• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories"

leibowde84

Veteran Member
That's all because you have no knowledge or understanding. Who and what is the Celestial man.
Of course I do. Here's a picture of them:
2ab593361cabc9242cfd43c19f4634c6jpg.jpeg
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Seems like you are guilty of the sin of pride. I don't think it is possible for a human being to understand the Bible perfectly. There is no "perfect" in this reality.

It's real easy to understand the Bible perfectly. If you understand the 3 earth ages. By understanding the 3 earth ages, everything else falls into place perfectly in order in the Bible.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
It's real easy to understand the Bible perfectly. If you understand the 3 earth ages. By understanding the 3 earth ages, everything else falls into place perfectly in order in the Bible.
But, without outside evidence, it is extremely stupid to believe in the claimed "3 earth stages" in the Bible. So, what outside evidence do you use to confirm the claims made about this in the Bible?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Well you just proved of not knowing the bible
That's a very silly thing to say. I merely asked a question. Do you not understand my question? The Bible is merely a book of claims, whether you accept that or not. Without outside evidence, every claim is, by definition, unsubstantiated. So, I'll ask you. What outside evidence do you use to confirm the claims made in the Bible about what existed before time?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
P
It seems like everyone on this site understands the Bible better than you. I would suggest looking into historical studies of the Bible. That might make you understand it better.


Had you and others realized that the Bible was only written to a selected few people.
Thats why Christ said, many are called, But the few are chosen. Therefore the bible was only written to the few.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
That's a very silly thing to say. I merely asked a question. Do you not understand my question? The Bible is merely a book of claims, whether you accept that or not. Without outside evidence, every claim is, by definition, unsubstantiated. So, I'll ask you. What outside evidence do you use to confirm the claims made in the Bible about what existed before time?


Well again you proved my point, That you have no knowledge or understanding about the bible.

My outside evidence, before this world that we live in existed. Well for one we have the dinosaurs bones that shows the earth is millions of years old. And not what people are taught that the earth as being 6000 yrs old.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
My outside evidence, before this world that we live in existed. Well for one we have the dinosaurs bones that shows the earth is millions of years old. And not what people are taught that the earth as being 6000 yrs old.

It isn't the bones that shows the Earth is millions of years old. It's the ratios of isotopes in the rocks.

Where is the outside evidence for this Celestial Man?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
It isn't the bones that shows the Earth is millions of years old. It's the ratios of isotopes in the rocks.

Where is the outside evidence for this Celestial Man?

Seeing the dinosaurs bones dates back to some 65 million years ago, That in it's self proves the earth is alot older than any 6000 yrs old, as people are being taught.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
First of all what does everything that you given have to do with 2nd kings 24:6-8 and
2nd Chronicles 36:8-9.

Maybe you should try staying with the subject at hand.
Besides all the books that you give there was only one book that was used in reference and that was KJV 1611.

I am not one to try and keep up with all those other books, As I use to do, I have found it's much better to go by one book than try to carry a bunch of other books around.
And as for Translation, I have the Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek and the companion bible which also has the Hebrew and Greek and English Translations.

So if you want to talk about the Bible with me, go by the KJV 1611, other than that, you will find it no use with me.

This is why your all mix-up and confused, trying to keep up with so many other Translations of the bible.
As I understand it, the Strong’s Concordance, is not a new English translation. It is just the KJV translation with parallel Greek and Hebrew sources.

So basically it is still outdated English translation. And by using the KJV, it also make Strong’s Concordance, just as outdated as the KJV.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
As I understand it, the Strong’s Concordance, is not a new English translation. It is just the KJV translation with parallel Greek and Hebrew sources.

So basically it is still outdated English translation. And by using the KJV, it also make Strong’s Concordance, just as outdated as the KJV.

Well you just explained yourself, of not having and idea or clue what your talking about.
 
Top