Leaderboard

True History For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Corinthians 15-21 Future History For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15-22

I've done some digging and found some accounts that run counter to the claims of that creation website. I am not going to argue again about OE/YE creationism, ID etc, and cite opposing sources, however. I do not think anyone benefits or is convinced by the arguments either way, so I respectfully bow out.

Did you read my post? Click on the Source document in my last post....it's quite comprehensive. "although some trees do form double rings, this is rare with bristlecones." I've just provided "cited references" then summarily refute this claim quite demonstrably and say the exact opposite.

Romans 6 King James Version (KJV) 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

(2 Timothy 4:2-4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. {3} For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; {4} And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." I can remember coming by this passage for the first time...It scared the living daylights out of me. Ever since, all power has been diverted to my Deflector Shields. Quite Sobering.....Prophetic.....and a Dire Warning! Hope this helps Brothers and Sisters

When I read this I think that it is important to guard the avenues of your soul. Whatever you let into your body with your eyes will either allow your eyes to be a lamp that lets light in or allows it to be darkened because you let in whatever you wish. This is especially true when choosing entertainment. Just my 2 cents.

Before being saved, I used to believe in the doctrine of Karma and it is somewhat similar to the concept of 'you reap what you sow'. The problem with karma however, is that you have no get-out clause - you pay back every penny of the debt that you owe. Jesus forgives us our sins. He pays our debts for us. Karma on the other hand,is a concept that comes from Hinduism, a false religion that cannot offer salvation.

1. You've mentioned before that you're not an expert on the hebrew language. Can you please provide references for this interpretation? 2. God's word is intended to be read and understood by all men, not just those with an intimate understanding of the grammatical structure of Hebrew. I still hold to my previous assertion that that verse doesn't necessarily prove that physical death was caused by the fall. The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination. It has none of the hallmarks of a parable. So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable? And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't. Again with the mockery of the word of God. Why do you hate the Bible so much??? Sorry, but you don't anything about how textual analysis works. OldSchool: I think there are a lot of metaphorical aspects of the first few chapters of Genesis. In fact, the whole bible is analogous in nature, including that parts that also happened literally. God definitely uses history to teach us. He also used it as part of prophecy or foreshadowing of the future. There are countless examples of this. As for the "imaginative" parts of the bible: I think we need to be careful rejecting something as actually happening just because it is hard to believe. This, I believe, is the basis for all of Shiloh's arguments and the reason he gets so heated at times. I do agree with him on this...to a point. But the bible was not intended to be taken completely literally in every part. The words it uses don't always refer to physical things. We all see through a glass darkly, we only know in part. I honestly believe when we find out the truth of what actually happened, it will be much different than what we've concocted with our limited, fallible minds and the little information that we have. Shiloh: Was that verbal lashing really necessary? OldSchool has some legitimate questions. And he seems to be a Christian, so why would you assume he hates the bible? Please, could you be a bit kinder in your posts. It is getting harder and harder to remain civil with you. 1Cr 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination. It has none of the hallmarks of a parable. So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable? And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't. Aesop didn't write parables, he wrote fables. They are not one in the same ... According to Merriam-Webster: Parable: a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth. Fable: a narration intended to teach a lesson. Genesis 1-3 is neither. It is an historical narrative. it is not a fable or a parable. It wasn't written to teach a moral lesson ... If Genesis doesn't teach the moral lesson that in Adam all have sinned, how can Paul write Romans 5:12 and the verses after it?

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination. It has none of the hallmarks of a parable. So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable? And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't. You may do with the book as you wish but you will face the one Who wrote it! As it is your choice and your responsibility to seek God within His Word... God specifically says because of sin we cannot see clearly now in this place and the literal view of Genesis is the only one allowed by the construct of Scripture ... So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges? "Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers." http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Yes, yes I am. But I will no longer blindly accept things that I am told just because that is the way they have always been taught.

there are about 150,000 people a day that die in this world, and has been that way for some time.... I would not think that all these people have heard the Gospel..... especially those of ten to fifteen years ago. But even if it's one....... it begs the question of this thread. For the record I have no answer other than they are in the hands of a Just and Loving God. But hey I am not a Calvinist so that might not work for everyone.

I don't think so. If you watch the film "Expelled" with Ben Stein, it is clear that the evolution community considers ID to be sourge of the earth. Yeah. But suppose you decide to ignore their distaste of ID and look just at the principles.

Well, then what do you think of it as?God telling us the story of how the earth was recreated (my belief) and the first man created in Gods image. No parable, just the facts.Just curious here OS, Why dont you see this literally?Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel. A parable is a story, fictional, making a point. Since Adam is referenced in the New Testament even by Jesus and Paul, then that settles that for me-he is a real person, no story at all. In fact, paul says he was the first man, and that all died because of one mans sin-Adam. Does that sound like a fictional story? Read this 5th chapter in Romans and tell me what you think- Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Blessings Jesus Christ Driven God Bless you,thank You for such a lovely OP.......Glory to God,His words are so beautiful!Can you just not read them over & over & over........Ahhhhh,we are so loved by our Lord.........Praise Jesus! Welcome to Worthy,glad you are here........yes,we are all working together as His Body.......yes,we can strive towards perfection..............yes,we can do ALL things in Christ Jesus! With love,in Christ-Kwik

Brian, first of all, I play guitar also! The answer is that what you see in the NT is what is called "believer's baptism". People hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and part of the positive response and acceptance of the Gospel as truth is to be baptized in water, which graphically portrays the death, burial, and raising of Christ. By doing this act, a person is choosing to both identify themselves as a believer in Jesus Christ, and to symbolically put their own old, sinful life to burial and be raised up into a new life in Christ. The true baptism is spiritual, in which the Holy Spirit enters, changes, and dwells inside the believer, and also makes that person a true member of the "body of Christ" which is His real church on earth. Therefore, we are both "in Christ" (his body) and "Christ is in" us (by the Holy Spirit). An infant can be put through a ceremony, but an infant can not choose Christ as his personal savior. The water baptism only has meaning in the context of its spiritual reality, which is as I described, according to the scriptures. It's never a ceremony or the water that saves, but the answer of a person's conscience towards God, and a commitment, therefore, to Jesus Christ, resulting in the baptism by the Spirit of God: you in Him, and Him in you. Hope this clarifies, Andy

Yeah when sediments cover dead animals, I can see how it will take a long time for them to completely rot and all that. I can see how it could take a thousand or more years. But 65 million years? There's NO way. To find anything but a bone or rock PROVES that the dinosaurs did not die over 65 million years ago.

If that's what this 'upscale' restaurant serves....I'll go to McDonald's! Looks like bait to me....

Last week the Saints beat the Eagles in a football game. that is not in the bible, do you then refuse to believe it?

It is not in the Bible?Then I do not believe it.