KEEP THIS DISCUSSION REASONABLE AND INTELLIGENT. NO BASHING, NO INSULTS. REMEMBER THE RULES OF THE SECTION.

So, seriously: Can Jesus and his teachings be real, can the word of God be true if the Bible is more of a teaching instrument than the end-all, be-all, no interpretation allowed Word of God???

I'm not going to speak for others here, only for myself: I have a hard time swallowing the Bible as a 100% accurate, totally correct book of history. I don't believe for one second that every human on Earth came from Adam and Eve. Could God have created man? Absolutely. Can every human on earth have come from those two? No way. There is too much variation, not just in blood types, but in other gene functions to allow that. I also don't believe for one second that humans lived to be 700 years old in "the beginning". I also don't think dinosaurs and man lived together at the same time.

I think that if the Bible is true, it isn't accurate: the authors of the Bible took creative license with the stories.

So, can it be possible that God is real, but the Bible is a work of historical fiction?

this is why i don't believe in god as such "(i could tell you what i believe but that might get boring) the bible it's self was written 100's of years after the so called facts not at the time Jesus was on earth, they were stories that were passed down til some one wrote them and said it was the Gosple according to who ever the stories came from. i have always believed that the bible was/is the best fiction story ever created. Also if you look at it logically all those that seem to believe in the same god do not read the same bible "(or they do but it is interpreted to suit them)

that is just my opinon

have you read the bible? not flaming, just curious

have you ark?

once, while I was in high school. wasn't really in the right frame of mind at the time

have you read the bible? not flaming, just curious

If that was directed at me, yes.

not only have i read the bible my parents forced me to go to church and i went to a catholic college, oh and i also have several books of scriptures on my book shelf

once, while I was in high school. wasn't really in the right frame of mind at the time
What frame of mind are you talking about?
I read the bible twice when I was born again.

1 Corinthians 15:12-20 (New International Version)

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

based on?



based on?

Dude, please: Stop using AIG. I believe your arguments less when you use AIG, simply because of how they fucked up the blood types thing. They don't have an ounce of credibility.

As far as why I don't believe in the 700 years stuff, simple: If we all had those same genes, we'd all be living that long.

Dinosaurs and man: The bones have never been found together. Ever.

1 Corinthians 15:12-20 (New International Version)

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

You guys are missing my point. I didn't say that it's not true, I said is it possible for the Bible to be TRUE, just not 100% accurate.

For example: Let's say I said Michael Jordan could jump really, high, like 5 feet straight up. That's true, but not accurate. He can jump really high, just not 5 feet. Follow me?

Yes, but the bible doesn't say Jesus "like" rose from the dead.

Therefore, if it's a pack of lies, it teaches nothing.

The basis is the character of God.

Yes, but the bible doesn't say Jesus "like" rose from the dead.

Therefore, if it's a pack of lies, it teaches nothing.

The basis is the character of God.

OK, you still aren't wrapping your brain around this.

I'm not saying that yes, it happened or no, it didn't happen, I'm talking TIME FRAME HERE.

God created Earth in six days. OK, in God time. In human time, hundreds of millions of years. God created man. Sure, but maybe more than one set. Humans lived, yes. For 700 years, no. I'm talking creative license, exagerration. There was a giant flood... in Noah's area. Not the whole world, I'm talking more like New Orleans: It was localized.

Now do you get it???

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it :P

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

This language does not indicate "Millions of Years" or "God Time"

Therefore, to infer such, would say that the scripture is incorrect or lying, or to make a really major stretch.

More NASCAR. Thanks anyway, Tofu.

I think that if the Bible is true, it isn't accurate: the authors of the Bible took creative license with the stories.

So, can it be possible that God is real, but the Bible is a work of historical fiction?

1. Who makes you the decider of truth? Truth is truth despite what you or I think of it. Either the bible is true or it isn't and what determines it's truth is not your opinion of it's credibility. Agree? If you can agree with me here, we can move on.

1. Who makes you the decider of truth? Truth is truth despite what you or I think of it. Either the bible is true or it isn't and what determines it's truth is not your opinion of it's credibility. Agree? If you can agree with me here, we can move on.

Ugh. Another one misses the point.

If two people apparently "Missed the point" then you really should rephrase it, instead of just saying "Ugh" or brushing off what I'm saying as "NASCAR"

If you want to have a dialogue, then attempt to be understood. If you want to slyly insult us for "missing the point" then this thread is in the wrong section. It's . . . disrespect (http://www.theforumlounge.com/read-and-acknowledge-t10682.html)ful.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it :P



This language does not indicate "Millions of Years" or "God Time"

Therefore, to infer such, would say that the scripture is incorrect or lying, or to make a really major stretch.

Fine, but how long did it take for the earth to spin then to make one day????
Case closed.

sorry just to Tofu, do you think the world was made in seven days in the literal sense??

JW's believe that is one of the most misconcieved ideas, it was done in "Gods" Time 1000 human years is like 1 god year

Fine, but how long did it take for the earth to spin then to make one day????
Case closed.

Thank you.

If two people apparently "Missed the point" then you really should rephrase it, instead of just saying "Ugh" or brushing off what I'm saying as "NASCAR"

If you want to have a dialogue, then attempt to be understood. If you want to slyly insult us for "missing the point" then this thread is in the wrong section. It's . . . disrespect (http://www.theforumlounge.com/read-and-acknowledge-t10682.html)ful.

I made it totally clear, and you guys are choosing to argue semantics. Therefore, I'm not going to bother with it.

I am not one to get into a YEC debate beyond what I've already said, especially since it is off topic (or what I perceived the topic to be). Personally, I believe scripture is accurate and true, and I would like a debate on that topic, that is what I thought this thread was. I am not eloquent or exceedingly wise, but I proclaim to you the testimony about the God of Israel. I resolve to know nothing, except the messiah and his sacrifice.

And if you want to talk about JWs, ask bx7, not myself. They have their own bible, and set of beliefs, and it's not a real translation as much as a perversion, again, OT.

I made it totally clear, and you guys are choosing to argue semantics. Therefore, I'm not going to bother with it.

I disagree.

I believe scripture is accurate and true, and I would like a debate on that topic. I proclaim to you the testimony about the God of Israel. I resolve to know nothing, except the messiah and his sacrifice.

And if you want to talk about JWs, ask bx7, not myself. They have their own bible, and set of beliefs, and it's not a real translation as much as a perversion, again, OT.


tofu,
devoting yourself to Christ isn't a fault. The 'perversion' that I believe you are referring to comes when you cant believe how people can get it wrong. You may not define your perception as such.

but isn't that more the point it self, there are all these religions that belive in the 1 god or messiah yet their bibles are different because someone has interpreted it?

tofu,
devoting yourself to Christ isn't a fault. The 'perversion' that I believe you are referring to comes when you cant believe how people can get it wrong. You may not define your perception as such.

I know how they can get it wrong: not checking their sources. (Man, I just opened a can of worms there)

but isn't that more the point it self, there are all these religions that belive in the 1 god or messiah yet their bibles are different because someone has interpreted it?

Not all, my belief is that a person doesn't need someone to interpret the bible for them, they need to do it themselves. I just did my research and picked one up. Mind you, me being Jewish probably gave me a hair of an advantage in that department, or a disadvantage, depending on how you look at it.

Not all, my belief is that a person doesn't need someone to interpret the bible for them, they need to do it themselves. I just did my research and picked one up. Mind you, me being Jewish probably gave me a hair of an advantage in that department, or a disadvantage, depending on how you look at it.
a side point : to behonest i can't believe that there are so many religons out there when Jesus was a Jew.

but isn't that more the point it self, there are all these religions that believe in the 1 god or messiah yet their bibles are different because someone has interpreted it?

in the bible we may both be familiar with, from OT to NT, i see a receding expenditure from the original experience of serving god. today there are many ways to serve a god, certainly, this is fed from fears and confusion because all parties involved feel souls are a terrible thing to waste.

a side point : to behonest i can't believe that there are so many religons out there when Jesus was a Jew.


Well, a big part of that is the fact that you can use religion to control people. The Catholic "Church" is a grand example of this. They say that only they can properly interpret scripture, that way they can control the people. That way, the "priests" can tell you what God really ment, and you don't even have to be literate. Ever wonder why they had mass in Latin even though The Bible was Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic? So the people couldn't understand and rebuke the priests (it happened anyway, eventually.)

Most organized churches through history use what is called "replacement theology (http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html)."

The scriptures have been written to be read.

Well, a big part of that is the fact that you can use religion to control people. The Catholic "Church" is a grand example of this. They say that only they can properly interpret scripture, that way they can control the people. That way, the "priests" can tell you what God really meant, and you don't even have to be literate. Ever wonder why they had mass in Latin even though The Bible was Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic? So the people couldn't understand and rebuke the priests (it happened anyway, eventually.)

Most organized churches through history use what is called "replacement theology (http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html)."

The scriptures have been written to be read.
control was happenstance. politically correct or not, most Americans would insist upon English only.
(look at this case study from a xtain point of view http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/the-case-for-english-only/ )

hence 'written in Latin' isn't far fetch argument for siding that study I provided.

"Some people think there must be different ‘races’ of people because there appear to be major differences between various groups, such as skin color and eye shape.

The truth, though, is that these so-called ‘racial characteristics’ are only minor variations among the people groups. Scientists have found that if one were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group.10 But, these so-called ‘racial’ characteristics that many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012 percent difference genetically.11

In other words, the so-called ‘racial’ differences are absolutely trivial. Overall, there is more variation within any group than there is between one group and another. If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and vice versa. The ABC News science page stated, ‘What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.’

The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences this way.

According to the Bible, all people on earth today descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Gen. 1–11). The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and were living together and disobeying God’s command to ‘fill the earth’ (Gen. 9:1; 11:4).13 God confused their language, causing a breakup of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Gen. 11:8–9).

Using modern genetics, we will show how, following such a breakup of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. And there is good evidence to show that the various groups of people we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.

Sounds reasonable to me.

“Dude, please: Stop using AIG. I believe your arguments less when you use AIG, simply because of how they fucked up the blood types thing. They don't have an ounce of credibility.”

Sorry—that may be your opinion of AIG $100T2, but I find them to be a very intelligent, logical, interesting and more far more credible than most of posts on the Religion section which, like I said in a previous post, are mainly intended to get the greatest anger from their intended victim. Further, I find the piece from FZR very interesting so I would say to you—please continue using them as there are more here than your detractor.
For you to throw out AIG over one topic is not too intelligent either. One can object to one part of an item and still continue using the item.

“Dude, please: Stop using AIG. I believe your arguments less when you use AIG, simply because of how they fucked up the blood types thing. They don't have an ounce of credibility.”

Sorry—that may be your opinion of AIG $100T2, but I find them to be a very intelligent, logical, interesting and more far more credible than most of posts on the Religion section which, like I said in a previous post, are mainly intended to get the greatest anger from their intended victim. Further, I find the piece from FZR very interesting so I would say to you—please continue using them as there are more here than your detractor.
For you to throw out AIG over one topic is not too intelligent either. One can object to one part of an item and still continue using the item.

Actually, yeah, I can throw them out based solely on one topic. Why? If they are willing to take something and completely twist it to their own devices because most people won't know the difference, then they are willing to do it with everything.

Of course it sounds reasonable, it's the truth (and most of that info comes from secular researchers)

:lmfao:
Utter nonsense. Let them try and show it but they are anything but secular researchers. Not to mention they are very poor ones judging by that post. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any credible evidence to support that hypothesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter3.asp

"Some people think there must be different ‘races’ of people because there appear to be major differences between various groups, such as skin color and eye shape.

The truth, though, is that these so-called ‘racial characteristics’ are only minor variations among the people groups. Scientists have found that if one were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group.10 But, these so-called ‘racial’ characteristics that many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012 percent difference genetically.11

In other words, the so-called ‘racial’ differences are absolutely trivial. Overall, there is more variation within any group than there is between one group and another. If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and vice versa. The ABC News science page stated, ‘What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.’12

The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences this way.

According to the Bible, all people on earth today descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Gen. 1–11). The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and were living together and disobeying God’s command to ‘fill the earth’ (Gen. 9:1; 11:4).13 God confused their language, causing a breakup of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Gen. 11:8–9).

Using modern genetics, we will show how, following such a breakup of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. And there is good evidence to show that the various groups of people we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time."



based on?



based on?

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=198848&postcount=43

thats a long path to reach to any conclusions of facts. Have any snippets of interest from your source?

yikes, ive left my reading glasses at work. i guess I'm going to hell for laziness.

it was on a sunday anyway. free ticket out of jail

day of rest, spend some time reading the Book

Saturday!

sounds like 95pep, but AIG doesn't "twist" anything...they report origins research from a Biblical perspective, while atheists/agnostics chalk it up to "millions of years"...one may be far more popular in our hopelessly confused age, but that doesn't make it true...again, nothing about events of the ancient past can be PROVEN, do you get it? a model/basis/framework is required...vast imaginary epochs of mutations which defy the Laws of Thermodynamics doesn't constitute "science"

and yet, if you listen to fools....

Dude, they TWIST things. You know I'm talking about blood types. Go to lab school, get a degree, then we'll argue it. They are not infallible, Mark.

again, you're making inferences about the past which cannot be proven, based on what we can observe and study NOW, like all uniformitarianists...ironic that you're the one "twisting" the facts, while claiming to be omniscient on this topic

Wait just a tick, here Marky.

So, I can't prove anything about the past using what we can observe and study now, but they can, using (very poorly) the exact same technical material I am????

Isn't that convenient???

Question: Where in the Bible does it say which scientific things you can trust, and which are all lies from Satan? I looked, I didn't see that chapter.

I'd have to review that article again, it doesn't mention the possibility of mutation?

Mark: You aren't following me. THEY USED THE FUCKING AABB MANUAL. That's pure, hard science. And, I'm telling you right now: You cannot mutate a blood type. It is impossible.

empircal science, properly applied, is always the final word on truth in the physical dimension

Then how come you accept any science that doesn't go against the Bible, but question that which does? You haven't noticed that with ALL the stuff science has gotten right, the tiny little bit you have an issue with just happens to be the stuff that goes against the word of God?

Mark: You aren't following me. THEY USED THE FUCKING AABB MANUAL. That's pure, hard science.

Now, now, c'mon Mark, answer this. Why can they (who are UNTRAINED and UNLICENSED) use my AABB Manual, but I can't?

It's commonly called the "Technical Manual of the American Association of Blood Banks".

You can't dodge this one, Mark. I'm not letting you off the hook.

/thread

/thread on BLATANT SPECULATION???

GTFO.

i have a question (i don't care how dumb it sounds to some of you but i really couldn't care less) the world was created in 7 "days" well i am curious, was there always 7 days to a week? i mean there only used to be 10 months many thousands of years ago so was there always seven days?