I've just been reading about 'out of place' artifacts. Oddities which are dated way, way way outside of the parameters of the currently accepted assumptions on human development on this planet. It appears a lot of these artifacts are exhibited in a creation museum. I'm curious as to why. If things are dated millions of years ahead of any time they could have been here, according to evolution theory, how do they fit into a 6000 year old earth model? Or, are they just there in an attempt to debunk science?
Please note that I am firmly of the opinion that there are too many anomalous finds to assume we currently have a good handle on how long humanity has been stumping around this planet. However, 6000 years appears to be off base by a ludicrous long shot.
Certainly it can be understood that not all "creationists" are holding tightly to 6,000 man years of earth. Hopefully an understanding of God allows that God can do anything. And it would be good to understand that Genesis is written for man and not as a restriction on God.
If God wants the first "days" to be billions of years long, God can do that. We do not know exactly what God created by a wave of his hand or otherwise let the earth He created create. 20 lines or so to derive the exact nature of creation is very short and I suggest that is for a reason, and the reason is to let us fill in the blanks.
No man can hike the Grand Canyon and open his eyes and say this was created in 6,000 man years. More like 6 billion man years. And it could have been created by a wave of a hand or God could have provided for the billions of years it took to create. I do not know. But I like to think God provided nature those billions of years. (misconception clarification; the mighty Colorado did not cut through and form the Grand Canyon, other forces did much more)
We now know for a fact that certain viruses can fully evolve within just a few man years. We have seen it with our own eyes. To deny some evolution is to deny the brain that has evolved in our head from what it could understand when Genesis was written.
None of this is to deny that there are some "strict" creationists out there that read Genesis and try to make it work literally. Good for them, but I do not want them covering my back the next time I scale a 1 billion year old rock formation cliff ;-)
OK. Well then, let me ask you this. Where would the story of Adam and Eve fall with the extended time line?
It is interesting to note that while all these Tectonic plates are shifting around and firmament be made and seas be separated and stars are finally visible and presumably volcanoes are erupting all over it must have been darned violent. I mean crazy with earthquakes and lava and plants just popping up all over and huge rains and winds and creatures crawling out of sludge.
Well if I were God and treasured man that came out of this "dust" and upheaval I would have waited until it calmed down a bit -- just a few billion years. I would not have made him and then thrown him into the pre-Cambrian or even Paleozoic periods. That would not have been cool. (but maybe there was a period -- pre-great flood time when things were calmer.)
In that man can have generations within one tenth of an inch of 1,000 ft deep of a rock formation --- He probably came and went a few times for our purposes.
How old was Adam on the day he was created?
How old is existence?
Time can only begin at the point when men begin to keep the first record, and cannot go beyond this point.
Men cannot relate to millions of years, it is as good as infinite years, nevertheless this is one way in which the ignorant can appear knowledgeable.
Seriously? I would think the words 'day he was created' might give the answer away. From the story, the general belief appears to be he was created as an adult male, but whatever the form his existence would be measured from that moment.
I would disagree. Time passes, whether recorded by humanity or not. I do think we cannot assume we have an accurate enough understanding of the phenomenon of Time to accurately discern its passage since the outset of its inception, but it has continued to pass.
I would agree that millions of years is difficult to fathom, but calling those who attempt it the ignorant who can appear knowledgeable basically shines a negative light on the speaker.
Are you missing the point intentionally?
Any modern man observing an adult would not conclude he is one day old.
You disagree with the idea of time, fine, but should you not at least have the knowledge of what time is before you conclude in disagreement.
You have admitted to not having a clue about the thing you are wanting to disprove.
I do agree that a someone who makes such statements do run the risk of putting himself in the shadows....but it largely depends on the Speaker.
I guess you will not accept that there are those who do have knowledge of these things.
This will work to your detriment for you will only confine yourself to ignorance.
I may be missing your point because I don't see one here. Are you speaking of Adam? What one might observe is not the point. The text states he was formed, then life was breathed into the form. Whatever appearance that form might be, it didn't exist prior to that moment.
I'm not in the habit of using the royal 'we'. We includes you in my statement. The disagreement with you was in your fallacious assumption that time only exists because we observe it. We aren't all that. Again, not the royal 'we' in use.
Ummmmmm, you and I are conversing. I get the impression that you are attempting to imply you do have knowledge. You'd actually have to share something of value in order to be seen as such. Blowing smoke and attempting to insult others doesn't qualify. So sorry.
The Bible is in most cases taken to literally, that leads to so many problems.
About Adam and Eve - Adam is the Soul and Eve is the Body. This knowledge already changes the whole view on the Bible. Many many strict believers think that women are bad, because she ate from the forbidden fruit. I'm not going to explain all details, but the soul doesn't know the seven sins, only the body does...
If you consider that Evolution is part of the Grand Design (Creation) the dilemma becomes smaller. The Cambrian explosion, also called Darwin's dilemma, indicate that Creation could be about 500 million years old. So Humans could be already million years on the Earth, which is in line with the facts when it comes the 'out of place' artifacts, that are found all over the world.
The assumptions that many theologians made (and still make) in determining when Creation 'is done', is that by counting of the tribal names in Genesis you inevitably come to the conclusion that God created the Universe 6000 years ago, which is a short-sighted conclusion when you look at the facts of Geological findings.
Adding to this the fact that the current Bible is not the original document, but an extremely edited version of the true Bible that was done a few centuries after Christ, this document simply cannot be used to base theories upon, despite the huge amount of strict followers.
Hopefully it helped you more in your search for answers:)
Here is a snap shot of the best explanation I've heard yet as to why we live in a 6000 year old 14 billion year old universe. It doesn't really explain why the earth is billions of years old, but it attempts to explain why light from galaxies billions of light years away is reaching us.
It goes something like this…
For much of the earth very early existence our earth and sun were in the centre of a black whole while the rest of the universe was aging the earth was not. So while the earth is a mere 6 to 10 thousand years old the rest of the universe is almost 14 billion years old which allows the light to arrive from galaxies billions of light years away.
This of course doesn't explain an old earth, but it serves as away for creationist to explain an old universe.
I'm working out an even more bizarre explanation in my mind. Maybe, if I can get it pinned down, mapped out, written cryptically (I may get some lessons from Kess on that front) and distributed over a large percentage of the world they'll start a religion revolving around me. Yes, me. Prophetic words being spoken here, rad man. Sit up and take notice. Or, better yet, be the first to bow to my impending awesomeness.
I've been bowing to your awesomeness for years. You complete me.
Oh. Friar rad and I didn't know it. I think, it's way past time for a promotion for you. You can be my Pope and write some bulls. I deem you henceforth and forever; infallible.
Won't work. His head is too small for the funny cap; it will cover his eyes and probably nose and mouth as well.
Take me instead.
Great. Now the cap's too small.
Emile, no wonder your religion causes so much fighting.
(Or whatever it is the AAPB likes to say).
There need be no fighting. Between the two of us we can "off" the Rad. I'll take the cap and you can be my flunky - we'll even give you a nice title. "Bishop" or something.
If we play this right there should be plenty for everyone...It's all in the marketing. We may need Rad for graphics.
Emile, your silence will render you a figurehead. You know that, don't you?
I dibs the first crusades -- I want that plunder and booty! You guys make dogma and I will not care, just carry it out in exchange for rewards. But can I stick with my cowboy hat? you could not water a horse with those danged Zuchetto's, plus my neck and ears would burn.
And so were born those known as the Emilerites.
She was the sister of Elimelech. They were Ephrathites.
I'm a former Old Earth creationist and current atheist so I'll try to give both perspectives.
Back in the day I believed Ooparts (out of place artifacts) were evidence of Earth's hidden history, particularly in regards to the existence of Giants or, as the Bible calls them Nephilim. The Nephilim were half-angel half-human hybrids spoken of in the apocryphal book of Enoch. The Bible seems to suggest that some of them were ancient champions/heroes leading some to believe that legendary folks like Hercules (Heracles), Goliath, etc might be related to them.
Many believed, myself included at the time, that the Great Flood had been directed at the Nephilim as they threatened to genetically degrade the human race with angelic DNA that wasn't meant to be mixed with our own terrestrial DNA.
Now keep in mind I believed in an old earth form of creationism where God was basically doing whatever crazy experiments he wanted with the Earth for its 4 billion years.
Now, as an atheist and someone who has taken the time to investigate the evidences for evolution and dating techniques I understand that most Ooparts, if not all, are dated incorrectly due to either being tested with the wrong technique or contamination of the test sample. For example Carbon Dating, often derided by creationists, has WELL KNOWN and established limits as to its effectiveness. Things older than a certain age cannot be dated with carbon dating and other radiometric dating techniques are employed.
Of course most creationist websites and apologists ignore the fact that there are multiple dating techniques and that legitimate scientists already know the limitations of each and every different one.
Wow. I can see why you would become an atheist. Did you think all that up by yourself or were you part of some cult?
Most of it was stuff I had researched on the internet. Keep in mind I believed this stuff at around ages 14-18, I wasn't exactly a skeptic. I was raised in a fundamentalist household, my Father was and still is a young earth creationist but I preferred the Old Earth variety mainly because of the stars and galaxies being so far away that the Universe and Earth would HAVE to be old for their light to reach us.
After I left Christianity behind my belief in stories of the Nephilim got even into even sillier areas, I even adopted a version of ancient astronaut theory, believing the aliens had engineered us as a slave race and set themselves up as gods. In my post-Christian years I drifted around a lot trying to fill the gap with all kinds of wild "theories" and ideas. Eventually I couldn't find anything that actually held up or seemed worth accepting as true and my journey into skepticism and atheism began.
Now I still have a soft spot for the weird stuff people believe, I just tend to want to talk them out of actually believing in it.
You've indicated in your two recent posts here that you were an "old earth Creationist", so why did any "evidence" of an old earth and debates over dating methods impact you? I didn't follow what it was that turned you from following Jesus Christ.
Really the dating techniques weren't that big of an issue for me as an old earth creationist. The only place they came into play was certain claimed finds of bones, giant axes, footprints, and other Ooparts which I believed might be linked to Nephilim or possible human-dinosaur co-habitation. "Arguments" against dating techniques were plastered all over creationist websites, lot's of misconceptions about how such techniques worked and the ways in which scientists used them.
As for my deconversion I have several hubs dealing with it. The main factor as to why I am no longer a Christian is that I actually read my Bible and studied how it was put together/edited. I had believed in a God of love and peace, truth and justice, a good God. The God of the Bible was not the God I had been led to believe he was and so I rejected that God as an invention of man or a misinterpretation of a real being. So after I stopped being a Christian I set out to find the true God of the Universe, which ultimately led to no belief in gods of any kind (atheism).
That's interesting. I think, mainly because you've gone from one belief structure to another. I know, you probably think you've shed belief. But, by using the term atheist you are making as much a statement on belief as claiming nephelim DNA had to be prohibited from tainting humans. It's simply more palatable.
I'm not attempting to be confrontational with this, but I do wonder why those on both sides have such a desire to take what little we know and use that limited information to come to conclusions too far reaching to be completely supported by the data available. I've never understood why it is so difficult to accept that no one knows.
I don't know seems like such an honest stand. Do you think the conclusions you now accept are driven by the odd conclusions you had previously come to? Does the silliness of some of that make you driven to ensure you don't leave room for speculation which might appear silly? I've often wondered because it seems that those who once were off what I would classify a deep end seem to now be clinging to another deep end.
Generally speaking I actually agree with you here: "I don't know seems like such an honest stand." In fact in this forum I said truthfully to Rad Man that this IS the stand I would have taken regarding the offer of any beliefs (rather than being sure of anything in the spiritual realm or trying to dissuade anyone of anything) IF I'd not met my Lord Jesus Christ. As it is, I only know because I already know through the Holy Spirit and I cannot "un-see" or "un-know" the One I've met. Since this is so, the effort to dissuade me of my faith has now turned to the naturally logical explanations of I'm either insane or deceived by an evil spirit while the truth lies elsewhere. But being sealed in the Holy Spirit, the efforts really are wasted on me.
Okay so what if I say I met with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and they told me that you are full of it and that the spirit that contacted you is a false one?
There is no way to falsify which of us is in contact with the real God and which is a liar. Occams razor would suggest an easy way out, NEITHER of us is in contact with God.
Going on 8 billion people on this planet in a Universe with at least a Septillion stars and one person is in contact with the creator of it all in the midst of a sea of people all claiming the same thing, claiming contact with every god from Azathoth to Zenu, not to mention ghosts, aliens, animal spirits and reptilians from the fourth dimension?
So what reason, at all, is there for anyone to believe your claim against any of the others? None. It strikes me as funny because in the Bible God readily proved his might with amazing supernatural wonders, calling down fire for Elijah before the prophets of Baal. Now that the human race has reached the age of reason it appears he is the God who is asleep.
If you were to say to me, "I met with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and they told me that you are full of it and that the spirit that contacted you is a false one", then I would say simply that you and I both know that you did not. We don't even need to "falsify" it because we are already in agreement that you made a false statement or claim (We both already fully know you were just making a point and experienced no such thing). Since we already both agree that your statement is false, then the possibilities for who is the "liar" as you label it has already diminished from including three options with one option as "only Cat", to now including only two of the three options: "Both are 'liars'", or "the unbeliever who made up a lie to prove a point alone is the 'liar'." I wouldn't so casually throw around the term "liar", but unfortunately, since it is your choice for a label, this is what remains.
COUNTLESS people are in contact with the Creator and give testimony of such, so where did you reach the conclusion that it was suggested that "one person is in contact with the creator of it all"? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those "claiming contact with every god from Azathoth to Zenu, not to mention ghosts, aliens, animal spirits and reptilians from the fourth dimension". No, I do not consider that they are currently in contact with God or have met Truth (the Spirit instructs me otherwise), BUT I consider that they may well be in contact with SOMETHING (demonic that is) within the spiritual realm. I've had experiences with demons as well and been under demonic attacks, but I FOLLOW the voice of only One - my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
There is only ONE reason, or WAY really, that you will believe the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ - through the working of the Holy Spirit.
In the days before Jesus Christ, "great" prophets brought the Spirit-inspired Word to the people and foretold of Jesus Christ. God on occasion did a miraculous display to demonstrate that this particular great prophet (amongst the false prophets) was speaking the true words of God. In the days shortly after Jesus Christ's resurrection, his apostles likewise were followed by "signs and wonders" to demonstrate the truth of Jesus Christ. These were particularly important times for spiritual manifestation and these were particularly prominent people of faith.
Still, today there are signs and wonders that can be found sprinkled amongst Spirit-filled believers, and these are witnessed by many, though we believers are not often so greatly filled with the Spirit as the prominent messengers and the apostles of God were. The power available for ALL believers through the Holy Spirit is incredibly underutilized (think of the underutilization of our brains and multiply that greatly). Believers may and are encouraged to DESIRE and SEEK the Holy Spirit, receive an outpouring from him, live in the power he provides, receive spiritual gifts, and have faith to receive. We live far short of all that is offered. Praise God that we are covered in the blood of Jesus and thereby declared righteous (the most wonderful thing for which we are eternally grateful), yet we too often overlook or deny all that is available to us as believers THROUGH the power of the Spirit, which is available to us through Jesus Christ.
Only one problem, I was a believer AND believed that I had received the Holy Spirit, I even used to speak in tongues. So there was a time when I could have claimed with all sincerity that I had been in contact with God. Even after I had left Christianity behind me I continued to have "mystical experiences" and even as an atheist I've had them, they are not magical they are mental and physiological and are Universal to human experience.
"BUT I consider that they may well be in contact with SOMETHING (demonic that is)"
And how do you know that your own experiences are not, in fact, demonic? There is no reason for the outside observer to take your claim seriously no matter how sincere you are about your experiences.
"Praise God that we are covered in the blood of Jesus and thereby declared righteous (the most wonderful thing for which we are eternally grateful)"
This raises another question for me, Christians go on and on about how Jesus died for them (he didn't, of course, since he came back to life in the same body and kept it all the way to Heaven) but I've often wondered if Christians shouldn't want to die for Christ. If you really love Jesus shouldn't you want to carry some of his burden? Shouldn't you want to take responsibility for the log in your own eye? Carry the weight of your own sins?
Of course such a thing is impossible within most versions of Christian theology because God is a primitive and evil character who demands that the simplest of misdeeds be deserving of eternal agony or, at the very least, horrible blood-sacrifice.
One person declaring that all experiences of all mankind with God are merely psychological phenomenon sounds a lot like an omnipresent being speaking of an absolute truth. Hmmm. I will have to ponder that one.
Out of the billions (trillions?) of "experiences" with a god, there has never been a single one that was verifiable. You don't have to be a god to figure out that it likely isn't happening at all.
Declaring billions of people mistaken as to their personal experience does, kind of, fit the definition of the height of arrogance.
Why? If they cannot show their claims to be true the only other option seems to be that they are lying. Mistaken is much nicer, and more probable (IMO) as well.
People have been wrong, and in large groups up to all in the known world, many many times in the past. This one is no different.
When billions of people are taught to think that the inner dialogue we all experience is divine and they believe it, they are mistaken. When millions think God wants females to undergo genitalia mutilation rather then said God designing them that way, they are wrong.
Claiming millions can't be wrong is a logical fallacy.
I didn't say millions can't be wrong. You might reread my statement.
What inner dialogue? I don't have voices talking to me in my head. You might want to have that checked out, rad man.
Really? You don't have a conscience?
"Declaring billions of people mistaken as to their personal experience does, kind of, fit the definition of the height of arrogance."
Seems to me you did say that declaring billions wrong is the height of arrogance?
Your own experience with God - your miraculous formation in the womb, for example - is certainly verifiable. Here you are!
And, no, your beloved scientists have not removed the need for God in any of their theories, explanations, and/or findings - at MOST they've explained nothing but processes (let's not even go into the "at least" of it).
Do you really expect humans can "capture" the supernatural with the natural?
Defining "miracle" as something that happens outside of natural laws and is impossible under those laws, the event of two cells combining to start a life certainly is not "miraculous". This is the biggest problem with the concept of religious events being ascribed to a god: anything that seems neat or complex somehow becomes a sign of a god. But it isn't, regardless how little the speaker understands what is going on.
What is denoted as "an experience with God" then, is nothing more than an everyday event that happens all the time and does not require a god behind it.
Two cells combine to start life. Sounds simple. But are those cells simple; is the formation of life simple; is the womb simple; is the life that results simple; is our ability to learn simple; is our ability to heal simple; is our ability to create simple; is anything in this life simple? They're just taken-for granted miracles - things too amazing to believe UNLESS you've seen them with your own eyes. Thankfully you have or it seems you would not believe.
For the most part, life will abide by the "natural laws" God has put into place. Yet for those who have faith, even miracles that defy these natural laws can and do occur. The testimonies of people experiencing these miracles are countless. The key is faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God and nothing can be expected.
What is more likely?
And keep in mind its not just gods people have "had experiences" of, but aliens, angels, ghosts, goblins, spirits, fairies, mermaids, and reptilians from the fourth dimension just to name a few of the otherworldly paranormal and supernatural beings people claim to have received revelation from. There are people who think they can telepathically communicate with Bigfoot and that Bigfoot is a transdimensional being.
So which claim do I accept as plausible? So many of them are direct contradictions of others though certain New Age followers would love to accept them all.
It is much more likely that everyone is self-deceived, misinterpreting natural mental states or hallucinating and until someone comes up with some evidence to substantiate their claim the only reasonable thing is to disbelieve.
You've now dismissed not only yours but ALL people's experiences as merely psychological? On or by what all-knowing basis or authority did you reach this conclusion?
We test the spirits THROUGH the Holy Spirit. Truly you will not take anything spiritual I have to say seriously until you yourself possess the Spirit and test through the Spirit. Until then it will all be "foolishness" to you.
Jesus did in fact die and he did NOT come back "in the same body". The One who created our earthly bodies also created a new spiritual body for Jesus Christ upon raising him from the dead. Jesus is the "firstborn" among many brothers and sisters - those who are in Christ Jesus will likewise be raised with new spiritual bodies.
Even if we attempted to "pay" our own debt by dying for our own sins, we could not because we are "blemished", sickly lambs, and the pure, spotless Lamb was required. (Translation for those who take all things literally - We are all sinners and Jesus alone is sinless and perfect, so he alone is able to satisfactorily pay the sin debt of the entire world in full).
Sin, whether great or small, SEPARATES us from God. Hell is separation from God. Jesus Christ, who covers over our sins, RECONCILES us with God. Eternal life is life WITH God.
Cat, I wouldn't deign to call you out as being dishonest. But, I do believe you have misinterpreted an experience you've had. Or, you've misunderstood what that experience has to do with how the rest of the world may fit into some cosmic scheme.
I think we all strive to find meaning and how we (as in humanity) fit into the universe. I think the evidence shows there is no single way to find that meaning. Exclusionary theories are proving more and more problematic as we gather data as to what reality entails.
If an encounter with Christ helps you find that meaning, please have enough faith in heaven and earth to assume that the meaning others have found is just as valid and just as meaningful.
I do think Christians tend to sideline the mandate to love their neighbor as themselves. It's easy to pay homage and bend a knee to an unprovable deity. Whatever you deem acceptable to that deity can be easily justified. But, there is no deity actively supporting exclusionary ideals. All the law cannot be fulfilled by attempting to justify such ideas.
Personally, I believe if the God of the Bible exists and Christ was his son the absence of proof is explained by that mandate. Humanity loves to love God. But that is only half of the equation and until we get that through our thick heads, as a species, we will flounder in darkness as to meaningful answers.
Thank you for not calling me a liar, Emile, as others presently and previously have.
My experiences have been so numerous that I really would have to be misinterpreting a massive amount of experiences and my entire existence really. I would necessarily be insane, given my experiences. And many, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ around the world would also be insane. What a great bunch of lunatics we would be. And Jesus Christ himself would necessarily be a lunatic, for he spoke directly of One God and himself as the One Way to God.
It is true that there is that reality which is subjective - all that is related to personal preferences, unique tastes, perceptions, interpretations of experiences and such. This is God's design. And truly none of us can say our favorite music or our favorite color truly is best, since this is not an absolute truth. But the truth that exists beyond this is not determined by us. This exists whether we find or recognize that truth or not. The only way to get to this type of truth is to simply and humbly RECEIVE it from God himself (through the Holy Spirit). This is not an arrogant stand, as reaching our own conclusions is, but it is the opposite of the assumed arrogance of it - we humbly accept and receive as children. We do not know anything through any boast of our own, but only that which is GIVEN to us. Multitudes share the knowledge of the truth at this time, multitudes more will come to a knowledge of the truth, and in the end ALL will know the truth and will bow to the One true Creator and Lord of all.
This is exclusionary: Jesus Christ himself said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Yet it is also the most open and all-inclusive Way because ALL are invited to come to God this same way - through Jesus Christ, the Savior of all people.
While I recognize that heaven and earth exist, my "faith" is in God alone.
Love is God. God is truth. So love is truth. Only in truth do we find true love.
Unfortunately, Jesus wrote nothing himself. Memories are sometimes flavored by personal opinion and although I think the gospels were an attempt to share the experience of having been taught by him I don't think it's healthy to take everything as gospel. Things have to make sense from point a to point z and it is quite ludicrous to think God so loved the world that he would create a scenario where billions upon billions would have the fires of hell to look forward to. Which means main stream Christianity is built on at least one falsely held belief.
Your claim of personal experience is nice, but since those claiming relationship don't agree again one must assume these claims are built on falsely held belief. Whether it be the experience itself or conclusions drawn from that experience something is obviously amiss.
If the safety of one's eternal soul hinged on anything, in particular, no God magnanimous enough to make the offer would be fickle enough to go to such great lengths to ensure the lion's share of humanity lost out on it. Such a being would not have been perceived as loving the world.
God is able to accomplish all things and ensure the message is given. The same Spirit that inspired the men of the OT inspired those of the NT. The Spirit is the One who ensures that the key spiritual message is given, even if every detail is not corrected by the Spirit. Truly, human memories can't get people from one post to the next in these forums; if it was human-based rather than Spirit-based we wouldn't trust it at all. And it would die away sooner or later. As it is, it will not die (though the great falling away in these last days that was prophesied long ago MUST take place); the true faith will persist despite this falling away and many will stand firm to the end.
God created humans. He loved humans. Humans chose to follow the deceiver instead of God. Humans became more and more wicked. God could have done away with us and started from scratch with some new creation. But he LOVED us too much. In his love he designed a way to make us "righteous" and able to live in his presence once again. This way required his OWN sacrifice, not ours. In love, he left his home and came to live, suffer and die FOR US. He opened the way for EVERY human who chooses to come to him and receive true and eternal life. Is this not love?
There are countless people throughout time who've had experience with God through the Holy Spirit. All those with the indwelling Holy Spirit will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. Most other differences generally make little difference, so that the multitude of differing denominations aren't vital. Still, some using the name of "Christian" have never met the Lord and have never been filled with the Spirit; at best they have a "second-hand" faith and may fall away; at worst they are following the deceiver and engaging in their own deception. Then there are those claiming and/or experiencing another "god" or "messenger of god". Those with the Spirit run away because we do not recognize the voice within the teachings; we hear a "stranger's" voice. We follow One voice - our Lord Jesus Christ's. How many of those with varying "beliefs" are basing their beliefs on the teachings of humans, and how many have actually experienced something spiritual or supernatural, I do not know. But I believe they are deceived either way. Can I make you believe this? No, you will know it only through the Holy Spirit, by whom we test all spirits.
Would you mind sharing what particular branch of christianity you belong to? I'm thinking pentecostal.
I identify only as Christian or believer. I've been to a multitude of denominations and consider them all to have their own strengths and weaknesses. I consider myself part of the collective "church" or body of Christ. I'll do a bible study at a church of one denomination, church service at another, an act of service or aid with another, and so on. I move often, which has given me more opportunity to experience various churches.
Pentecostal was a good guess, considering my emphasis on the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit. I enjoy Pentecostal churches, but overall I've had less experience with them than other churches. My thoughts/feelings on the churches of our day are a combination of love/appreciation and frustration. So much more is available through the Spirit than currently grasped or utilized.
"I've never understood why it is so difficult to accept that no one knows."
Well atheism doesn't necessarily imply certainty about the non-existence of gods, its simply disbelief. Now don't get me wrong there are atheists who will say "I believe there are no gods" or even simply "there is no god or gods" but atheism itself also encompasses a simple lack of belief. When I first realized I was an atheist it was in a conversation with a friend who explained that gnosticism and agnosticism are what refer to whether or not we know or can even know if a God or gods exist and atheism and theism deal mainly with whether we believe a god exists or not.
There is this assumption put forward by some believers that atheists don't want to believe and while that may be true of some atheists, especially in regard to specific gods I think that many atheists would be open-minded enough if the evidence were actually presented.
I would fully accept that statement, that no one knows, especially because of how nebulous and hard to define the concept of a god is. Greek gods are gods, Hindu gods, tribal gods, and yet we also have nebulous gods outside of time and space and beyond human understanding, or deistic gods studied only by studying the natural world or gods that simply ARE nature.
"Do you think the conclusions you now accept are driven by the odd conclusions you had previously come to?"
I'm not sure I would call my conclusions conclusive, if that makes any sense. I do think that if I hadn't been so open to freely researching these topics and if I hadn't had access to the internet especially I would have never discarded some of my beliefs. Sure I found lots of crazy stuff to believe on the internet but many of those beliefs and ideas never stuck for long, and many of those that did were later overturned as I began to care more and more about what was actually verifiably true and not just what sounded right or "resonated" with me.
"Does the silliness of some of that make you driven to ensure you don't leave room for speculation which might appear silly?"
Not really, I think and write and say a lot of silly things. Like I said I still have a soft spot for weird theories and conspiracies (recently I've been looking into a group of people who think the Moon was destroyed in 2009 and replaced by a hologram - makes no sense to me either but there's thousands of them) I just view them from the skeptical side.
Believers might not know this but a lot of skeptics didn't turn into skeptics because their cynical or wanted to rain on the believer's parade. I became a skeptic because I wanted to believe BUT at the same time I wanted to believe the truth and so I looked for actual evidence that held up. Fox Mulder's famous "I Want to Believe" poster shouldn't be a cry for more faith, it should be a demand for skepticism! How are you ever going to find alien life, or ghosts, or gods or bigfoot if you won't conform to science or even common sense or logic - the best known mechanisms humans have for figuring things out?
I want to believe that there's something out there, and with a Universe this vast who knows, whether that's simply a simple bacteria that evolved on Mars or a whole planet of intelligent beings or a previously undiscovered part of nature that people have been mistakenly calling the supernatural or a super-intelligent being that somehow through some mechanism or technology guided the evolution of the Universe or Earth. But there has to be evidence, some reason to believe that any of this stuff is actually true or even that its probably true. Like you said, no one knows.
So the conclusions I've reached are tentative ones but I think they are the right ones, I think it makes sense to withhold belief in these sorts of things and I think that faith in many of these things can be detrimental, especially where organized religion is involved.
Well, I'm afraid you and I are in agreement on everything you've said. I call myself agnostic for about the same reasons you've listed for becoming an atheist. I simply find the term non belief dishonest for me. I mean, seriously. What we can prove truly means nothing, when followed to its logical conclusion, using the evidence we have; because our ability to observe is limited on so many different levels.
We can certainly rule out religion as truthful, but the core premise which began all religions cannot be ignored.
The question Shouldn't be how long ago ..... Should be, how many times ?
OOParts are generally hoaxes or were mistakenly dated. Only a few are convincingly anachronistic, though not impossibly so.
Had to be a hoax.
About 27 million people were living on earth during the time Adam and Eve were made from mud.
Anyone dare to call God on that, for the fear he may turn you back to dust.
Wow. Can you point me in the direction where I can see the details of that census?
Seriously. At what point have you decided Adam and Eve were made from mud? Or, are you simply attempting to counter one fabrication with another? You can't possibly know either as a certainty.
Literalness on either side creates lunacy.
Which is why most people change the biblical words to something more palatable and true, yes?
Which is why no change is needed. The bible never suggests it is a scientific journal. We apply spiritual to our lives. It does not come with the exactitude of mathematics. Thank God ;-)
No, it certainly is not scientific - the scientific method used today had not been invented. Nor does a literal reading produce a lot of truth - the meaning of the words must often be changed considerably to coincide with the concept of reality and truth.
So, we change the meaning and call it a "spiritual" thing. It works for some, some refuse the change at all and some recognize that changing the holy words of God is a fruitless endeavor.
The words need not be changed, and perhaps not even their meaning. Adaptive is more correct.
Uh Huh. The definition of "day" is 24 hours, not a billion years. The definition of "cover the earth" means water over Mt. Everest, not a river overrunning it's banks.
So we change the meaning of "day", don't we? From something they ancients could understand (sunup to sunup) to something they could not comprehend, like a billion years. And change the directions to Noah from collecting all land animals to only those he could catch in the local area.
And then we call it "adaptive", to make us feel better about changing the Word of God. Some understand what we do and some pretend it isn't happening - that we just "adapt" the bible to reality.
Sorry dude. Day is what God says it is, not you.
Excuse me, when was the flood and when was mt Everest in God's time?
Both sometime in the past 10,000 years or so. Or so says God's Word.
God is not held to man's time. The Bible was not meant and is not meant to alter the notion of omnipotent.
My understanding of the bible is that it was written as an instructional guide and book of learning, for humans. Not for gods, for humans.
A human day, then, not some other undefined and misunderstood meaning to the common English definition of D, A, Y. Which means, of course, that if the meaning of the words are not what humans understand that there is nothing to be gleaned from reading the book. It would be like an English reader studying a tome of Sanskrit and not being able to understand a single symbol.
Do you disagree?
Here is an example. During a period of great tectonic disturbance there would likely and I think were great volcanoes going off all over. That would blot out a sun as we can see it and certainly do away with any moonlight. See where I am going? What then would be a day as we know it (sunrise and sunset) Our understanding of Day has changed. Now our cell phones tell us what time it is, not the sun and moon.
I am delighted to spend days a year without a watch or time of any sort save the sun and moon - and stars. Yet I can tell you the time of day by what wild flowers are doing. Most Americans have never experienced a day without a clock. Fair be it to say the Genesis is written in such a way so as to be adjustable to our understanding of both here and now and back then. It is a spiritual book which is adaptable as our great understandings adapt.
The only two ways the earth is created as it is now is that God either reserved the time for the natural occurrence of billions of years or He just created billions of years. I prefer to believe the former as I think the natural is just too bitchin cool for God not to have let it happen.
I hope that sheds some light on my thinking and belief.
I found this very instructive -- especially since my definition is sunrise to sunset and not this one:
a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
synonyms: a twenty-four-hour period, twenty-four hours More
the part of a day when it is light; the time between sunrise and sunset.
"she sleeps all day and goes out at night"
synonyms: daytime, daylight; More
the part of a day spent working.
"he works an eight-hour day"
a single rotation of a planet in relation to its primary.
the period on a planet when its primary star is above the horizon.
"by the time they had all gone it was broad day"
a particular period of the past; an era.
"the laws were very strict in those days"
synonyms: period, time, age, era, generation More
the present time.
noun: the day
"the political issues of the day"
a day associated with a particular event or purpose.
a day's endeavor, or the period of an endeavor, especially as bringing success.
"speed and surprise would win the day"
a particular period in a person's life or career.
"my student days"
the successful, fortunate, or influential period of a person's life or career.
noun: one's day; plural noun: one's days
"he had been a matinée idol in his day"
synonyms: heyday, prime, time; More
the span of someone's life.
plural noun: one's days
"she cared for him for the rest of his days"
carried out during the day as opposed to the evening or at night.
"my day job"
And as for my writing we say "Eric do not quit your day job" ;-)
To be fair, 10k years ago is the likely point in time when the deluge of flood myths (see what I did there?) began to originate, as that marked the end of the last ice age and the rapid melting of polar ice caps. The fact that cultures all over the world have a global flood myth lends credence to the idea that it has some basis in truth.
And now, to deflate Christians' precious little bubbles, the probability that the Noah story is anywhere close to being the most accurate is pretty much nonexistent. Not only was it written nearly 2500-3000 years after the first Sumerian flood myths, but...actually, y'know what, that speaks for itself. The Sumerian flood myth was more ancient to the Hebrews than the Hebrew Torah is to us.
You say of the flood account in Genesis, "Not only was it written nearly 2500-3000 years after the first Sumerian flood myths..." You think we can really know when the earliest OT manuscripts were? All we know is the earliest we've found. And you don't take any note of the importance of all these flood "myths" going around?
One definition of "day" is a literal 24-hour day. Another definition is a time period (e.g., the "day" of the dinosaurs). Either is a possibility. Another possibility is it's completely irrelevant if it's merely symbolic. Some people insist on 6,000 years; some insist on billions. A few things to keep in mind: With God all things are possible; God can create things "mid-life" to suit our needs; the "land produced" description given might be something that's in ways similar to some of evolution theory; a Spirit-inspired man, not God himself gave us a general account to let us know the basic spiritual truth - God is the Creator of all things.
Assuming the Noah / arc Scriptures are literal, keep in mind that Noah didn't himself "collect" the land animals, but rather God, with whom all things are possible, had the animals go to Noah (probably baby animals). And the flood would really only need to occur where the people were.
You seem to approach Scriptures as if they are God's direct words, rather than words and/or ideas given to men through the Holy Spirit.
You insist "day" and "cover the earth" be taken very literally. Do you also say that when Jesus said he'd make the disciples "fishers of men" he was saying they would literally catch them in their nets? Do you also read everything other than Scriptures so literally? Maybe some research into symbolism and such would be beneficial in your understanding of texts (Scriptural and otherwise).
Very well written and fair, to the point.
I like symbolism. Perhaps God is just a symbol, and Jesus. A symbol of what love could do, or leading a moral life. A symbol of just how crazy rules and laws governing other people can be, how onerous religious control always is.
I like it. The bible has nothing but a symbol; no reality or actual truth anywhere in the book. The only problem is that when we decide there IS truth, but some is naught but symbolic we have a problem - which is which?
Noah can't have happened; there isn't enough water on or in the earth to cover it all. Jesus cannot have come back to life; rotting flesh cannot reanimate. And the creation could not have happened; it takes longer than specified and the order is wrong, anyway. So some things must be symbolic (no Noah, no creation, no Easter) and some things might be true; Jesus lived and walked the earth. Egypt existed, as did Pilate.
You say, "The only problem is that when we decide there IS truth, but some is naught but symbolic we have a problem - which is which?" This is where reliance on the Holy Spirit, discernment, knowledge and understanding must enter. Will we be given all revelation, and will each believer be given revelations in the same areas? Unlikely except in the KEY areas (e.g., Salvation through Jesus Christ). And will we always LISTEN to the Spirit? No, our human natures often get in the way. But the more we rely on the Holy Spirit, the more true knowledge and understanding we'll possess.
You say, "Noah can't have happened; there isn't enough water on or in the earth to cover it all. Jesus cannot have come back to life; rotting flesh cannot reanimate. And the creation could not have happened; it takes longer than specified and the order is wrong, anyway..." Your list could have gone on and on, including miracle after miracle - healings, pregnancy in old age, the virgin birth, food multiplying, Jesus and Peter walking on water... With humans and with natural laws these things are certainly impossible, no doubt. But not so with God - with God ALL things are possible!
After reading many of the comments, I feel it must be pointed out that God created everything in a 6 day time period with the 7th day being a day of rest.
I know nothing of the artifacts that Emile wrote about in the OP so I will not address those. What I will address is the fact that Adam was created last, after all the animals were created on the Earth.
It is also written that Adam gave names to all the animals. Many seem to believe that the Bible says Adam was created one day and ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil the next, but that is not so. We really have no way of knowing how long (time-wise) that Adam lived before the fall.
Adam was created in the image and likeness of God and was never meant to die. He was created to live forever. After a time, (which no man knows how long), God took a rib from Adam and created Eve. God told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth.
No one knows how many children they may have procreated prior to the fall, nor how long they were on the earth prior to the fall. It is possible that Adam lived to be millions of years on the earth before the fall. No man really knows.
I do have one problem with that scenario. It appears you are implying Adam and Eve had children prior to the fall. Wouldn't they be mentioned? All the other children were. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone suggest that possibility prior to your post.
They wouldn't necessarily be mentioned. The Bible says they had sons and daughters but only a few of the sons were mentioned.
Did Man co exist with dinosaurs?
As I'm holding on to my chair
Yes, of course. Man was a spiritual being before the fall. He was made like God, in His image and likeness. There was no place he could not go nor anything he could not do.
Sorry, the evidence shows something very different.
I agree with SirDent. Regarding the evidence - inter alia, the so called 'collection of Julsrud' in Mexico shows irrefutable that men lived with Dinosaurs. But because historians always get hysterical from this kind of evidences, that confuse their dogmatic understanding of history, it is generally neglected. Do not underestimate the amount of Geological findings that are incorrectly interpreted or even wrongly dated.
OH! Then to most professional scientist - Shame on you.
You have clearly under estimated God's magic and his power of the 99% unknowns.
It's a nice collection, all right - of fakes.
Not one is modeled after a dinosaur, and they were produced a few years before being "found" in the dirt.
Hi Wilderness, quite a pretentious claim you drop there. Since you seem to know so much - please explain me then the Cambrian Explosion? I would be honoured to be redeemed out of my misery of ignorance
Archaeologist Charles C. Di Peso "concluded that the figurines were indeed fakes: their surfaces displayed no signs of age; no dirt was packed into their crevices; and though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn. Furthermore, the excavation’s stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers. DiPeso also learned that a local family had been making and selling these figurines to Julsrud for a peso apiece since 1944, presumably inspired by films shown at Acámbaro’s cinema, locally available comic books and newspapers, and accessible day trips to Mexico City’s Museo Nacional."
Thanks Rad Man for your explanation, I think everything is possible. I keep the options open that Di Peso could be right and that actually the finding are genuine. In history Archeologists didn't prove to be very reliable in their objective observations.
Hi Rad Man, I've just dived into my geological journal about this issue of the people that were called the Saurians.
The 'fake' dinosaurs were found in 1945 by the German Waldemar Julsrud. Di Peso was indeed the guy that claimed them to be fake based upon the assumptions that: humans just didn't live together with dinosaurs; That the artefacts didn't belong to any known civilisation; despite its age, there was no patina visible; that they were only found on a very small area and nowhere else. So Di Peso didn't examine them scientifically but closed the file based on assumptions. This is no science of course, that will everyone agree on.
The history continues...Robert Charroux knew that Di Peso never examined this case and came with the following objections: no one could have made 32.000 artefacts in such a short time; the baking of the artefacts would have cost so much wood that wasn't available in the surrounding; the cost price of fake artefacts would have been 100 Pesos, while they sold them for just 1 Peso.
So this discussion only would raise eyebrows of science, but it didn't. You know why? Because any research on this issue could destroy the current view on history.
The story still continues...Di Peso who stupidly assumed that the artefacts were fake, some of them were examined in the Pennsylvania Museum in 1972 using the technique called thermoluminescence and appeared to be 4500 years old.
The story goes much deeper, but what I want to drop here in this thread that if we're trying to answer a question that Emile asked (assuming that she seriously wants an answer) - please don't jerk me off with general usual Wikipedia knowledge that is put together by a bunch of ignorant people, that investigate nothing - this counts for all the people that just drop some copy/paste common internet knowledge inside this thread...
So if you don't like the information from a source then the source is ignorant? I've found Wikipedia to be rather neutral and unbiased. However you can if you like find information from other places, however it's a good idea to make sure the sources are not lying for Jesus. It's my understanding that the latest dating put them being fired around 1935.
Someone is lying for Jesus.
Hi Rad Man, it is not about liking or disliking the information. Facts are facts, but Wikipedia isn't presenting the facts, it's a unilateral source, which can be assembled by anybody, that usually parrot the establishment. If you believe in Jesus, you should dislike ignorance as well - forgive the ignorant. I'm out of this thread.
Take care and good luck:)
Are you smarter than Jesus in order to know he is the smartest person in the world Dead or alive?
True wisdom and knowledge come from the Lord. Jesus is the Lord; he is God in the flesh come down to save us. Since he himself is truth and since he possesses all wisdom, knowledge and understanding, then truly he is the wisest (though I am not speaking of earthly wisdom, which is foolishness in the sight of God). Those who know of Jesus' supreme wisdom know it not from their own "wisdom" (so, no, they are not "smarter" than Jesus so that they may recognize it in him), but they know by revelation of the Holy Spirit, just as by revelation they know Jesus is Lord.
Can you supply any evidence that this Holy Spirit isn't simply your imagination?
Guilty, no. Wrong, yes. Do you believe everything people tell you at face value? Do you believe the Mormons until evidence proves them wrong?
Without the Holy Spirit giving me direction and truth, I would consider it all unknowable. I wouldn't tell Mormons or anyone else they were right or wrong, nor attempt to convince them they were imagining things. In humility, I would deem it all UNKNOWN.
And of course it is all UNKNOWN apart from God, who alone gives true revelation through the Spirit.
So when the Mormons tell you that you should be praying to Joseph Smith you take it at face value and start praying to Joseph Smith? And when the Muslims tell you that you should be praying to Mohammad you immediately start praising Mohammad?
No, without the Holy Spirit, I might say something along the lines of this: "I don't know yet. I have no way of making a determination of spiritual matters on my own; I can only determine things in the natural. If what you say is true, then I certainly hope he'll reveal himself to me."
With the Holy Spirit, I say, "No, the truth is not found in them. I've met Truth. His name is Jesus Christ. And he is the One and only Way to the Father."
Okay, I've got you now. Only those like yourself can know the truth. Everyone else should take you or anyone one else at face value.
Again, how do you know that this voice isn't your imagination or a voice from the master of deception?
"Those like myself" is potentially everyone. What basis is there for forming an opinion on a SPIRITUAL matter with only NATURAL means of determining anything? The spiritual or supernatural is really all UNKNOWALBE in the natural. So then, coming from a natural point of view, why assume "known" status regarding what is or isn't imagined regarding the supernatural, or try to convince anyone of such? Why not simply say it is all unknown as far as you know?
I know the Truth of Jesus Christ by and through the Holy Spirit, which really will just go in circles and will not convince you... UNTIL you yourself are led into the truth by the Holy Spirit. Then, once you possess the gift of the Spirit, you will be able to make your own spiritual determination by means of the Spirit, and no longer will you be limited by the natural.
Believe it or not my opinions on spiritual matters are just as valid as yours. We are both humans and as such have equally valid opinions on spiritual matters.
Yes, our OPINIONS are equally valid (or equally invalid). Only that which is given by the Holy Spirit can be trusted as pure truth.
Who's to say what is given by any spirit? I say your spirit is your imagination and until you provide evidence otherwise I'll assume it's your imagination as I also have my conscious telling me what is right and wrong. I however understand that my conscious is part of my mind while you assume it's a holy spirit. When and if you can supply evidence that you can be given information that can't have come from your own mind, I'll pay attention, otherwise I have to assume we are the same.
The Holy Spirit is to say what's given by the Spirit and what's given by spirits of deception and falsehood (See, it just goes in circles until and unless you yourself know by the Spirit). When the Holy Spirit is your teacher, then you will neither need to be told by others, nor need to form your own opinions regarding spiritual matters.
I understand that this does not currently benefit you since you have no reason to believe it, but I have myself been given lots of knowledge and ability I otherwise do not possess (precisely where bible verses are out of all the verses; precisely where missing items are; something important that is about to happen such as a hardship I'm about to go through, the leading toward information I need to know, a change in location or season that will occur, and so on). Some people have a much stronger gift for this than I do, and all believers would benefit from actively seeking and striving to listen more attentively to the Holy Spirit.
But when you make demands, such as that we tell you your address, the Lord will not respond. Those who believe are often given signs and miracles; those who do not believe and yet make demands for proof will not receive what is demanded.
Again, you can only give information that you currently have. Therefore the source is your own imagination.
Yet God at times gives me information that I don't yet have (something that's about to happen, for instance). Only it relates to me and not you or anyone else. Some are given information related to someone else. I don't know if he'll ever give me that gift or not. Yet, even these people will likely not ever tell you your address, for God has already made it clear that he will not give any sign to unbelievers "except the sign of Jonah". And even if God did "bend" himself to your command (see how degrading that is when expected of the Creator and Ruler of the universe?), you'd think the believer obtained the information by some other means and so it would not reveal truth to you anyway.
True wisdom and knowledge do not come from an imaginary creature in the sky; it comes from hard work, empathy and long experience. Jesus was not a lord OR a god and neither did he "come down" to save us. He was meat and bones, not "truth" and most certainly did NOT possess all wisdom, knowledge or understanding. There is no indication he was the wisest person on the planet at any time, let alone wiser than all the other philosophers through history and neither was there ever indication that he had any knowledge beyond what was common then. No one today knows of Jesus' wisdom, just reports from others that he was wise. Nor do their imaginary "revelations" emanate from a Holy Spirit somewhere; they come from inside their own brains; it is thus by their own imagined conclusions that they think a man 2,000 years ago was a god that created us all.
See how that works? You make unsupported claims that no one believes, I make unsupported claims that you do not believe, and communication immediately dies. The question, and point, then is why did you say those things to a person you KNOW will not accept them? Were you actually speaking to an invisible third person, a believer that happens by and might read and appreciate your comment? Again, that doesn't make for a very good conversation, and not even very good evangelism as you have no idea who might see it.
God knows who will see it; I don't need to. I'm actually quite humble in a multitude of ways, and readily admit LIMITED knowledge, despite my CONFIDENT claims in the TRUTH of Jesus Christ (not arrogant as many here like to label them). May God fulfill his purpose for me and my brothers and sisters in Christ, and may his Word, presented here by many believers, accomplish all that it is intended to accomplish!
Cat, are you okay? I ask out of respect. I ask because I've noticed a change in your posts over the last day or so. You've seemed to turn to preaching and rambling when none is called for. Is there anyone you can talk to?
I thought I often "preach" and "ramble". To be honest, I may be a little different the last couple of days; I've not been feeling well and am stressed about possible pregnancy (a few days too early to take a test). Thanks for your concern, if it was sincere.
I would not ever report someone's post. But Radman this is insincere and based as it is in an argument wrongful. You are totally saying there is something wrong with a person and it is intentionally hurtful.
I will not banter some lame excuses from you or a pleading of sincerity because the context provides too much.
I would hope this is beneath you and a mistake.
Actually, I was sincere in asking the original question. I can't imagine what other reason I might have asked.
I do think mainstream science is extremely averse to the idea of accepting any evidence that doesn't rubber stamp current theories, and I do think too many simply accept that stance without thought. 'lying for science' isn't a great description since most only hold that view through willfully refusing to objectively view new evidence, but it is an apt description since they appear to think those with opposing views are lying for Jesus. It does bother me that many who willfully refuse to consider that some of the evidence is credible do attempt to discredit those who are genuinely open to the possibility.
I simply thought creationists all claimed the earth was 6000 years old. So, I started the thread. It appears I was mistaken.
Thanks for this thread, I did not really understand that some really think 6,000 is literal and a scientific law.
I think I probably fell for an atheist smoke screen which attempts to paint all Christians with the worst brush. So, I guess the term creationist just means those who believe God started the universe?
Technically that should be correct. In practice of course, it is always the radicals that have the loudest voice. That claim it happened in 6 days, without evolution or stars forming and dying. And that it happened 6,000 years ago with the earth being formed already old to confuse us all.
Hmm. So, that justifies ignoring probably billions? It makes little sense if one expects to be seen as truthful.
Hmm. You lost me there - I seem to have missed some of the thread. Who is ignored and why would ignoring any number mean the truth is automatically lost?
If we know a few loud mouths do not represent the majority, yet treat the majority as if they are of one mind with the loud mouths, is that representative of honesty? I don't think so. Attempting to paint all with the same brush is a cheap shot.
Gotcha. And agree with you. But also understand that that is human nature; we think of the loud voice as the majority, even as we know it isn't. It's why those voices work, after all - it's what political marches, parades and public disobedience is all about. Make a loud noise, create a disturbance, and people will think you speak for many.
Yes, I've seen both sides of the debate here attempt to create the illusion of legitimacy by trying to convince others that theirs is the mainstream view. I don't know that it is in anyone's best interest to pretend it is so by not pointing out cheap tactics are being used in order to attempt to shove all opinions from one side into the narrow close minded box created by a loudmouth on the other. Those are tactics used by the close minded so I am left to sadly assume close mindedness is fairly ubiquitous here.
Of course! Everybody is on the side of the smart people that have the right answers, so there is no need to change their viewpoint. Not even to actually look and listen at what others are saying - if they're right they already agree and if wrong no need to listen. Just shout louder so you can drown out those small voices of reason.
Well, I don't think billions think the earth is 6000 years old if that is what you are getting at, but in any case if billion are wrong then they are wrong.
I agree. I don't think the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is held by many, at all.
I sure hope it is not 6,000 years old and just all created with a big poof. I surely like to think it was created so that it in itself could create the beauty and awesome spectacular results of billions of years of change. If you took away geological history from the world It would leave a gaping hole in me.
Good point. The geology, both ancient and current is both fascinating and beautiful. The Grand Canyon, Mt. Everest, the Sahara, Mt. Kilauea, Crater Lake - the list is endless and growing.
Coupled with life, both past, present and developing it makes our planet what it is. The dinosaurs, crocodiles, whales, 3' anthropods, the redwoods - how much we would lose if any of them had never lived!
Yes! Regardless of any differences in understanding of the details, we are all united in the understanding that God created the universe.
"But because historians always get hysterical from this kind of evidences, that confuse their dogmatic understanding of history, it is generally neglected. Do not underestimate the amount of Geological findings that are incorrectly interpreted or even wrongly dated." Yes!!
I've heard several people comment that we don't know how long time went on before the fall. Children aren't generally mentioned in this as far as I know.
We certainly weren't given all the details. Like who the "others" were Cain feared after killing his brother Abel. Were they beings other than humans, "human-like" beings not made in God's image, unmentioned brothers and sisters, something or someone else?
I, personally, think implying that Adam and Eve had offspring prior to the expulsion is far fetched. A simple reading of the text prior to the story of Adam supplies a much more plausible scenario.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Yes, very possible Adam (and Eve) were living a long, long time before the fall! Thank you for bring up this very valid point.
I put out a thread voting on who believes the earth is a little more than 6000 years old. Only 10% believed in Creationism from mainly reasons from the bible. Since most people are Christian on hub pages and most people believe in evolution. I'll never understand why they keep supporting this 10% bible belief myth from the beginning of Creation and this End of the world myth 100s times over and over. Many Christian will prepare their whole life for this myth. If they were right, Chance is when they do go to Hell, They will ask- WHAT HAPPEN DID I PICK THE INCORRECT ANWER among the millions of GODS to choose from.
I hope you had an option of simply "don't know" how old the earth is. I make no claims as to the age of the earth, whether 6000 years or billions. The truth I present is that God is the Creator and the Word is inspired by the Spirit.
There is but one God, and he makes people right with himself only one way - through Jesus Christ, the Savior of all.
If spirit is 99% unknowns, how do you know you have the right God among the other millions of Gods
I know THROUGH the Holy Spirit, the One from the Father (God himself in Spirit form) who "guides into all truth". It is through him that we know and recognize truth, and through him that we recognize deceptive spirits. Through the Spirit we recognize the voice of Jesus Christ, because we belong to him and have been sealed in him by the Holy Spirit; when we hear the voices of strangers (Satan, false gods, idols, demons, etc.), we run.
Until the Holy Spirit reveals truth to you, this will sound like it goes in circles and convince you of nothing. "But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth."
If Eve was made from Adam's rib, for which there is no evidence by the way, then she would be a clone, male, not having female chromosomes. How is this story any more plausible than any other creation myth?
I see a lot of this sort of question, and am always curious how it tracks. I have been meaning to ask someone, from the myriad of examples, and now happen to have a moment to do so. I hope you don't mind.
Posing such a question about Eve, requires you be allowing for the sake of the question the rest of the story up to that point, which has God speaking creation into existence, forming Adam from the dust of the earth and breathing life into him. How then would creating Eve from Adam's rib seem to you to be an insurmountable technical obstacle for God?
I was going to make a similar point, but see you've said it perfectly already.
Does anyone honestly think that a God came down and made a man of his image from dirt and then didn't know that he needed a women and tried to find animals for him to befriend and then decided to make a female (which he had already supposedly done from almost every other creature) from the man's rib? Does anyone honestly think this story is factual?
He knew Adam had a lot of work to get done. Delay on the woman may have been prudent. Just try to get your teenager to do something once they get a girlfriend...forget about it!
A lot of theologians study and think about this stuff and no, the majority of them don't 'honestly' think God hadn't thought it through. The 'why' of it is a little tougher. And yes, I do believe it.
Yep I believe in God. I believe He is omnipotent. And that we do not need you to believe it or not.
God spoke all things into existence. And he's already everywhere through his Spirit. The image of him "coming down" to make a man may be inaccurate. Still, in some manner he formed him from dust (sounds vaguely like it could resemble starting with simple life and making it more complex), and God breathed life into the man. We were made in God's image and have the very breath of God.
God not only foreknew that he would make women, but he foreknew everything from humans' choice to follow the deceiver to their eventual salvation through Jesus Christ. It seems there is something of spiritual significance when it's pointed out that no one suitable was found for the man and it was not good for him to be alone. Could be simply that it speaks of the need of men and women for each other and/or the importance and centrality of this relationship; could even suggest something of God's desire for a significant other, which he has created in his people as a collective whole (God is "husband" to Israel; Jesus Christ is husband to the church or "bride of Christ"). Making the woman from the man's rib is also spiritually significant and speaks of their interrelatedness.
WHY would she be a clone? Are you saying that God would be forced to use 21st century human techniques in order to create another human being, after making the first one out of the dust?
Well I guess the answer depends on whether one tasks this as a literal account or not.
How so? I'm still a bit fuzzy on your thought, here.
Of course she would be a clone because the genetic material would have been Adams. This story was believable before genetics were understood, now you have to invent new miracles into the story to prevent a clone from occurring. You see when you allow for miracles to explain the myth anything is permissable except reason, facts or evidence.
Actually it seems to me that some people stop reasoning once miracles are introduced but on the other side. It may seem a cop-out to you, but intellectually speaking I just don't see why the supernatural must, under any circumstances, be bound by human rules in order to be considered. What you're saying is that unless the miraculous stops being miraculous it cannot be considered miraculous. I think you can see the problems with that line of reasoning.
By that logic Adam would be dirt or something close because he came from dirt. God is the CREATOR - If he can create from nothing and he can create from dirt, then he can create FROM anything without making clones.
Just curious, if he can create from nothing then why did he need dirt to for Adam and a rib to form Eve?
He created light from nothing. He went from there. The One who could create light from nothing is not limited in his creation of what comes after. He can do all things and nothing is impossible with God. Yet He knows how best to do it according to his plans and purposes. The design and the natural laws were all necessary in the grand scheme of things. We see how brilliantly it works. God alone as Creator knows all the details. But all things have their significance - so it is significant that humans came from dirt and that God breathed his own breath into them. Someday soon even the unanswered questions will be answered.
So I guess that means you don't have an answer? With a snap of his fingers he creates the entire universe. another snap and we instantly have all the animals. Man however, genetically almost indistinguishable from chimps needed to be created from dirt and the women was an after thought so instead of another snap he put Adam to sleep, took out the innermost part of a rib and made Eve from that.
How many people have problems telling fact from fantasy?
You ask us to speak for God then when we try to offer our insight, you tell us we are fools for thinking we could know the mind of God... which never makes sense to me since you don't believe in God.
But I will offer a possibility. God is a very symbolic God. Dirt is worthless, and it is more than plentiful. Maybe His intention is to show us that He can turn something of little value into something of great worth.
Or maybe He simply wanted there to be a cycle of life... as we come out of the earth, we return to the earth.
We cannot speak for God Radman, we can only offer ideas based on what we have learned of Him. If we knew everything about God, where would the mystery be? In every relationship, it's wonderful if there is always more to discover.
LOL. He snaps his fingers and a universe is created. But he wanted to show us the circle of life so he made us from dirt and a rib? All the while everything alive decomposes the very same way, us included.
If you have a perfect connection with God ask him for an answer that makes sense.
Do you see what you do? You ask us to answer an impossible question, then you mock us if we don't answer, then you mock us if we do. It's a game to you. This is our faith... it is our very heart. Why do you spend your time this way? And who said I had a perfect connection with God? That's a ludicrous statement.
Please see my previous post. The "land produced" the animals. They also come from the land and return to the land (this way of decomposing is necessary for the welfare of all).
No one here has ever indicated that they have a "perfect connection with God". We are limited by our earthly bodies and earthly minds. We look forward to the day when we see God face-to-face and truly have a "perfect connection".
Wait, you don't have a perfect connection which means you have no idea what you are talking about, which explains why you can't produce any evidence.
It appears to me that he HAS a hobby by participating in these forums. Just because you don't like the way he goes about it sometimes doesn't mean you get to mandate that he should find another one. I'm relatively certain that we're all adults here and can make our own decisions.
Rather than report you for bickering, I'll let you know that I have several hobbies and this is one of them. I also enjoy long walks in the moonlight and cycling.
Now, what was your comment about my post?
It's not a matter of "perfect connection" or "no connection". That's extremist, black/white thinking. Though we as humans may see "dimly", we still with spiritual eyes do see to the degree possible here (with some variations depending on reliance on the Holy Spirit). One day we will see clearly.
I can see right threw your sentences. You claim that God foreknows everything except that man would need a female version of himself.
Maybe, its more of a case that the female was not created until Adam perceived a need.
Looking at the animals, naming them and watching them. Maybe it implies that Adam, though formed in the image of God, recognized his similarity to other animals. Maybe it simply represents his slow progress from his awakening to his 'fall'. He was born of spirit, but formed of earth and he had to recognize that on his own.
Something along the lines of the authors attempting to show that in spite of Man's unique characteristics, in the final analysis we are also mere animals.
Both symbolism and facts are given throughout the Scriptures. This requires understanding and certainly may be misinterpreted. Why insist it must ALL be taken literally as you often do, and then dismiss it all despite its frequent use of symbolism?
Why? Well because we have people who insist the earth is 6000 years old and women are formed from a mans rib. If you were to say that it's obvious that is simply symbolism and that God didn't blow breath into a pile of dirt to create people as man evolved as everything else did, I'd say cool.
However literal or symbolic, the significant truth is that God is the Creator of all things and that it is by him and through him that we exist and have our being.
I've said already that God DID foreknow that the man made in his image would "need" a woman. He foreknows ALL things (including the choices they would make and their need for Jesus Christ). The point I made was that there seems to be spiritual significance to the manner in which the story is told. It doesn't mean God didn't already know the man would need a woman. Some point was being made.
It sounds like you're saying that the messages and information given to you by the holy spirit comes through incomplete, garbled or muffled. The connection to the spirit is not good, and cannot be depended on for truth as you have to fill in the gaps and interpret what was not clear in the message.
Instead of black and white, a message or no message from a solid connection or no connection, you get a messed up one, like a TV with heavy static. Is that how it works?
To God alone belongs all knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Who then will have all the answers but God himself?
We're told he spoke all things into existence. That can be in an instant or more likely by a process. We're also told the "land produced" the animals, which doesn't sound much like they came at the "snap of his fingers".
Humans are NOT "genetically almost indistinguishable from chimps". That's a gross oversimplification. Do a little more research on all that they're not including when they tell you falsely that we're 99% similar (this is only regarding overlapping genes). The genetic similarity is not even close to 99% and is more like 70%. How "closely related" do you think we are to mosquitoes, and why is there quite a bit of genetic similarity here? .
Humans could have been created in a different manner it would seem, but God knows how to do it best and according to his plans and purposes. I think what Sed-me points out in her post is important and has spiritual significance - We came from nothing but dirt and we return to dirt (something I similarly had in one of my posts to you, but deleted). This is significant because it is God's breath in us that makes us all that we are and gives us such great worth; without him we are and can do nothing. There also seems to be spiritual significance to the woman being made from the man. She wasn't an "after thought" but she was second. Does that make her lesser than him? You've heard me say that with God the first are generally last and the last are first - women are coming in great numbers to the Lord. But more importantly, through Jesus Christ women are co-heirs with men and there no longer exists male or female in Christ.
LOL. God made man (with male parts) and then looked for a companion for him by introducing him to all the other animals, he then decided to make a women (with women parts). It's funny because in almost every other animal we have males and females that fit together, but in all his wisdom he was unaware that a women was needed and he thought any animal besides a female person would do?
This is way to painful and easy. Bye.
God foreknows all things. He knew everything from the fact that he'd create man and woman to the fact that they would follow the deceiver to the fact of their eventual salvation through Jesus Christ.
The animals had already been created to procreate and fill the earth (and God did know this as the future plan for humans as well, and designed the man accordingly). But consider the spiritual significance of all this. God does not procreate. The angels were not designed to procreate. Man was made in God's image. There seems to be something of significance when we're told that no one suitable was found for the man and that it was not good for him to be alone. Perhaps we're being told of the centrality of the relationship between men and women, their design for and need for each other and so on. Perhaps there's also even more going on. God was alone (except for his own various forms). Perhaps he did not consider this "good". He made a home and he made those who serve him (angelic beings). He made a vast universe with all sorts of wonders, including procreating animals. Then in humans he made someone to love. While God is not "sexual", he desires love and intimacy with his people. He has made himself "husband" to his chosen nation Israel; he has made Christians collectively the "bride" of Christ.
I had never heard of the interpretation he gave, or believes in, of that portion of scripture, in its context. It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't entirely understand what Cat is saying either, but this part: is pretty basic to much of Christian thought (at least much of modern Christian thought.)
The thinking goes that God does desire to have a real and true relationship with us. We will never be His equals, we cannot be, but we can have a true emotional intimacy with Him. This would be something like the relationship Moses had with God, although we cannot see Him face to face the way Moses did.
Didn't god show Moses his backside, not his face?
I apologize for not being clear enough. I've been saying that God does foreknow ALL things, including that he would make both man and woman. Because of this, it seems there is some significance to the manner in which the story is told - that there's a point in saying no one suitable was found for the man who was made in God's image, and it wasn't good for him to be alone.
I have no spiritual revelation on this to my knowledge and am not claiming to speak for God here. I gave opinions as to possible reasons for the manner in which the story was told: One possibility is that it is simply stressing the importance and centrality of the male/female or husband/wife relationship. Another possibility is its PARALLEL with God's situation in this. God was alone (except for his own various forms). If he'd wanted to remain alone, he could have, but clearly this was not his desire. No one suitable was available for him (just as the animals didn't come close to the man in suitability, so we humans didn't come close to God in suitability). God repeatedly states that he is the "husband" to us collectively, and he has made us collectively to be his "wife" who he will love and have intimacy with (no sexual suggestion here). While some may find this all too "human" of God, God does not hide his feelings, which are in many ways like humans who were made in his image. It is God who makes it known how great his love and desire is for us, who calls himself the husband and us the wife or bride. Just as God repeatedly makes the parallel between the marital relationship and the relationship between us and God, I was making that parallel here in the creation story and suggesting it as a POSSIBLE reason for the manner in which the story was given by the Spirit / the Spirit-inspired man.
One thing you might remember is that the idea that God foreknew everything is a theological notion and it is largely theologians who have explored that. Many people, both believers and non-believers, who simply do a straight reading of the Bible conclude from the wording that God simply didn't think of Eve when He created Adam. It's been the theologians who thought about, and talked about, that if God knew everything beforehand (which the Bible clearly states) then He could not have been surprised by things like needing to make a woman for the man, or even Lucifer's rebellion. The 'common' people have, until fairly recently, not talked much about this. And if you read the Bible straight through, it's not difficult to see why people might think this.
God foreknowing all things is not only a "theological notion" but also a "spiritual truth". My conclusion of it (like many others' conclusion of it) is not from any theologians, but from studying Scriptures themselves and relying on the Holy Spirit for ultimate truth. Like you, I do understand why many reading the Bible might think God is "surprised" by things or does not know all things ahead, and I sympathize with this. What I don't sympathize much with is the attitude expressed here that "you're all a bunch of idiots who think God knew everything and yet didn't know man would need a woman". Especially when this comes from one who doesn't discuss the faith with an open mind, but rather appears to fulfill his own agenda - speaking against God, the Word and Christians as a group (yes, I know he says he "respects" you and hopefully he does). If his goal is simply to speak against the faith of others, I don't find this an honorable goal, and I'm sure it affects my interactions with him and the manner in which I spoke of the truth that God does in fact foreknow all things (though hopefully I did not say any of this disrespectfully and do not recall doing so).
Did I call anyone a bunch of idiots? You even put it in quotes as if they were my words. You may not like it, but I'm here sharing my honest opinion, you don't have to read them and you don't have to stay. I'm rather fond of Chris, I'm sure we'd make great friends if we met and avoided discussing religion, like friends do if they wish to remain friends. He's been angry with me more than a few times, but we've gotten past our disagreements and I'd like to think we have a mutual respect for one another. You can't however attempt to cause problems between Chris and I if you like. Reminds me of grade school.
You and he can certainly be friends. My intent was to clarify with him, since he seemed not to understand why I'd make the points I did. You can't truthfully deny the point you were making regarding the unbelievable stupidity of those who say God knows all things, yet "didn't know" he'd need to make women (no matter how carefully you selected your words). The disrespect you show Christians is ongoing. All the manipulation, mocking, and so forth is disrespectful behavior, whoever your target is.
It's 'way too painful and easy' because it also makes assumptions. You assume, or want to be true, that if God is 'perfect' then He MUST behave in the way you think a 'perfect' being would behave.
It's like when you're a kid, and your parent doesn't behave in the way you think they should, you get mad. And when you get older you also mock. Doesn't mean you're right, though.
Sure Chris, but no one is saying my parents are all knowing. All knowing means just that, all knowing. A God making an man in his image (male parts included) without knowing he will need a mate is not all knowing.
Fair enough, except that you then have to assume that God actually did not know that He would be making Eve. Remember that in Genesis Chapter 1 comes the line "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Eve was not created until Chapter 2.
(Yes, I know that the Bible was not originally written with chapters, but the point stands just the same.)
It doesn't matter how you read it, it appears he didn't know he would be making Eve he appears to have thought one of the animals would do just fine. A helper, sounds like something a misogynistic male would say. She is here to help me.
"18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found."
I would not be so quick to slap that misogynist label on. It's only been very recently, and really still only in certain parts of 'developed' countries, where the marriage wasn't basically for people to help each other. The idea of the bride as a 'help-mate' is not simply some male notion of the subservient woman. In rural, agrarian, technologically less-developed places the people must work together as a team for the family to survive. And because the physically stronger male actually went out and tamed the land (and in a rural, agrarian society that's pretty literally how it goes) he would be seen as the leader many times.
I've had multiple Christians try to tell me that women have one more rib than men do. One of them was a nurse. It was hilarious, yet disturbing.
JM are all the people you hang out with stupid. It really does not speak well for you that you associate with these kind of folk. I suggest you kind of try to get around smarter Christians the ones you know seem a little challenged ---- or are you making that up?
LOL, I just watched as at least four so called Christians tried to tell me that God made a man from dirt and a women from his rib which flies in the face of all the evidence gathered to date.
Rad man, you and JM seem to have really kind of lame friends. It kind of explains a lot.
If you call you guys our friends then I guess so. LOL.
However literal or symbolic the creation account or other Scriptures may be, the truth is that God can do all things and it doesn't have to line up with any natural laws, which only exist as natural laws because they were put into place as such. He is the Creator of natural laws; he is not bound by them. They serve his purpose yet they do not limit him.
It is no more incredible to be made from dirt or a rib or anything else than to be made in any other manner. It is all incredible. It seems many atheists have lost their awe and wonder and humility and recognition of the incredible, and all based on nothing but a little worldly knowledge of some processes and such.
but if God interacts with the natural world and defies natural laws that he supposedly put into place, there should be real, physical evidence to point to his existence - shouldn't there?
There are two options - either a god exists or a god doesn't exist.
If a god exists that does NOT interact with the natural world, that god is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.
If that god DOES interact with the natural world and/or breaks or maintains natural laws, that god should have physical evidence that points to his existence within reality.
Unfortunately, it would seem that no evidence exists.
I hate to interject, but are you serious? I would think a being who could create a universe and was able to work outside of what we consider to be natural laws, would be able to remain undetected; if it chose to. It's kind of silly to say an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being would be forced to work within parameters we found to be convenient.
You say, "If that god DOES interact with the natural world and/or breaks or maintains natural laws, that god should have physical evidence that points to his existence within reality." Using something that came up in my last post, let's consider a scenario.
God takes a rib from a man and creates a woman, superseding the natural laws as we understand them. We're told of this by a Spirit-inspired man. Let's say this occurred in our day of knowledge and "control". We then examine the man's body to see if the truth was told. But we find the man has all his ribs and conclude that the "Spirit-inspired" man lied. Yet the One who is capable of taking the rib is also capable of regenerating or even making it as if nothing was ever done to the man. The evidence is lost, so we insist it never occurred. Yet we're wrong.
The faithful "see", the unfaithful do not. If the spiritual were provable by the natural, where would that leave faith?
You said that we know this by a spirit inspired man.
Now how do you prove that? OR do you just BELIEVE it to be true, so you announce it as actual fact, when it hasn't actually been demonstrated in the slightest?
As far as faith is concerned - since when is that a justifiable reason for belief? Did the disciples, who interacted and knew Jesus face to face have faith? Or did they have knowledge?
I believe it because the Holy Spirit has revealed it as true. He is the One who leads us into all truth.
The disciples had more than just human knowledge regarding Jesus and this required more than their direct experiences with him. They still had to have faith and rely on the Holy Spirit for spiritual knowledge regarding who exactly Jesus Christ is - the Lord and Savior of all.
Cat333, you're working on the premise that you understand the Bible. You don't.
The Pentateuch, and likely much more, was written by Kabbalists in code. Most Christians do not know this code -- called the language of branches.
The only things I know about Scriptures are that which the Holy Spirit reveals to me - that is, spiritual truths and significance. There exists much I have no revelation on. Where I have no revelation, I generally attempt not to even form an opinion on. So, for example, I make no claims about how literal or symbolic the creation account is and no claims regarding the age of the earth.
You say the faithful see like they have some kind of special knowledge but you don't see. You read the bible and your pastor told you it was God's word which you do not dare question through fear of losing your salvation. But you don't see, you choose to believe something for which you are not a witness and have no evidence, but choose to ignore evidence from contemporary scientists. No you most definitely do not see.
Was that something you learned when you followed? That questioning could lead to the loss of salvation?
It's what I was taught. It's called indoctrination.
That's a shame, it's not biblical.
The Bible teaches us to be seekers of truth.
I Jn 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;…
II Tim 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
It also teaches us that when God saves us, we are marked with a seal of salvation and that our names are written in the book of life.
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
If you were a seeker of the truth you would also consider that the bible or portions of it is an entirely manmade fabrication. Not that I'm insisting you should believe this but that you should consider it a possibility. However you've been told to many times that you must believe all of it or none of it. That to only believe some of it means you are not a Christian.
Unless it is the very word of God, as so many believe.
Yes but many believe Miley Cyrus has talent but it doesn't make it so. What you believe is the word of God has been inherited by you because committees of men decided it would be so. You can go on Amazon and buy a compilation of the other gospels and writings that were not voted in and because they weren't included you don't believe they are the word of God. Had the gospel of John been substituted with that of Thomas then 17 centuries later you would believe this gnostic gospel was the word of God and John was a fake.
I could continue on with the Miley debate, but is that really something I want to be associated with?
Er, no. That's not why I believe it to be the word of God. But hey, thanks for playing our game "You, Yes You Have No Mind Of Your Own!"
You know that doesn't actually make any sense.
What does make sense is that I'm no longer a Christian which came about because over a period of three years I discovered I was entitled to a mind own. Using my own mind Christianity just fell apart.
For the record, Chris, and for what it's worth (if anything) I have never known DH to be intentionally disrespectful. He's actually quite knowledgeable, intelligent and respectful of others - even those who disagree. To treat him the way you would treat a few of the other less respectful people on these forums would be a big, big mistake - in my opinion.
Thanks JM And for the record I find your posts to be thought provoking, full of common sense, with some really good probing questions.
I'll cop that I might have been a little over-reactive (but JUST a little! )
And if I remember correctly, DH was responding to someone else in the first place.
Still, it's not like I've done no research and it's not like I just take the word for it and never think about it.
LOL, so you question unless it's the very word of God?
God is the Creator of all that is within the world and there is no "evidence" existing or even possible of anything that contradicts this. I make no claims regarding the age of the earth and such (I'm really not going to be surprised any which way regarding how old it turns out to be), and I don't have revelation on how literal or symbolic the creation account is. My faith is not wrapped up in the process of creation, yet I do see a lot of weaknesses in the popular interpretations and theorizing based on too many assumptions and inferences from circumstantial "evidence".
My spiritual knowledge is not based on any Pastors, but on One Teacher. I do not fear losing my salvation because I am "sealed" by the Holy Spirit.
YOUR experience while identifying as a Christian may have been to follow a pastor(s) and you may not have been witness to anything spiritual, but that's not my experience. My experience is this: I interacted with God as a small child and EXPERIENCED him. I fell in love with him and his Word. I also experienced demonic attacks. I strayed while an adolescent and young adult and experienced nothing of a supernatural nature. I was drawn back to the Father in my early twenties and shortly thereafter began experiencing intense spiritual / supernatural manifestations. During some seasons and for some tasks, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit has been particularly strong and/or regular. Sometimes in my flesh I push him away, but my spiritual desire and goal is to seek him more and more. He is the One who leads us into all truth, opens our eyes to the truth, indwells us and seals us, empowers us, comforts and strengthens us and on and on. May he reveal the truth of the One True Lord - God the Creator and Jesus Christ the Savior to all those who desire and seek him!!
Yes, but should it be so irrefutable that no one could possibly deny it no matter how much they don't want to see it? Should all recourse for faith or belief, all subtlety, be stripped away and God just clobber us with the evidence?
I don't necessarily agree. But the main point is that I don't think most religions actually put forth a being who does NOT interact at all with the 'natural' world. Some put forth one who doesn't do it very often, but that's still not the same.
Which again brings the question: Should God clobber us with the evidence? If the evidence is subtle, if it could be explained either way if someone so chose, does that automatically mean that it's not evidence for God?
I don't know many people personally (although I'm sure that they exist) who would steadfastly refuse to see real, actual evidence that isn't a second-hand subjective experience that they had that they can't explain. That doesn't classify as evidence to me, and we've had that conversation before. If there was actual, real evidence to prove any of the proposed gods actually existed, it would be everywhere. At the very least, it would be all over the Christian community. Yet when people ASK for evidence, all we get are the subjective personal experiences, or get instructed about the necessity for faith. That's hardly god clobbering people over the head with evidence, is it? So either believers are ignorant of it en mass, don't want to share it or maybe - just maybe - it isn't there.
But that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that often the evidence is such that two people could look at it and come to different conclusions. Real, first-hand experience that does not lead by the nose. What seems to so often be asked for is exactly that, the sort of supernatural evidence that is so totally unable to be anything BUT from God that many people will immediately classify it as a mass hallucination.
We may have two conflicting ideas about what evidence is, or what qualifies as evidence.
If we go to an archeological dig and together dig up a dinosaur bone, it's not immediately clear what species it is, or how old the fossil is. But what is clear is that we've found something, yes? Further tests are needed to determine what it is. Other clues at the site can help narrow the scope. Testing can be performed to look at age, etc.
I don't think that a vision of god would help me out here, and that's not what I'm looking for. I know psychologically and scientifically that visions are notoriously unreliable, and can be prompted by stress, diet, medical conditions, etc. I'm not asking for God to appear in my living room. I don't think I'd trust what I was experiencing, and I couldn't identify WHICH god it was, and would be incredibly susceptible to confirmation bias, experiential and cultural bias, etc. While it's true that evidence can be subjected to alternative subjective interpretations. What I'm saying is that if there is a god, let alone the one that you subscribe to - in his omniscience and omnipotence, surely he can reveal himself in a way that is not subjective. Even the Bible is subjective, and open to a million different interpretations throughout history. It's been translated and edited and changed and altered, etc. It's a subjective book, and it's impossible (since no originals exist, and alternative versions have been deemed heretical and destroyed) to trace back what we have to what was originally said in many, many instances - if not all of them.
Perhaps, although the sheer number of fragments and writings that we have do lend themselves to a more probably understanding of the texts than many others.
I'm also talking about the evidence of our own eyes. I've said many times, and even alluded to in the post you responded to, that there are people who wouldn't believe even if two hundred angels dancing on the head of a pin presented The Burning Bush to us. And yes, it would be awfully nice if God just presented us as individuals with something that we can't possibly argue with (although my previous point kind of rules out the second one.) But He has not seen fit to do that. I don't know why, although there are times I think when the person who receives the message (whatever that message may be, again I'm not necessarily talking about 'visions,' I certainly have never had one) might be in a place where they understand and don't argue with the message, while other people around them do. Some people look at the universe and wonder where it came from. And some of those who wonder conclude that the most likely answer is a Creator, while others do not. That's more along the lines of what I was talking about in that particular post.
They were all professed Christians, several on the Hubpage forums. If you call that association, then sure. I'm not sure it bodes well for you, however, that you are calling fellow believers stupid when you repeatedly assert that your religion is love.
Secondly - where did I say that EVERYONE I hang out with has that view? The answer is nowhere. I said several. Which is absolutely true. And they all profess to believe in the same god that you do, and take Genesis literally in every aspect.
I think he may have questioned the authenticity of the statements since it is pretty amazing that people would believe the one less rib thing, so I don't know that he was intending to insult any true believers who thought men have one less rib. But I believe I heard it as well at some point back in childhood.
Here's why that line of reasoning never made sense: Let's say God took a rib from Adam and left him with one less rib. It would not follow that all men thereafter would have one less rib since their ribs would be determined by their DNA, not by any change to Adam's body.
But there's something really significant and revealing about the use of the rib by God. Ribs are the only human bone that regenerate. So Adam's rib would have regenerated. Did the long ago authors of the bible know this significant fact about the rib bone? No, of course not. Would the only regenerating bone out of ALL our bones have been selected by chance? Not very likely, is it? The Spirit, who inspired the messages given in Scriptures, certainly knew the reason behind God's choice of the rib bone and made a point of telling the particular bone that was used.
You may want to do a little honest research on that rib thing.
All bones regenerate. Break your leg and your body will dissolve the small fragments then regenerate bone to fuse the broken pieces together and replace the lost fragments. The periosteum (the literal meaning of this word is 'around the bone') is a membrane that covers every bone and it contains cells that can manufacture new bone. The rib just happens to have a very good blood supply from the intercostal muscles.
Don't belive everything you are told on a Sunday morning.
If I'm understanding correctly, the other bones heal, but they do not completely regenerate if removed. You can remove the inner part of the rib and it will regenerate.
Ill be honest, that just confirms every thing I learn on Sunday mornings.
I love how they explain this by telling us that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally. See, the problem isn't with this ridiculously WRONG book, it's with YOU! You're reading it wrong! Ha!
See, here's the problem with that. If we're not supposed to take it literally, how, then, are we supposed to take it? Figuratively? As in, one day in the Bible is actually what, the length of one Seinfeld episode? The legth of my grandma's life? How long it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?
Creationists are, by definition, people who've vested so much of their emotional well-being into religionist mythology that they will say ANYTHING to avoid the obvious truth. It must be embarassing for them, really.
Perhaps you might make a study of symbolism as well. We are "covered in the blood of Jesus". Do you think any would claim this means the blood is literally all over our bodies?
I think much of the Word is more literal than we realize because "with God all things are possible". Nevertheless, we can see clearly that much of it is symbolic. If someone interprets a message symbolically, why find that absurd, when we see so much definite symbolism within Scripture and writing in general?
You are correct, it is absurd to think "with God all things are possible".
It's absurd to think we exist in all our complexity and magnificence, and yet we do.
I don't find our complexity absurd at all considering it had billions of years to evolve.
It could have had infinity to evolve and would be no less miraculous in its end result!
We are certainly not "done", though what we will become will not occur through evolution, but through a great transformation by our Lord himself in "the twinkling of an eye". As far as life on this CURRENT earth goes, we will not become any radically different creature, as you might imagine (Perhaps you could make an interesting movie about it). Yet we will live eternally in the NEW earth WITH OUR GOD in our new SPIRITUAL bodies.
Actually our evolution makes perfect sense with God, but is that how you think heaven will be? A new planet, with new bodies where people live forever? Doesn't the bible say only a few will get in?
We will be taken up to the Lord. At some point Satan will no longer be the prince of this world, but Jesus Christ will reign on earth. And at some point the current earth will be "burned up". Could be nuclear, could be something hitting earth, could be the Lord setting it on fire, I don't know. The Creator of this earth, our God, will create "new heavens" and a "new earth". We will live forever with the Lord, possessing new spiritual bodies similar to the spiritual body Jesus Christ returned with after being crucified and raised to life again. Those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life (that is all those who will receive the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, which is offered to ALL) will receive this eternal life with the Lord.
Are you sure you will get in?
Matthew 19 28-30
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
You are apparently supposed to leave your children.
Again taking everything so literally? The point of the Scriptures is that we are to put our Lord FIRST, above even all the most important things, including our children.
"who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive"
The text is very clear. Although, please stay with your children and husband. It doesn't say to put God first, it says to leave them for God.
Just as I don't believe Jesus told us to literally cut off our hands or gorge out our eyes if they cause us to sin (then we'd have no hands or eyes left for doing good), I don't think he was telling us to leave our families. BUT, we are to put our Lord first, and if for some reason he called us to something that did require us to leave anything behind, we would need to be ready to obey his calling. That does NOT mean anyone is instructed or permitted to ABANDON (or not provide) for their families; it is written: "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith" (1 Timothy 5:8).
So what do you do with that conflicting information.
14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
9:61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
These verses all say the same thing - God must be FIRST! Everything else is "forsaken" and (as written elsewhere) considered "as rubbish" COMPARED TO relationship with Jesus Christ and obedience to the Lord. He is to be our "first love". While we love our families (and all people), for example, our love for them must be as "hatred" IN COMPARISON to our far greater love for our Lord. If we look back to earthly things, even the people here, we fall short and are not putting our Lord first.
creationism is a tool used by satan to divide and confuse us all. they are doing a good job, unfortunately, as anybody can see. theres no timeline in the bible. theres a difference between worship of god and worship of bible knowledge and biblical principle, which is what they do. its a nice deception. to get you to question yourself. as if the entire universe is 6000 years old. writing dates and study notes in your bible is weird. and blasphemous.
There is also a difference between worshipping the words in the bible as opposed to worshipping the very one who inspired those words. I'm in the latter group. The words in the bible are life-giving. They create a template/reference for living out the life that Jesus came to provide.
The words say, "study..." thus the notes. The words also say, "learn of me." It is quite dangerous to listen to one speak and understand without knowing the speaker.
When Jesus said, "I am in the father, and the father is in me." Many people sold a ticket to the reincarnation concert. Many people bought those tickets. Jesus meant that he had the same mind/heart/purpose. God is still the father. Jesus is still his eldest son. We walk as Jesus (not reincarnation but spiritual rebirth) because he knows the way to the father. He is the ONLY one who knows the way; he said that too.
There is nothing hidden in regard to living/thinking as God desires. Some just listen to those louder spirits.
I am going to put in succinctly. Creation as described in the bible and other religious books is a metaphor for evolution. Ancient humankind did not have advanced scientific knowledge of evolution(as far as we moderns presume) thus using the creation mythology to describe the process of evolution.
If one analyzes carefully the 7 day creation synopsis; it is quite a figurative and metaphoric description of evolution of the universe and all life forms. Now, the world is NOT 6,000 years old. PLEASE, PUHLEEZE, stop THIS. The world is billions of years old. Now, good night all.
Had you read through the thread you would have realized that no one has claimed the earth was 6000 old.
Definitely not true within this thread. Personally, I think there are more atheists claiming theists think the earth is 6000 years old than there are theists making the claim. But, it sounds good to accuse a whole group of believing it.
Pick any thread.
Most people and professional scientist agree modern man have existed for at least 200,000 years or earlier. All the NT bible can claim -over 2000 years and than they borrowed the Jew bible OT before that they borrow many stories from the Hindus religion.
Many Muslims hold belief Jesus survived the crucifixion and travelled towards India to continue his ministry among the Lost Tribes of Israel
The Lost tribe of Israel (Christians) are missing 198,000 years in their beginning and end of the world story not counting where most of other the species earthlings have had a far longer history.
Jesus has always existed and was with God in the beginning. His arrival was prophesied long before it came to pass. No one can say how old the OT is because no one can ensure we have the earliest manuscripts of it. In addition, we do not know the timeframe for the events spoken of in the OT.
Near the end of earth and humankind as we know it, a time was planned from the beginning for Jesus Christ to be revealed to the world. The time of Jesus was necessarily near the end because it ushered in the "last days" or "end times". Now while our end time prophesies are being fulfilled, we wait for Jesus' return for us.
Those who take the Bible literally (atheists and believers) are missing a lot, because the Truth is not in the letter, but in the spirit of scripture. The letter has too many typos and editing changes. Egoistic man has too fallible.
My own research pegs the Flood at 27,970 BC and Adam (the tribe) starting at 10,434,130 BC. (Details in my hubs and in my new book, "The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood."
The book "Forbidden Archaeology" has numerous examples of Homo sapiens or their artifacts existing millions of years ago. Scientists easily dismiss such things, but without going through the same rigor required by peer reviewed articles. How convenient.
What's also interesting is the fact that scientists are on record ignoring evidence in favor of "tradition." Ouch! I guess we're still living in the dark ages.
Science has been doing a great job, for the most part. Dismissing science is like ignoring reality -- tantamount to delusion.
There are so many elements that prove an old Earth and old universe that many "creationists" are living in delusion. This creationist is actively trying to learn more about reality -- not just physical reality, but also the reality above "effect."
I wrote an article on colliding galaxies that should nip creationists' arguments in the bud, but too many are stuck in ego -- unable to look beyond their own ideas.
Ken Ham once asked his audience, "Who do you believe, science or God?" Of course, his audience said, "God." But his question was a false dichotomy. The problem is not between science and God, but between science and Ken Ham and his limiting interpretation of God and scripture.
God and science get along just fine. They study His creation.
Did you gather this God concept of the beginning of time from your own mind. Can you ignore the bible words and by the only bible museums in existence which is Christian science of Creationism. Creationism is the only formal study I know of relating to the beginning of the earth by Christians and atheist will sue them if put this Myth in to the school budgets system.
I want to ask them who know spiritual things to put some thought into a notion I've had for years.
Could it be that God COMES TO KNOW beforehand, based upon the whispers of our hearts what we will do?
I ask this because there was OT mention of him being regretful for creating the beings. It seems that this would give credence to the fact that since we are free to think/feel/behave as WE desire, we change on a dime and are really unpredictable until he comes to know what we've decided to put first in our hearts.
Also, the bible states that he tests us. As he tested Abraham.
What are your thoughts. I cant seem to decide.
To be clear, I do believe that he knows all things. But does he know the one created in his image (able to decide/think/feel/do as he or she pleases) beforehand, or does he come to know?
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Christ was before the world was created. God knew that it would be necessary for Jesus to come and die for the sins of the world.
God knows all things, nothing is hidden from Him. David wrote, "though I make my bed in hell, you are there." (speaking of God).
Furthermore, if God does not know all things, He is not God.
You do not know 99% part of the unknown knowledge of the world's and Universe.
How do you know your God (out of millions of Gods) known’s everything?
"He asks.... knowing how silly the question is and expect a silly answer.
Because a few thousand years ago someone said so.
He asks...having already judged the whole thing as silly and therefor having already judged the answer as silly. Why? Because he's pretty silly himself!
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
The idea of God knowing events beforehand fascinates me, in that the ancients were setting us up to explore the how of such an idea. We now know, through scienctific research, that the passage of time varies depending on the event and reference point. That, within the observable universe.
The ancients knew they lived in one dimension and speculated others. Many of us now assume we live in one dimension and speculate others (reference string theory). Differently, of course, but the fact that they pondered time, the observable universe, other dimensions, etc. and came up with these concepts in their own unique way is fascinating. It reminds me of the journey through history from the development of the idea of the atom to the proof of its existence; and all of the benefit derived for humanity during the journey toward discovery.
My point, I suppose, is that we now have ample evidence that the ancient belief in an observer capable of existing outside of our current timeline is entirely feasible. I think, as we discover more, we will find it feasible to observe and interact. Does that prove God? I can't see how that, in and of itself, could; but anything which drives us toward discovery must be good and ancient goat herders pondering concepts now being delved into through string theory, quite frankly, amazes me.
Only God, as Creator, is not subject to the laws He established to govern our existence. Not being subject to time, He has provided prophecies, most of which have been fulfilled already, because this is an ability Satan, demons, false prophets, etc. cannot duplicate. What other wonder could He perform that would irrefutably show to those sincerely seeking Him, that He is the true God?
Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
I'm not big on worrying about if prophecy is true, or not. I think it is all so ambiguous, so many people have so many different ideas on what it means, that it negates any perceived value.
And, I have no ability to respond concerning Satan and demons. I see no evidence to support the belief that such play an active role in this reality, or have been shown to exist as described.
The best I can say is I find the name God identified himself to Moses as profound. I AM. I see no reason, at this juncture, to believe that statement has been refuted.
While the Holy Spirit is the One who reveals truth, confirms the truth, and seals us in that truth, and while spiritual manifestations and miracles occur in response to faith, perhaps the primary ways God reveals himself to the world are through 1) the testimony of all of creation, and 2) the testimony of the Word, with its focus on prophecies given and fulfilled.
To dismiss prophecies is to miss one of the primary types of evidence God has given to an unbelieving world. You may find some ambiguous prophecies, but are they all really so ambiguous? How ambiguous are prophecies that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem and come out of Egypt, or that he'd be tortured, crucified and raised to life? How ambiguous are prophecies that Israel would after near destruction become a nation again? How ambiguous are the prophesies (made before technology, the means) regarding globalization in government, the economy and religion, now occurring before our eyes? How ambiguous are the prophecies regarding end-time troubles, including the wars, famines, earthquakes, cancer and so on that are also now occurring before our eyes? How are so many prophecies made and none contradicted within Scriptures? How have almost all the prophecies within Scripture been fulfilled already, and many before our very eyes, so that no one can deceive us and say falsely that these prophecies were added after the fact?
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
This generation witnessing all these things certainly will NOT pass away until it has all been fulfilled. We will not cease to be, as some predict, but all these things will be fulfilled before that occurs. What's your point?
The point is that Jesus basically said, "The Kingdom of Heaven will manifest on Earth and the end times will be completed in this generation's lifetime." And neither of those things happened within even 100 years of his life. Whoops?
First, it is the generation witnessing all these things that will not pass away. Second, take a look at the original language and you'll find that the word "generation" is also "race". This requires only a little understanding and study.
Yeah, 2 minutes of research got me this page:
Oh, look! Matthew 24:34 is under #3, not #2!
You ignored (I guess intentionally) the first point - the generation witnessing all these things will not pass away before the end. Read the text:
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Well, since they have been thinking the end was near, since right after Jesus left; I'd say those prophecies are pretty unreliable. As to anything else, everybody has a different idea as to when, what and where all the prophecies pertain to. It's easy to look back in history and say 'see? that fulfilled a prophecy.' Just look at the hoops they jump through to make it look as if Nostradamus actually foretold the future. It is much harder to make a prophecy and then have it fulfilled, without a shadow of a doubt that it has been fulfilled, shortly thereafter. Darn near impossible, judging by how many have attempted it.
I find it interesting that you say to ignore it ignores the primary evidence of God. I think those who claim prophecy is evident are the primary evidence against God.
Set aside the "end time" aspect if it trips you up (though it isn't really hard to see that in light of ALL the days of humanity, the time since Jesus certainly IS the "end" times, even if it takes a few more centuries yet). Is it ambiguous that we are in fact seeing increases in wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, cancer, nuclear events and such, just as prophesied? Is it ambiguous that we're seeing globalization in government, economics and religion, just as prophesied (long before such things were feasible)? Are the rises and falls of nations as prophesied ambiguous? Is Israel's persistence despite so much persecution and all the efforts to destroy them ambiguous? Is their rebirth as a nation ambiguous?
It isn't easy to see prophesies fulfilled if they are in fact contradicted. In false prophecies outside the Word (such as by Nostradamus), you will find that prophecies have been contradicted. But not so with the Word - no hoops are required, just some understanding of the original language and a little understanding of what's being said (e.g., that "generation" in the original language also means "race"). While you may prefer that the prophecies be immediately fulfilled, the length of time following a prophecy (and promises) seems to be THE test of our faith.
Prophesies are one of the primary evidences of the true God - the One who loves us, reaches out to us through his Word and Spirit, came to earth for us, died for us, and will come again for us. The fulfillment of prophecies is in fact evident if carefully studied.
Here's an example. Be honest, how much do you think this prophesy (for the end times, but again no need to get caught up on that) describes the rebellious, hedonistic, greedy, self-serving and idol/self worshipping cultures of our day (in contrast to more humble, respectful peoples of certain times)? "People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." (2 timothy 3).
Funny story, that--the world is actually the closest it has ever seen to global peace since the widespread adoption of agriculture. Worldwide deaths as a result of warfare are at historic lows, and the only major conflict going on is the never-ending pissing contest between Israel and Palestine, and even that's not seeing millions upon millions of deaths per year (more like a couple thousand per year).
So yeah. Despite the news stations making a big stink about every isolated event, this is as close to world peace as we've been in almost 10,000 years (where the only conflicts were quick and local).
Funny, there's nothing in there about DEATHS occurring. It says in the end times you'll hear of wars and rumors of wars - we've certainly heard of these wars and rumors of wars (especially thanks to the media and the worry and threat of nuclear warfare). Our methods of warfare are very different and less bloody than in the past (though the ever present threat of nuclear warfare is there), but since the number of deaths is not mentioned in prophesy, what exactly is the relevance here? The prophesy is that you'll hear of wars and rumors of wars, and this is certainly true.
Are we in a calm before the storm, will nuclear warfare become a reality? That remains to be seen, but isn't really relevant to the prophecy. What is relevant is that Israel is the "apple of God's eye" and we are certainly seeing wars and rumors of wars surrounding them. Remember who was being spoken to.
The world is more peaceful now (per capita) then any other time in recorded Human history. Why would God allow these (Christian nukes) demons and Satan to destory the World, when People are far more ethical, intelligent today and live a lot longer than in those Biblical days (really bad times).
Why would God destory us now when we keep getting better?
Peace has never been better, people are more ethical, intelligent and live a lot longer.
God's people just love to destroy their enemies anyways, with reborn Satan's in high office.
Overall, it looks like the DEATHS in wars have decreased. "The "Human Security Report 2009/2010," a project led by Mack and funded by several governments, is a worldwide examination of war and violence and has been published as a book. It cites jarringly low numbers. While THE NUMBER OF WARS HAS INCREASED BY 25 PERCENT, they've been minor ones." Notice, there is nothing in Scriptures about the death toll in the prophecy regarding "wars and rumors of wars". It is the deaths, not the wars (and rumors of such) that have been decreasing. And wars and rumors of wars certainly are surrounding the nation of Israel.
And exactly how close are we to the fulfillment of the prophecy? We don't know the day or hour of Jesus' return. We'd love if the deaths remain low, but one nuclear war will radically change all that. In many ways we're going more toward both ends of the spectrum - more peaceful, advanced and less bloody on the one end; more potentially destructive than ever before on the other end (perhaps the ability for GREAT destruction limits the use of destructive capabilities because of the known consequences most don't want to initiate).
Even this truth that people are now claiming that peace is being attained is a prophesied event, but unfortunately, not in a lasting way: "At the very time when they are saying: "peace and security" - then shall sudden destruction come upon them all - and there will be no escape! But you Brethren, will not be in darkness, lest that day overtake you as a thief." (1 Thes.5:3)
I think we have a tendency to romanticize the past. And, years ago you didn't have ads blaring at you seemingly 24-7, violence and greed presented as entertainment, etc. But, people today are little different from our ancestors.
I honestly don't believe the time we live in represents an end time scenario. Any more than any point in history has. And your statement that it might not be for a few more centuries proves that you may not either.
In light of all of history, the "end times" is the time since Jesus Christ. This is the time of the "pregnancy" of the promise of his return. The "end of the end" is when the "labor pains" begin - this we are beginning to see. But just how long our "labor" will be (decades, centuries?) isn't known to us.
but there are criteria for prophecy, before anything can be considered a prophecy at all.
It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.
It must be written before the events that it predicts.
The predicted events must actually occur.
The prediction must be both falsifiable and verifiable.
It must not be overly vague.
It must not predict a likely event.
It must not be self-fulfilling.
Not to mention the criteria for fulfilled prophecy:
The prophecy must be properly interpreted.
The prophecy must be made before the event it fulfills.
The prophecy must be far enough in advance of the event to make educated guesswork impossible.
The event which fulfills the prophecy must have actually happened.
The prophecy must not be fulfilled as a direct consequence of the prophecy itself existing.
The prophecy must not be fulfilled by mere probability, or by sheer number of guesses: with enough shots in the dark, one will be bound to come close to the mark.
Since no Christians seem to be able to agree on the prophecies in the bible, or their interpretations or their fulfillment it would seem that they're NOT clear, and cannot be used as actual evidence. Not to mention the fact that ALL of the events that Christians use to point to as prophetic of Jesus are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LIST than the ones the Jews viewed as prophecies in their own scriptures prior to Jesus' arrival. Many, many religions (including Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity) point to prophecy and fulfilled prophecy as proof that they are actually true. Christians dismiss or argue against the prophecies of other religions, and other religions argue against and dismiss the supposed prophecies of Christianity. Since Christianity cannot agree on prophecy or its interpretation and fulfillment, it cannot reasonably be argued or concluded that it's the best proof possible of Christianity. Not to mention the numerous FAILED prophecies that actually are specific enough to KNOW that they are complete failures. I've met scholars and theologians that have no problem admitting to them, and acknowledging that they're potentially problematic to the faith overall. It seems to be only the laypeople who are convinced that these things are actually true.
In addition, the passage you quoted from Timothy was AGAIN written at a time when the early church thought that Jesus' return was eminent, and can easily be said to be fulfilled by the culture and decadence of the Roman empire. You're interpreting it to mean our day and time, when that interpretation is not immediately evident or obvious.
in simple terms - practically every generation of the Christian church has proclaimed and expected that they are living in the end times - from the first Christians up through the present batch.
A true prophecy will certainly occur before the predicted events, and of course the events MUST occur for it to be true. The clearer, the less likely it was to occur and so on, the more certain and believable to us humans.
There are the obvious, very clear prophecies in Scriptures that we generally agree on. Then there are prophecies that take some study and knowledge of geography, history, world events and such. Most people are not "educated" enough, interested or motivated enough, etc. to determine anything about these prophecies. Having some people misinterpret some prophesies does not invalidate them. Satan has at least as many "workers" out there confusing matters through false interpretations and such, and humans are certainly not infallible (and even those of us with the Spirit don't tend to rely on the Spirit much of the time). But the true prophecy will come true and has a true and definite meaning (even if some get it wrong).
While some of the human-made criteria you give are more descriptive of an "easily interpreted prophecy" or a "most convincing prophecy" rather than a "true prophecy", let's go ahead and apply them to the perseverance of the nation of Israel:
The prophecy is that a remnant of the Jewish nation will survive, despite persecution and hardships. This has been, is currently, and will continue to be true. It was written BEFORE their perseverance through devastating after devastating events. It certainly has been occurring. It is falsifiable and verifiable in recorded history. It is not vague, but specific. It is certainly not likely considering ALL the attacks against them and the efforts to get rid of them, and the general tendency of small nations to be overcome during such persecution. It is not self-fulfilling considering that even those called to aid the Jewish nation have often failed to do so, and the opposition has often been greater than any allegiance to them.
Regarding the "criteria" for fulfilled prophecy: We can see clearly that we're properly interpreting the Jewish nation's survival and perseverance. The prophecy was made before the long history of persecutions and perseverance. The long, long ago prophecies were made WELL in advance of the continued attacks and perseverance throughout more recent centuries. This event certainly has actually happened, as verified in historical records and witnessed events. The prophecy cannot be dismissed as occurring as a "direct consequence of the prophecy itself existing", for none who want to see the prophecy fulfilled can control all the tremendous persecution and hardship for this nation above most (and they would not want to cause such pain for the nation), which is a necessary precursor to any aid given (and even that aid has been limited). The probability is that sooner or later this ancient nation would be destroyed, particular given the extreme and persistent efforts for such, above other nations, and given the nation's size and ability. No multitude of guesses are involved, but only one truthful prophecy - the nation of Israel will face great persecution and yet the remnant will always survive. It is in fact true that the Jewish nation has been faced with unbelievable efforts to destroy them, and yet this little nation survives and perseveres through ALL this time, just as prophesied by the Lord himself!
The fulfilled prophecies of Judaism ARE the fulfilled prophecies of Christianity - this is One and the same God, the Jewish nation is like the older sibling who rejected what we've accepted and is yet awaiting their salvation from the Lord (which will in fact come, as promised). Even some potentially fulfilled prophecies of Islam would be linked, as they have used the initial truth of Scriptures and gone from there (though you will not find continued truth here).
It isn't that prophecy is the "best proof possible of Christianity", because for the believer it is the Holy Spirit himself who has revealed truth, "proven" the truth and sealed the believer in that truth. Yet prophecies, like all of creation, give testimony of the truth for both believer and unbeliever. There are no FAILED prophecies (and please don't quarrel over that word "generation" because it doesn't stand if the Scripture is properly read and understood). Your "scholars and theologians" can say whatever they want, and though the Word may be misunderstood (especially the more we rely on our own intellect and ability), the Lord's Word does NOT fail! Where is your evidence of this claim of "false" prophecies proven to exist? (And, no, saying "scholars and theologians" say it is so is NOT evidence, or even meaningful or convincing at all.)
That's okay if "practically every generation of the Christian church has proclaimed and expected that they are living in the end times - from the first Christians up through the present batch" because we are in fact, since the time of Jesus Christ, ALL living in the "end times". Consider ALL of humanity. These are the end of the times. We are those "pregnant" with the promise of Jesus' return.
Your only example fails the criteria. It was self fulfilling. The people working to make Israel a nation again WERE aware of the prophecy, and worked to are it fulfilled. Many even quoted the prophecy in their statements of support.
What's your next example?
Not true at all. First, I didn't use the example of Israel becoming a nation again (though it is certainly a fulfilled prophecy and one that does relate). Rather, I used the example of the survival and perseverance of the remnant of the Jewish nation despite tremendous persecution and suffering over a long, long history. This cannot classify as self-fulfilling because those who would desire to see the prophecy fulfilled would not create the first half of the situation -tremendous persecution and suffering. Further, over all that time of suffering and persecution (some prior to Jesus Christ) most people did not even read the Word, and only quite recently would attempts be made to aid the Jewish nation because of the Scriptures.
Where are those examples of FAILED prophesies in the Word you mentioned?
Show me the Scriptures that you say contained those prophecies, please.
Why? I'm sure you'll just found a way too verbally weasel out of them and justify them to yourself. I don't anyone else would be convinced by your spin doctoring, though, so it seems like a colossal waste of time.
Where are those prophesies shown to be false?
You ask a lot since the prophesies I'm referring to are sprinkled throughout the Scriptures and I'm going off my memory of coming across them over and over while reading. But you can find many of these prophecies here (taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which you may prefer since it's not a Christian source):
View of Isaiah.
Concept of frequent occurrence in the utterances of the Prophets, and closely interwoven in their peculiar construction of Israel's history and destiny. The idea is indicated in the name of Isaiah's son Shear-jashub (Isa. vii. 3). Israel, steeped in sin and disloyal to Yhwh, will be severely chastised. The hostile nations, indeed, are the executioners of a deep, divine plan (comp. Isa. x. 5). Many, even the greater part, of Israel will fall or be carried away. The remnant will be saved and will return (Isa. x. 20, 21). In Isaiah's faith the impregnability of Jerusalem and the indestructibility of Israel are unshakable and fundamental elements. His doctrine of the remnant is, in the main, centered in them (Isa. x. 22, where the better reading would be ; for if, or since, "Yhwh is with thee, O Israel," as the sand by the sea will be Shear-jashub, the remnant that will repent and be saved). This remnant will no longer rely upon alliances with the surrounding nations, but upon Yhwh (Isa. x. 20).
The process by which this remnant is separated is likened to the gathering of grapes or the shaking of an olive-tree, the result being that some of the fruit is left. But though those who survive will be few in number, they shall be "called holy" (Isa. iv. 3, xvii. 6).
Isaiah's contemporary Micah (if the passages really belong to him; they have the appearance of being the utterances of later apocalyptic seers) proclaims the same doctrine. Exiled Israel will still have a remnant free to influence, for good or evil, its surroundings; and this remnant will be gathered again (Micah ii. 12, v. 6, 7).
Zephaniah (during the reign of Josiah) apparently identifies this remnant with the "meek" of the land. It has found a refuge and means of escape on the great and terrible day of judgment, and to it is promised the rulership of the Philistine coast-districts (Zeph. ii. 3, 7). This remnant "of the house of Judah" will be visited by Yhwh, and their captivity will return. This "remnant of Yhwh's people" will also despoil discomfited Ammon and Moab. In Zeph. ii. 9 this "she'erit" interchanges with "yeter goy" in the second half. In the third chapter of Zephaniah, which, however, bears every indication of being post-exilic, the remnant of Israel, "a poor and needy people" (Hebr.), is described as not committing iniquity, as speaking only the truth, and as living in blissful pastoral peace and security.
Application by Jeremiah.
Jeremiah makes most elaborate use of the theory. The prophet foresees that Judah is doomed to captivity; but he is equally certain that a remnant will survive. This remnant will have to endure much. It will be gleaned as thoroughly as a vine (Jer. vi. 9). It is described as "the remnant of my flock," and is promised restoration and increase (Jer. xxiii. 3). This remnant is the subject of a most fervent, but jubilant, prayer for succor (Jer. xxxi. 7). The remnant is the people of God (ib.). Jeremiah employs the phrase also in the sense of "those that escaped deportation" (Jer. xlii. 15, 19).
Ezekiel is moved by the signs of destruction to ask whether "the remnant" of Israel will not be spared (Ezek. ix. 8. xi. 13). The context shows that for Ezekiel the phrase has the value of a technical term connoting the congregation of Israel, the exiles; and in Haggai it has the same force, denoting the common people, the congregation, as distinct from the princes and priests (Hag. i. 12, ii. 2).
This congregation, or remnant, of Israel, according to the critical school, is identical with the loyal Ḥasidim (the "meek," the "poor") so often referred to in the Psalms, the martyrs during the Maccabean rebellion, the "servants of Yhwh," who, when the Maccabean princes proved false, remained true to their God. Many of the passages attributed to Isaiah, Zephaniah, and Micah are assigned by thecritics to unknown writers of post-exilic and Maccabean times (comp. Duhm, "Jesaia," 2d ed., p. 75, Göttingen, 1902).
The phrase "remnant of Israel" ("she'erit Yisrael") has come to be a favorite name for Jewish congregations, as in the case of the oldest congregation in New York.
I gave you what you asked for, JMcFarland. Still haven't seen any of those prophesies in Scriptures shown to be false.
Why don't you look them up, Cat. Do a very simple Google search. I'm on the forums as time permits between my full time job and my full time college. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with your expectations.
Failed prophecy off the top of my head. .. tyre was never destroyed, especially not by King nebuchadressar.
Egypt has never been destroyed, and was certainly not a desolate waste and uninhabited for a forty year period.
The Nile had never run dry.
The Canaanite language was never spoken by Egypt, and is now a dead language.
Many, many MANY more.
You'll either find a way to worm your way out of these abject and dismal failures, or just use the predictable and worthless option of saying that they just haven't been fulfilled yet. Go ahead.
In Ezekiel 26, the prophet mentioned several events that were to occur in Tyre as punishment for the city’s arrogance and merciless actions. The following is a lengthy, but necessary, quote from that chapter:
Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,” says the Lord God; “it shall become plunder for the nations. Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.”
For thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached. With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,” says the Lord God....
For thus says the Lord God: “When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lowest part of the earth, in places desolate from antiquity, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you may never be inhabited; and I shall establish glory in the land of the living. I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,” says the Lord God (26:1-14,19-21).
Several aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a siege mound against the city; (4) the city would be broken down and the stones, timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be rebuilt.
In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.
It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar.
After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar.
Furthermore, Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity (circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18). Therefore, in regard to the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the inhabitants in the field).
Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts. After Nebuchadnezzar’s attack of the city “a period of great depression” plagued the city which was assimilated into the Persian Empire around 538 B.C. (Fleming, p. 47). In 392 B.C., “Tyre was involved in the war which arose between the Persians and Evagorus of Cyprus” in which the king of Egypt “took Tyre by assault” (p. 52). Sixty years later, in 332, Alexander the Great besieged Tyre and crushed it (see below for further elaboration). Soon after this defeat, Ptolemy of Egypt conquered and subjugated Tyre until about 315 B.C. when Atigonus of Syria besieged Tyre for 15 months and captured it (Fleming, p. 65). In fact, Tyre was contested by so many foreign forces that Fleming wrote: “It seemed ever the fate of the Phoenician cities to be between an upper and a nether millstone” (p. 66). Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia are but a sampling of the “many nations” that had a part in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy about “many nations” remains as a historical reality that cannot be successfully gainsaid.
The historical account of Alexander the Great’s dealings with Tyre adds another important piece to Ezekiel’s prophecy. By 333 B.C., Ezekiel’s prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and its building material cast into the midst of the waters had yet to materialize. But that situation was soon to be altered. Ancient historian Diodorus Siculus, who lived from approximately 80-20 B.C., wrote extensively of the young Greek conqueror’s dealing with Tyre. It is from his original work that much of the following information on Tyre’s destruction derives (see Siculus, 1963, 17.40-46).
In his dealings with Tyre, Alexander asserted that he wished to make a personal sacrifice in the temple of Heracles on the island city of Tyre. Apparently, because the Tyrians considered their island refuge virtually impregnable, with war machines covering the walls, and rapidly moving water acting as an effective barrier from land attack, they refused his request. Upon receiving their refusal, Alexander immediately set to work on a plan to besiege and conquer the city. He set upon the task of building a land bridge or cause way (Siculus calls it a “mole”) from the mainland city of Tyre to the island city. Siculus stated: “Immediately he demolished what was called Old Tyre and set many tens of thousands of men to work carrying stones to construct a mole” (17.40). Curtius Rufus noted: “Large quantities of rock were available, furnished by old Tyre” (4.2.18). This unprecedented action took the Tyrians by complete surprise. Fleming noted: “In former times the city had shown herself well nigh impregnable. That Alexander’s method of attack was not anticipated is not strange, for there was no precedent for it in the annals of warfare” (p. 56). And yet, even though this action was unprecedented militarily, it was exactly what one might expect from the description of the destruction of Tyre given by Ezekiel hundreds of years prior to Alexander’s actions. The mainland city was demolished and all her stones, timber, and soil were thrown into the midst of the sea. (Apologetics Press)
See? Resorting to copy/pasting, spin doctoring, changing words and definitions and justifications. That's all you are capable of. Bravo.
Take a closer look at what's written (you didn't even have time to read it) and you'll see that it's very straightforward, no "spin doctoring" required.
Clearly you'd already made up your mind to disagree and dismiss it NO MATTER WHAT was shown to you.
a) I've read it before. You assume (erroneously) that I am unfamiliar with apologetics press, and even made a bet with my wife that you would copy from that site.
b) I've read the many, plentiful and scholarly rebuttals from trained and credentialed theologians and biblical scholars who have thoroughly REFUTED what's posted in apologetics press as erroneous and false, and not conclusive with biblical scholarship in peer-reviewed, public works
c) You completely proved my point about spin doctoring - although you didn't bother to try yourself. You just found a site that agreed with your position (and therefore interpreted the prophecy) and copied and pasted it into a forum, rather than formulating your own argument. I could respond to it, but it's genuinely not worth the time and effort of me digging through my storage closet to find my textbooks and papers from my time in college - only to have it completely disregarded and ignored and justified to be/mean something else. I just wanted to see a perfect example of my point with your post, and you completely obliged. Thanks for that.
I can clearly add (with your edit) that you are completely unwilling to concede any point that disagrees with your chosen position, no matter how scholarly or convincing it may be. You can accuse me of being closed minded all you want, but you're just as guilty - so I really don't care what your opinion about me may be. Thanks for playing.
From my lowly position, barely able to see anyone on such a high horse, may I point out that 1) You've used other sources yourself, and 2) almost everything I post is my own words with only a few places I've copied/pasted and then sited relevant material (I've said before I'm not comfortable opening links and would prefer the material be placed within the post, so this is the manner in which I do it).
I've read about the prophesies in various places myself, and see that they have in fact been fulfilled. Please excuse me for not writing my own paper on it for you.
Absolutely NO spin doctoring is required. Just a little understanding. But if your mind is already made up, then I guess that is that.
I can easily say the same about you, and your closed mind on anything that may even challenge what you want to be true, regardless of whether or not it actually IS. Since you consider me closed minded, however, and seem to be becoming rather irate (while this whole thing is rather humorous to me) I don't see any value in continuing. I make conversation and learning and people who are willing to question and admit that being wrong is a possibility based on future, yet unknown evidence. I don't claim to know everything, and being wrong is entirely possible, but it's going to take a lot more than your assertions and insistence to make that a genuine, worthwhile effort. It's a pity, really. Good night.
"Bake" away, then. But as for Aaron, he's all mine! (Just happens to be my husband's name. And if you go and edit your post, then this one won't make any sense). Have a good night yourself. I've found humor here as well.
I edited before I saw your post. It turns out that the predictive text on my phone is not a very good prophet either. Kind of like Ezekiel that way, really.
This is the first time I've actually felt a kinship with you based on humor and sarcasm. It's a genuine pity that we can't seem to see eye to eye on anything else.
Well, I did get a good laugh anyway, which was probably needed. I'll try to lighten up. No hard feelings here.
How'd did you do that? Made a prediction that moments later was shown to be correct? Cool.
Here was JMcFarland's "prophecy" as you call it - "I'm sure you'll just found a way too verbally weasel out of them and justify them to yourself. I don't anyone else would be convinced by your spin doctoring, though..." Where exactly am I "verbally weaseling out of them" or using "spin doctoring", since I gave her words of those of the Jewish faith, not even my own words? Doesn't look like you're speaking truth, Rad Man.
And call me the liar? Nice.
It appears you did in fact use the us the example of Israel becoming a nation again and then said you didn't and then call me a liar.
Please read the posts your commenting on, Rad Man. In the post that JMcFarland said I gave her one example, that example was not Israel becoming a nation, but rather the ongoing persecution and perseverance of Israel. Copying from my earlier list of prophecies doesn't change anything.
When I was told by JMcFarland that I would "verbally weasle out of them" or use "spin doctoring", and you then said that she made an accurate prophecy even though I had not even so much as given an opinion, but rather I'd given Jewish text regarding the prophecies of persecution and perseverance of Israel, how can this be considered honest of you, Rad Man?
In addition, each scripture states the very word "before". After further consideration, I appreciate being reminded of what he said. He said his spirit would do it.
by peterxdunn3 years ago
Does this image prove - beyond all doubt - that God does not exist and that the Bible story...cannot be true?Look very carefully at this picture. It was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope (a true miracle of the modern...
by weblog2 years ago
Anyone can answer if interested...
by Cindy Vine12 months ago
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth, who did their children marry?
by IntuitiveMind6 years ago
How Do You Explain The Age of The Universe?I understand religious people believe God made the world and everything in it and everything in the universe. According to the bible, the world is only several...
by aka-dj6 years ago
I found the following article most interesting.It's not for the non-technical minds, but not too difficult to grasp what is being said. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16 … t-collide/See what you think.
by Mark Knowles8 years ago
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:Three rounds of:The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)Then...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.