it are from people who need to believe otherwise for religious reasons.
That is a way to put it, mainly because people who base their theories, study and research around this questionable foundation, that was laid down a hundred or so years ago, aren't going to question it, because they've put too much time and effort into studies and research that is based on that theory.
This is kind of what I was digging at when I said I thought you might not really understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the actual origins of life and only deals with what happened to get from the first primitive life to the current state of life on Earth.
Evolution and the origin of life are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is based on a prediction of when life originated. For instance, if evolution was based on the origin of life, as per the accounts of the Bible, it would not be held as a plausible theory because of the time restraints. All they did to make evolution sound like a possible explanation, was stretch that amount of time to such a large extent as can not be comprehended or feasibly tested in our life span. Evolution can not be reliably tested or observed because our lifetimes are much to short to reach any conclusions. We have neither witnessed one species transitioning into another species (if that were even possible), nor have we witnessed new information being added to existing genes. Adaptation within species through mutation, maybe yes, completely new information writing itself out of nowhere, no.
Yes an atheist such as myself might speculate on some method not involving God as the origin of life, but this is 100% entirely separate from evolution. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that contradicts even slightly your belief that life was created by the direct intersession of God.
I'm going to assume that you mean "intervention", I can't seem to make sense of the sentence with the word "intersession". And you're right, the area of evolution that you're referring to doesn't directly contradict with the belief that a god may have created everything, although evolution does contradict with many aspects of the Bible, as authored and revealed to us(everyone in the world) by God.
Science is not about "The Truth", science is about observing the world, building mathematical models based on our observation and then testing those models.
You make a good point. Science is about testing and observing thi
Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Please, enlighten me with your amazing, insightful interprative capabilities, what is the true meaning of Pascal's Wager?
Please let me know if the wikipedia explanation is misleading me into a false sense of understanding of his philosophical theory.
Instead of trolling, you need to at least reply with opposing views on where you think I am misleading. All you're doing is attempting to discredit my posts with no valid arguments. You should try reading posts before clicking the "Reply To This" button, and re-typing words you saw mentioned in the post.
Where did this presuppostion come from, who decided on that period of time?
This amount of time is in contradiction to the time period as can be reasonably deduced from the Bible using methods such as genealogy. The entire model of the "theory of evolution" revolves around this presupposed large period of time that was decided upon by men. Men who build things like the Challenger Space Shuttle, Minneapolis Bridge, etc. What I'm getting at is man is not all knowledgable or infallible, man makes mistakes, and lots of them. If the model that evolution is based on is founded on a presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, then I would certainly question where that number came from and who implemented it into the theory of evolution.
Also, the claim that life evolved from absolute nothingness (and I mean absolute), and has since evolved over this "millions of years" presupposition, to what it is today. The notion that something can come from a lack of anything is absurd and is also in contradiction to what the Bible says. God was, is, and is to come. His eternal existence is outside human comprehension. So to claim that nothing was ever created and that space, time, and matter appeared from a void, is contrary to what the Bible says. If you do think Creationism is reasonable from a purely scientific standard then I really would advise reading up on it. I'm sure this sounds arrogant but there is so much anti-evolution propaganda out there that it is likely that you don't actually understand it properly. Science I don't have a problem with. People can study, observe, and test things in this world to their hearts content. Although, when so-called "scientific" theories, based on these presuppositions as discussed in this post, are being pushed through the education system as fact, then there is a problem, particularly also because it is in opposition to the Gospel.
There is propaganda from both sides. The question that needs to be asked is what are the consequences for rejecting the theory of evolution, and what are the consequences for rejecting the Gospel.
Where or who was this material plagiarised from, and who originally said or wrote it? Who would have written these "older (greek?) works" and why would they write about a world-wide flood? What is the root of this co-called "collective unconscious", and where did it stem from?
It begs the question, could this historical book actually be true? If so, what does it teach and tell us?
"If you lose, you lose nothing"... This is the same philospohical tripe as is still cropping up today. If you look at what the Bible says,
Matthew 25:44-46
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
Choosing between eternal life or damnation is not a trivial decision. Noone is going to force you to accept Jesus (except maybe some cults might), but rejection of Gods Word does have dire consequences.
Then there's the alternative, what if the Bible, the inspired Word of God, which is still well and truly alive after thousands of years, is correct? What if the following verse was true:
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
If I'm right in accepting that Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice so that I could be free from sin, and he rose again and ascended into heaven, only to come again in the future to restore His church and rid the world of evil, and to replace it with a new heaven and a new earth... then all those that reject Jesus as their Saviour need to be very concerned about what happens to them after this life.
Salvation is free, man cannot do anything to rescue himself from death, only God can save man, and it is through grace that we receive salvation. It's so simple, all we have to do is accept that Jesus died for us, believe in Him, and choose to live how God commands, to live by the spirit.
Galatians 5:16-26
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
As far as my faith goes, well you can refer to this verse:
Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
It's something you can test and observe for yourself. What happans if you place different types of dust, rock and soil in a container, fill it with water, mix it up, and then allow the water to drain or evaporate?
Apart from theories, there is no hard evidence to support millions of years in the making. Man just wants to accept something that is in opposition to what the Bible says, and has no interest in even testing theories that involve anything to do with actual historical Biblical accounts.
Genesis 7:19-23
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Consider the following quote from Wikipedia under "Deluge (mythology)": The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization, which has led to theories that they correspond to an actual (pre)historical event. -
...there is this bizzare trend in the fossil record where the deeper you go the more primitive the organism is. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind that, and I'm not going to try and create an assumption based on my limited knowledge. If there are Young Earth Creationist Scientists that think that issue is worth researching, then I'm sure they can come up with an educated theory on the reasons for why it might have turned out that way. Although, any theory that is pieced together based on that evidence, regardless of which side comes up with the theory, it is still just a theory based on the same set of evidence. *Author product of 12 years of christian science education, has read the entire bible from start to finish, grew up in household with father who is PhD Systematic Theology and has heard every possible conceivable defense, argument and explanation conceived by the young earth researchers.* Not sure if you're talking about yourself here or someone else, but judging by your opening statement, I take it you haven't really read the Bible. I would suggest you at least re-read Genesis.
...and the fossils neatly buried. Apparently you dogmatically follow the doctrine of the theory of evolution set before you by worldly, deceptive scientists and have been brainwashed into not even considering or exploring alternative possibilities.I have not heard of a Young Earth Creationist that claims that fossils were neatly buried during the creation of the earth. As far as creation scientists can ascertain, is that the fossils exist due to a world wide flood.
Coincedentally, there just happens to be a world wide flood written about in the Bible. Interestingly, it is supported by indigenous cultural groups all over the world. The majority, if not all, have stories passed down through their ancestors of a massive flood. Remember: evidence against scientific hypotheses mean the science is wrong, but evidence against the Bible means the evidence is wrong. Have you considered that evidence against the Bible is wrong, not just for the sake of being wrong, but because it actually is wrong and unproven.
You may want to jump on you tube and watch a few presentations from Kent Hovind. He has answers to alot of these questions and false claims. At least then you can consider this issue by looking at both sides of the debate, rather then blindly following writings of misleading men.
Seriously, how do religious people deal with this sort of thing? I suppose young earth creationists would respond the same to this, the same as they respond to a theory that life evolved from a rock.
Seriously, kick your rational mind into gear. Who's going to test this... this educated guess? I don't think you can even call it a hypothesis, simply because we cannot observe or test the result. Anything can happen between 2008 and 20,002,008-40,002,008 that could drastically change the predicted course of events.
If the earth were to hypothetically be around for such a long period of time, new discoveries would be made regarding the universe that would make theories of today obsolete. Although the world should be coming to an end well before that time.
The age of the earth (millions of years old) has no hard evidence either, it's a theory, built on speculated models, with which some "scientist" dude(s) made some "educated" guesses based on their own ideas of how old the earth might be.
And just to make it clear, science is not a bad thing, observing and testing our physical surroundings, it is when science is exploited and used as a tool to propose lies in an air to discredit what the Bible teaches, and especially when it is used to fill the minds of impressionable students, who consequently grow up into adults with clouded, indoctrinated minds.
Religion only enters into the science classroom when scientific "facts" are pushed through the textbooks that brainwash students into thinking the earth magically appeared out of nothing, and that ultimately, life formed from a rock(which coincedentally appeared out of absolute nothingness).
These so-called scientific "facts" are simply propaganda that give people a deceptive alternative to believing they were created. It gives them a crutch to reject the Bible. Everyone is free to choose to reject it or accept it, but when science classes fool people into thinking there is no God using false scientific claims, that's the point when religion is brought into the science classroom.
At least with ID in the science classroom, it gives the students an alternative to the falsities being plugged down their ear-holes, and allows them to decide on which way they want to go.
The Bible has not been rewritten, as you have suggested, it has varying translations, all with the same message, translated from the original texts.
And don't get science confused with "mystical science" (i.e.: Big Bang Theory, links between monkey and man, "millions of years ago", etc). Science is testable and observable, "mystical science" is a belief system, a religion if you will.
If science is to be taught in schools, it should be testable and observable science, not based on theories that are based on speculations, that some "scientist" developed through guesswork.
Science and Religion are not in opposition. "Voodoo Science" (old earth theory) and the Bible are in opposition.
"Voodoo Science" is a religion in its own right, not science.
Creation is the explanation, science is a continuous venture to figure out how things came to be, and I suppose we can call it "voodoo science", tries to come up with theories and stories of how everything came to be and then states it as fact, without any factual evidence, in an attempt to make the Bible obsolete. Time being, as it is, part of the struture of the universe, it is senseless to talk about a time before it, or even the universe changing. It doesn't. The universe _is_. It always has been. Time and space must have come from somewhere. Beyond that, you're just creating your own religion by believing that everything already existed for eternity. There's no scientific evidence that the universe has always existed. Now that's faith!
Let's not forget the approved murders, the restraint of women, the slavery, the torture, the ostracizing...
It is now blatantly obvious that you have not read the Bible, even once. If you had read it even once (let alone 6 times), you would already know that the accusations stated in your post are utterly uninformed. If you had read the Bible, you would know that those events were part of the Old Covenant.
2 Corinthians 3:7-18
The Glory of the New Covenant
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
The New Covenant was also prophesied over 500yrs prior to the coming of Jesus.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Remember, your little suicidal Jewish messiah (who according to himself came for the Jews, not for you) ...
As per the following verse, Jesus death and resurrection bought down the division between Jews and Gentiles. Read John 3:16 also, which states that God so loved the _world_ that he gave His one and only Son, that _whoever_ believes in Him will not perish.
Hint: When you read the passages look for the capital "L" when the word "law" is used.
Ephesians 2:11-22
One in Christ
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of th
Sure, there have been misinterpretations of (mainly Old Testament) passages, but these recent (and not-so-recent) scientific discoveries have neither invalidated the Bible, nor made the Gospel obsolete. A single verse or chapter in the Bible, dependant on what it is, can be taken to mean several different things. I believe that is an attributing factor as to why there are so many denominations. The message is the same, but the doctrines may differ.
2 Peter 3:3-7
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Well, at least that's what we're instructed to do.
Galatians 5:16-26
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Also, where did this dust appear from, and where/when did the space, in which the dust is present, form?
As for VendettaMF, I'm still waiting to see this moral, lovable character of yours that you insist on.
If your reason lies in a theory that man evolved from a rock, which magically appeared out of thin air, then you should probably start questioning who is being illogical and unreasonable, I'm surprised that your rational mind hasn't allowed you to process this fundamental flaw.
Quit trolling with slanderous remarks and come back with some reasonable, logical evidence to support your opposition to my post.
Science folk: You're insane, it's all in your head, and I have proof. I believe it is claimed to be 4000BC (i.e.: approx. 6000 years ago).
If your proof lies in voodoo science, which claims rocks formed from microscopic interstellar dust over millions of years, I ask you:
1) Where did this said dust originate from, and the space it inhabits?
And probably the more obvious question:
2) Since when does smashing two rocks together, form one nicely spherical rock?
Really, who's being illogical, think about it.
I do wonder why there is only _one_ "verified" entry of a person exceeding 120yrs in recorded history, out of billions of subjects. The earth isn't stationary as once thought.
Christian response: In the context of 2 Samuel 7:16 and 1 Chronicles 17:14, David's throne refers to Jesus, who is from the line of David. In this sense, God's throne is established forever. Ok, I don't know why you added that in there. No uncircumcised man will ever enter Jerusalem again. (Isaiah 52:1) That one may or may not have underlying double-meaning, but it still comes from the Old Testament, prior to the New Covenant.
Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."