Dave Watchman
Active Member
Is it correct for me to infer that you agree with science only when it doesn't conflict with your interpretation of scripture?
Correct.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it correct for me to infer that you agree with science only when it doesn't conflict with your interpretation of scripture?
Why?Correct.
Why?
The theory of evolution does not rely on carbon dating at all.Just because scientific observation is right on one or more occasions, would that mean it is correct on all?
If the thermometer has a correct reading of 80°F in my fish tank, does that mean that radio carbon dating can be trusted to the same degree?
Should I risk eternal life on it?
“The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” - Luke 17:20
Peaceful Sabbath.
But then you in effect claim that God lied. That makes no sense to me.I'm a Bible believer.
God was there.
I was not.
God told it to His friend Moses.
Moses wrote it down.
I believe it.
The theory of evolution does not rely on carbon dating at all.
But then you in effect claim that God lied. That makes no sense to me.
I wonder who would win an arm wrestle, me or a 400 year old Noah.
Embedded age alone is calling God a liar.I'm not too worried about carbon dating anyway.
If God wanted to, He could create the earth with age embedded into the elements.
Embedded age.
My version of humanity hasn't been here long enough to evolve anyway.
Only to degrade.
I wonder who would win an arm wrestle, me or a 400 year old Noah.
I am not talking about the crucifixion or its message. Most Christians realize that Genesis cannot be read literally."For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:18
I'm sure you would - he would probably have had brittle-bone disease by then.
No way.
They could live 900 years.
Those guys were closer to the creation.
They had not the same exposure as we do to an Earth defiled by 6000 years of sin.
They were as strong as a horse.
You never pick a fight with an antediluvian.
Again, no. We can tell how long people lived in general. It weakens Christianity to try to demand certain stories in the Bible were true. The Flood is a perfect example.No way.
They could live 900 years.
Those guys were closer to the creation.
They had not the same exposure as we do to an Earth defiled by 6000 years of sin.
They were as strong as a horse.
You never pick a fight with an antediluvian.
I am not talking about the crucifixion or its message. Most Christians realize that Genesis cannot be read literally.
I'll take your word for it - but not some historical text.
But you are claiming falsification of data. Every piece of evidence tells us that Genesis is myth. That there was no flood. That life is the product of evolution. In other words God would have had to lie by falsification if those stories are true.I know.
I would just never say that G-d lies.
Information is being withheld at this time.
That's not the same thing as falsifying the data.
We're going to find out what's going on soon, I have a hunch what it is.
Because this guy, and his grizzly specifications,:
Were NOT created after our image, and after our likeness.
“Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness. - Genesis 1:26
That "historical text" as you call it, is too elaborate to be fake.
It's too big, from Genesis, to Revelation.
When I look at some of the competition, then yes, it could be written by a few regular guys.
But not the Bible.
There's too many Biblical authors, spanning too many years, for this all to be a fluke.
Why not? It is full of flaws. The God of the Bible is far from perfect. It looks like slightly better than average myth.That "historical text" as you call it, is too elaborate to be fake.
It's too big, from Genesis, to Revelation.
When I look at some of the competition, then yes, it could be written by a few regular guys.
But not the Bible.
There's too many Biblical authors, spanning too many years, for this all to be a fluke.
But you are claiming falsification of data. Every piece of evidence tells us that Genesis is myth. That there was no flood. That life is the product of evolution. In other words God would have had to lie by falsification if those stories are true.
Besides that those stories tell us that God is incompetent and evil if taken literally. Are you sure that you have thought this through?
God cannot slough off the blame on the Devil if he is omniscient and omnipotent. God is ultimately responsible.Like Isaac Newton said: "Let time be the Interpreter."
If Genesis is true. Time is running out. The Bible only talks of 6000 years on man on earth prior to the second coming and the start of the thousand years of Revelation 20.
There's been a few guys adding up the generations of Genesis. But I suspect the time begins, not from creation week, but when Eve came on the scene.
God did not create Evil.
And God can't murder.
Those people were caught up in the Devil's bargain.