sinnersavedbygrace

Amen! More food for thought Religions and religious leaders/founders say: "Follow me and I'll show you the way" JESUS said: "I AM the Way" They say: "Follow me and I'll show you the truth" JESUS said: "I AM the Truth" They say: "Follow me and I'll show you the door" JESUS said: "I AM the Door" They say: "Follow me and I'll show you eternal life" JESUS said: "I AM the Life" They say: "Follow me and I'll show you peace" JESUS is the Prince of Peace They say: "Follow me and we'll have peace on earth" The fact is that the world will not know true and everlasting peace until Jesus comes again! Something else: I'm tired of politicians using religion as a footstool. GOD is not a democrat, nor is GOD a republican, HE is King of Kings, He is the sovereign ruler of this universe. Irregardless of political stance, everyone will either choose to bow the knee before the King and Lord Jesus or they will be forced to their knees in eternity:

Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. Awesome! You all had good things to say. I would like to comment on something though. Psalm 51 is a beautiful psalm and is often used to demonstrate the fact that GOD will remain with those who are broken over sin and forgive them. But that was Old Testament times. Psalm 51:11 "Do not cast me away from Your presence: and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me"...David prayed, do not take your Spirit away FROM me. But now we are under the New Covenant, which was ushered in by Jesus Christ. As our savior said in John 14:17 "The Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells WITH you and WILL be IN you", in the OT in which David lived the HS lived WITH GOD's people, but now in the NT the Spirit dwells WITHIN us. Before being shown this I would often pray "take not thy Holy Spirit from me" but now I realize how silly a request that is...we are under a new covenant see Hebrews chapters 7-10... We have the Holy Spirit INSIDE of us now. This does not invalidate the OT in anyway, it in fact fullfills or completes the OT. Take heart dear children of GOD, HE will never leave us nor forsake us. Sometimes when I doubt if GOD is there I rest on HIS Word and KNOW that HE is, even if my emotions say something else. Even in your sin, GOD hears you. You are a child of the Most High GOD. When in doubt, trust in HIS Word. Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please HIM, for he who comes to GOD must believe that HE is, and that HE is a rewarder of those who diligently seek HIM." Have faith dear, HE hears your prayers. I look forward to greeting you all with a hug in heaven

Please don't doubt GOD's goodness. The link was removed, so I could not read it. Super Jew did a good job at answering. Although much more could be said. First off, we need to realize who we are. We are basically a ball of dirt. In the Old Testament, GOD is sometimes seen as being unkind, which couldn't be farther from the truth. GOD is just. "For the wages of sin is death" You sin you die, simple. What's so mean about that? Nothing when you think about it, it's called justice. It's called playing fair. However GOD doesn't like to play fair. huh? Yup, I said it. GOD would rather play merciful. The OT was a foreshadowing of the things to come. The New Testament, the testament of grace, not law and justice. The Old was perfectly fair, those who believed and played by the rules won, those who defied GOD's commands, lost. We can look upon the OT and thank GOD that we are not under the law anymore. The only unforgiveable sin now is "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" I've heard two takes on this, 1) "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is attributing to Satan a blessing/work that you absolutely know was done by GOD" and 2) "the rejection of Christ, because the HS leads you to conviction, but you reject". Either way, we have it far better then the OT of law and justice. We have grace. GOD is good, all the time. In the OT HE saved those who trusted HIM, in the NT it's pretty much the same, except HE took away the law, because no one can keep the law, and installed "Saved by grace through faith". Dear person, if you are beggining to doubt GOD's goodness, just pause....take a breath...and remember every breath, is a direct gift from GOD almighty to you, as well as every other good thing in your life, even your life itself, as well as salvation. In the OT GOD gave many chances for peoples to repent, for example, HE sent Noah to warn the people for more than 100 years, and they still rejected GOD and did not repent. HE sent Jonah to Ninevah, who did listen to GOD and repent, and were spared. Today we live under grace, however as one great pastor has said " the waves of GOD's holy wrath are pounding against the dam of HIS mercy" Those who reject Christ, will have chosen GOD's justice "the wages of sin is death" over HIS mercy "saved by grace through faith in Christ" Every good thing you have is a gift from GOD, even your trials are permitted by GOD, so that HE can deliver you and strengthen your faith, "for HE works all things for the good of those who love HIM" So concerning GOD's great goodness...indescribable ... furthermore ... "GOD was in Christ reconciling the world to HIMSELF" ALMIGHTY GOD DIED FOR YOU ON THE CROSS. How could HE get any more kind and merciful? If this came across strong, I apologize, I wanted to state the facts and I was hoping this would be encouraging. Please don't let anyone force wicked lies into your head, about GOD possibly not being a good...great...almighty perfect GOD...when you are in doubt...think of the cross and smile

Is God fair/just? Yes God is. But oh how I thank the Lord that He is not only fair and just. Oh PRAISE THE LORD that He is not only just. Without a doubt, you and me and everyone deserve eternal damnation. We know that "all have fallen short of the glory of God" and that "the wages of sin is death". To be "fair" or "just" God should kill us all, send us to hell. But God is not only fair. He is the Father of Mercy. He is merciful! And praise Him for that. Because God is merciful and gave Himself up for our sins on the cross, we can be pardoned from God's justice. We can receive mercy. God doesn't send anyone to hell, they choose to go to hell, by refusing to accept God's mercy. Yes God is fair...but also merciful. And oh how grateful we are that He is "longsuffering towards us, willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance". Praise be to the Father of Mercy!

I agree with everything you say vrspock except this: "Christ did not die on the cross because He was doing it for us. He even pleaded with the Father to "take this cup from me" but only "if it be Thy will"" Yes Christ died because it was the Father's will. But there are also many many other reasons Christ died. One of which was to reconcile us unto Himself, because He knew we were and are helpless to save ourselves. He died to take away our sins and condemnation, etc. So He died also for us. There is a book out by John Piper called "The Passion of Jesus Christ" It includes 50 reasons why Jesus came to die.

SA!!!! WELCOME TO THE FAMILY BRO!!!!!!!!! Praise the Lord! He is great!! I'm so glad to hear the news!! I'll be praying for you, anything in particular? Also though I'm not sure, I think you are the type of guy who likes details and accurate info. I have a HUGE collection about the size of 3 phonebooks of New Testament Word Studies in the Greek. So if you want to know exactly and literally what a passage says and means, please feel free to ask! (Also for anyone who wants to know about a verse, just ask)

A lot of christians I speak with think that they are constantly under the gun and constantly feeling bad for the sins that they have committed. The bible says that where all guilty of sin and that when sin every day. In order to be right with god we'd have to be praying and asking for forgiveness 24-7. This is not possible. So how do we make it to heaven. And is it wrong for us to enjoy our lifes??? ................................................................................ ....................................................................... This is taken from the book "Word Studies in the Greek New Testament" by Wuest volume 1. It is a literal transliteration from the greek to english. It breaks down everything and gives great detailed explanation. I hope this quote helps. ROMANS chapter 8 " (8:1) Alford sums up the contents of this chapter as follows: 'In the case of those who are in Christ Jesus, this divided state ends in glorious triumph of the Spirit over the flesh: and that (vv.1-17) though incompletely, not inconsiderably, even in this state--and (vv.18-30) completely and gloriously hereafter. And (vv.31-39) the Christian has no reason to fear, but all reason to hope; for nothing can sever him/her from God's love' Commenting specifically on verses 1-17 he says; 'Although the flesh is still subject to the law of sin, the Christian, serving not the flesh, but walking according to the Spirit, shall not come into condemnation, but to glory with Christ.' The words "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," are rejected by both Nestle and Westcott and Hort. Paul does not base his assertion of no condemnation to the saint upon the saint's conduct, but upon his position in Christ. His position in Christ has liberated him from the compelling power of the evil nature and made him a partaker of the divine nature, a new inner condition which produces in every saint a life which has for its motive, obedience to His commandments. In other words, it is what God has made the believing sinner that insures the fact that there is no cause for condemnation in him. This is further explained in verses 2-4. TRANSLATION ROMANS 8:1 "Therefore, now, there is not even one bit of condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus."" ................................................................................ ..................................................................... I love that, NOT EVEN ONE BIT OF CONDEMNATION. Not even a bit. Praise the Lord!! There is much more I'd like to add, but I think Romans 8:1 offers much more comfort then anything I could say.

Off the top of my head I can think of three maybe four major world religions, other than Christianity. So why is Christianity the right choice? According to Wikipedia, Christianity has the largest number of followers with a total of 2.1 Billion. That breaks down into 1.1 Billion Catholics, 350 million Protestants, 240 million Eastern Orthodox, and 84 million Anglicans. All, very respectable figures. Next is Islam, with a total of 1.3 Billion followers, so Islam is actually more popular than any of the different Christian denominations. It then classes

QUOTE Darwin dismissed his theory of evolution adn for some reason, abunch of people that do not want to listen to the truth, decide to jump on the band wagon about a bunch of lies....... QUOTE Again, I'd ask you to evidence this - as noone else has been able to. As far as we know, Darwin's deathbed recantation of evolution is a myth - noone has been able to come up with a scrap of evidence that it actually occured. Wait a minute...do you mean...Am I for the first time going to take sides with ScientificAtheist?! Just joking SA. But yes as far as we know, the idea that Darwin denounced evolution and furthermore converted to Christianty is a myth. The fact of the matter remains: Evolution is not valid nor invalid simply because someone does or does not believe in it. The question is not "who believes in evolution?" but simply "Is evolution true?" Same is said for creationism. Creationism is not valid because someone believes in it, but rather, did it actually happen? "In my experience, fundamental Christians would rather do any and all of the above instead of simply saying "I don't care if it doesn't make sense, I WANT to believe what I WANT to believe regardless of any evidence"." In my resent research there is something I've noticed happening more and more: There will be both fundamental Christians and evolutionists who do this. Despite the "evidence" shown by either side, both will almost always twist and attack what was said. Both will provide more "evidence" to refute the oppositions "evidence" and it seems both sides dance around the questions posed in the rebuttle. Perhaps both sides should say "these are the 100 basic points of our theory", and stick to them, instead of "evolving" them as "evidence" is provided against them, in this dance it may never be possible to disprove the other theory. Both will try to explain how the other side doesn't make any sense, and may I add, for the one who doesn't believe in the other sides theory, it more often then not truly makes no sense to them. I will not understand evolution, now that's not to say I don't understand the basic theory which does make sense, but I don't understand how mutations that are beneficial will be held on to while the mutations that are non-beneficial will be released before defecting the species until over many good changes and much time a new species will arrive. I can understand having several hundred species of dog via changes over time, but they are still dog. I don't see how a dog can evolve to a horse. Or how my great great great great great great great great great great......grandfather was a fish? And furthermore, I don't understand how evolution can be true with the things opposing it. e.g. irreducible complexity/2nd law of thermodynamics etc. EVERYONE has an opinion...but that's just my opinion P.S. Though many won't agree with me on this...creationism is stated thus: God created the universe and all life fully formed, not needing millions/billions of years to evolve. The challenge for evolutionists is to prove that the world and life were not suddenly spoken into existence by God. But like I said, many won't agree with me on this simple explanation of creation.

"The Old Testament writings and all the New Testament writings and any new writings that will be declared canonical by the Catholic Church but excluding any writings that the Church deems to be non-canonical?" This is a common misunderstanding. No fault of yours of course. But the Catholic Church is not and never was the authority for canonicity. How then do we determine what is inspired and what is not? The central factor in determining canonicity was apostolic authorship or approval. Since the apostles' authority came from the Lord Jesus Himself. The Old Testament if confirmed in that Jesus recognized it as the Word of God. As well as the apostles and Jewish religious leaders. Christians hold that the Holy Spirit guided the process because He guided the writings. It wouldn't make sense for Him to inspire the writing, then not insure that we properly recognize what writing is His. These are some simple guidelines. 1) Was it actually written by God's prophet or apostle or someone closely related to one? 2) Was the author confirmed by acts of God? 3) Did the books message tell the truth about God? 4) Did the book contain God's power? 5)Was it accepted by God's people? (The Jews, not the catholic church) Why is it so important that we know this? 1) Heretics began circulating incomplete collections and obviously false writings. 2) Fake books falsely written under and apostles name were appearing in some churches 3) Christianity spread and missionaries needed to know what sacred writings to translate. 4) The edict of Diocletian in A.D. 303 ordered the destruction of Christians' sacred writings and threatened death for those who refused. Christians wanted to know what books were worth dying for. So what about the Apocrypha? A collection of 14 books (I believe, or 15) of Jewish history and tradition written from 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D. The argument against the Apocrypha is as follows. 1) The Jews never accepted it as Scripture and did not include it in their Bible 2) What acceptance it did enjoy was temporary and local. 3) It contains errors 4) No major church council included it as Scripture 5) It teaches contrary to other Scripture. 6) Neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers ever quoted it 7) The Christian churches that did eventually accepted it, didn't do so until centuries later. Greatly influenced by Augustine, the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century included the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. However, we must add that contrary to the impression given by Catholic apologists, the apocrypha were not officially recognized by the Catholic church as canonical at Hippo and Carthage. The apocrypha were finally added to the Old Testament by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Why the 16th century? Perhaps it had something to do with the Protestant reformation and the Catholic Church wanting to appear as the ONE TRUE church of God as they still claim to be. (I've attended Catholic mass for 4 years, and spoke with Catholic priests)

"I have strong enough faith that I can accept that the Bible is man's best guess - inspired by God but filtered through man's fallibility - without damaging it. I feel sorry for those who who's faith is so fragile, and who's need for a comforting "absolute truth" is so bad, that admitting the fallibility of the Bible's text would bring bring their faith to ruin." It's not that I need comfort in "absolute truth" as some suppose, but rather pure logic demands an absolute. The Law of Non-Contradiction simply states that A is not non-A. I cannot be typing this sentence and not typing this sentence. The Bible cannot be the inerrant Word of God and not the inerrant Word of God. Now I won't argue that all Bible translations are inerrant, which would be a silly stance to take, seeing how many non-believing companies have given a shabby translation in order to take a piece of the profit that is in selling Bibles. I do however hold that the revelation of God to man via the Scriptures is inerrant, in the original language in which the text was written. Some may argue "well that gets him off the hook, we don't have any of the originals". True but we have copies, and copies of copies. Now some argue that the errors occur in the copies and copies of copies. Granted many of today's English translations contain errors. But in the Hebrew and Greek texts there are none of these supposed "errors". I will use English translations of the Bible to illustrate my point, despite the possibility of certain things being lost in translation due to the limited English idiom we have, the message remains clear. "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say" (Ex. 4:11-12) "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel" (Ex. 34:27). The word tenor in Hebrew refers to "blowing out of the mouth"; the words that Moses wrote came from the mouth of God. Can the divine authorship of the Bible be any plainer than that? "The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue" (2 Sam. 23:2). David claims that what he wrote was not his own fancy but were the words of God. "Then the LORD put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me: 'Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.'" (Jer. 1:9) In addition to these direct references to the divine authorship of the Bible, Jeremiah made numerous indirect references to God speaking through him. Nearly 100 times he wrote that "the word of the Lord" (or a similar expression) had come to him. These words appear many times in Ezekiel as well. Hosea spoke in a similar manner. The first verse of his book begins, "The word of the LORD that came to Hosea." A similar expression is found in the first verse of the books of Joel, Jonah, Haggai ,Micah,Obadiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah and Malachi. "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13). "For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe" (1 Thess. 2:13). "For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21). Despite these authors all stating God was the One behind the scriptures. Jesus is quoted as saying: "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak" (John 12:49-50). "For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me" (John 17:8). The Bible makes it clear that it is the Word of God. If the Bible is God's Word as it claims itself to be, then it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is without error. Why? Titus 1:1-2 "1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago" Because God can't lie. And if God who never lies is the source of the Bible, then the Bible is without error, or falsehood, or lies. Now I can provide much more evidence in support of the Bible being true. If you would like this info, please ask. "It makes as much sense as for him to leave it so ambiguous that the various denominations of Christianity (not to mention other religions based on the same text, such as Islam) can all come to different conclusions. If God cared enough about a 100% true message to not allow the fallible human hands writing the Bible to make errors, why would he be happy to let the fallible human hands that translate it and interpret it make errors?" I was under the impression the the text for Islam was the Quran not the Bible. The 5 pillars of Islam are 1) God is one, Allah. 2) God has sent many prophets, including Abraham, Moses and Jesus; of these, Muhammad is the last and greatest. 3) The gap between God and man is filled with angels, some good, some evil. 4) The Quran is the highest book, above the writings of other prophets. 5) We will all stand before Allah on judgement day, when our eternal destiny will be determined by our deeds. Some would try to argue that Islam and Christianity are similar. This simply is not true. The God of Islam and the God of Christianity are very different. Yes they are both sovereign, omnipotent Creators and Judges of the world. But the Christian concept of tri-unity is the ultimate blasphemy to Muslims. Also unlike the Christian God, Allah is distant, lacks or hides his love, motivates by fear, and acts arbitrarily if he wants to. And perhaps the largest two differences are who Jesus was and is and salvation by works not grace. Clearly different. As pertaining to various Christian denominations. Many denominations are due to cultural or applicational differences. They are not divided over the main message of the Bible. And some denominations and even churches within a given denomination have differences because of the personal agenda's they bring to the Bible. It's much easier to find a church in any given denomination that teaches the pastor's/reverend's/Dr.'s/priest's favorite sermons (wealth, success, etc) rather then the Bible in full, cover to cover. And several denominations have plain and simply departed from the obvious message and truth from the word of God. Why would God allow this? Well many people are too prideful. They simply don't want to come to the cross and die, they want to put Jesus in their back pocket and become a millionare! Why would God allow so many different interpretations of His Word? Well because the Holy Spirit is to lead us (believers) into all truth. Many so called "Christians" have never been born again, thus they don't have the Holy Spirit leading them, thus they get very awry interpretations to delight their fancy. God is not going to force Himself or His truth upon a person, but He invites and urges all people to accept Him as King and Savior, but people simply would rather do their own thing.And though He may allow this for a time according to His longsuffering, He will put an end to it. "The context (as given in the preceding verses) shows that the passage that this is taken from is warning us about dangers of false teachings. As such, which is more likely - as a paraphrase of the passage. "You should beware of false teachings. All writings are inspired and useful." or "You should beware of false teachings. Only writings that are inspired are useful." I think we would all agree that when taken in context, the second translation is far more likely to be the author's intended meaning than the first." Thanks for clearing that up. I am in the process of looking for a greek-english translation.

I noticed the posts previous to mine were talking about mathematics, specifically imaginary numbers. You all have fun with that, math isn't my thing,but I would like to share something I found to be interesting. (I forgot who shared this with me) 111,111,111x111,111,111= 12,345,678,987,654,321 pretty cool huh? haha YAY for numbers!! p.s. the only pie I like is one you can eat.

"Why should my polite declining of a deliberately unfair challenge be considered to be "getting upset and leaving"?" This is how I saw the situation. I apologize for speaking on your behalf. Will you accept my apology? "The "entire Christian faith" will not crumble if 1% of the Bible is proven to be incorrect. Most Christians I know will readily agree that large portions of the Bible cannot be taken as literal truth." Let me add something then. The entire true Christian faith will crumble. Those who claim to be "christians" and yet deny absolute truth, more specifically deny the infallible and absolute truth of God's Word (The Bible) are walking on egg-shells and I have serious doubts about their faith. The Bible claims to be the TRUE Word of God. I can't think off-hand the passages I'm looking for except: 2 Timothy 3:16 "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" This verse says ALL scripture including this verse itself is given by inspiration of GOD. If GOD inspired ALL the Bible, then for a "Christian" to say that the Bible contains flaws, would be calling God flawed. To say the Bible is not 100% true is to say God is not 100% true for HE is the one who inspired the whole writing of the Bible. If God then did reveal Himself to man via Scripture, why oh why would He allow any falsehood in it? It just doesn't make any sense, and there are other passages in the Bible that testify to the truth of God. My memory fails me at the moment, but for some "christian" to say the Bible is not 100% true when the Bible says it is true and that it was given by inspiration of God Himself is for that "christian" to assert that he/she knows more then God and is calling God a liar, and incapable of revealing Himself to us in Scripture with perfection. Of course my opinion on this is strong, and I believe my opinion is based upon the obvious message of the Bible. (of course I would like for the Bible to be loosely interpreted to fit my own agenda's which I fear many people do but my conscience does not allow me the liberty of liberally reading God's Word) "Surprisingly enough, many people (like myself) have gone the other way - studying the bible as Christians, and finding it harder and harder to believe that it is true the more we actually study it (rather than just accepting what apologists tell us) until they give up Christianity and become atheists." I am sad to hear that you gave up Christianity to become an atheist. Though the Bible does talking about a falling away of believers, turning their back on God etc. "Strange, then, that I can think of at least a dozen errors off the top of my head..." Please do share them. Like Ted, I would like to stop looking so stupid for believing in the supernatural being that is GOD who revealed Himself to mankind via the Bible, if indeed the Bible is not the inerrant Word of GOD but rather a fancy fairytale thought up by the imaginations of men. "1) What will be considered the standard of proof? Are we looking at a legal-type "beyond reasonable doubt" proof, or a logical proof?" Either or...have your pick. "2) Since I am in the minority here, once we start doing this every post I make will be swamped by responses and I will not be able to keep up." I myself have a very busy schedule and may not be able to reply for days perhaps a week or more at a time. If you would like to continue this elsewhere, please provide the place. (this is the only place I know of) "So what would you consider an acceptable value of X? From your post, it would seem that anything other than 0 would prove you wrong." Yes, anything other than 0.

I would like to add something if I may. Seeing how this is only a day old post, it would be unfair to say that no atheist/evolutionist wants to accept your challenge, but seeing how TA was so quickly upset and left, I would like to pose another challenge. For all you atheists/evolutionists/anti-Christians out there. If you are tired of us Christians annoying you with our "tit-for-tat" games and claims to absolute truth. My challenge is for anyone of you to simply prove 1% of the Bible to be wrong. If you can do this, then the entire Christian faith with crumble upon itself and we Christians will have to eat our words and should apologize. The rules of this challenge are as follows: 1) You can use any methods you desire,except one (peer-reviewed journals, text-books, quotes, etc.) the one method I ask you to not use, is to take the Bible out of context or twist a passages meaning and intent to fit your proposed error with the Bible. 2) With Biblical passages in question, please go back to the original language in which it was written (Hebrew/Greek) and use a literal translation, especially when dealing with New Testament material. Reason: Greek is far more complex then our English language. In English translations some errors may appear, but will be discredited when studying passages in the orginal language. This is fair in my view. Does not allow for the "telephone" effect as reason for invalidating the Bible. FOREWARING: Despite the Bible being under scrutiny by the greatest minds our world has ever known for hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds if not thousands of years, the Bible has never once been found to have anything errant in it. Neither historically nor scientifically. Also many people that have set out to disprove the Bible such as Josh McDowell and several archeaologists and scientists have found the Bible to be true and have converted to Christianity. Just wanted to give ya a heads up.

"If God created a universe which could be understood, why did he make it so incompatible with the bible?" I have no knowledge of the Bible being incompatible with creation. Would you please give some examples of this? The Bible has no crazy ideas about life and the world. Many learned Greek philosophers had wild ideas about light, astronomy etc. Ptolemy was the one who suggested the earth was flat, not the Bible. The Bible is very different in it's views about life and the universe from other ideas of antiquity. Judaism was the only monotheistic religion of it's time and region. The prevalent idea was a polytheistic one which the Babylonians etc. accepted. The Hindu Scriptures The Vedas say "the moon is approximately 150,000 miles higher than the sun and shines with it's own light, that the earth is flat and triangular, and that earthquakes are caused by elephants shaking themselves under it!". Many people would like to argue that the Bible teaches a flat earth, which simply isn't true. Passages that refer to the corners of the earth, the ends of the earth, the foundation of the earth are figurative language. We talk like this today. Speakers at large confrences often say that people have come from all the corners of the earth, but no one accuses him/her of believing in a flat earth. Because we understand the figurative language, meaning people came from everywhere. Also in Isaiah the Bible talks about the sphere of the earth. Other passages in the Bible are using terms commonly used everyday. Such as passages talking about the rising and setting of the sun. Scientifically trained meteorologists use the same language. "sunrise" and "sunset" are everyday terms, they are not meant to be scientifically accurate. To accuse the Bible of being in dire straights with science because of it's figurative language is hypocrisy. "I

"Apparently. Just look around, there are 2 options (maybe more) Either it is enough time or a supreme being created it. Which one... Science doesn't think 6,000 years is enough time and they have LOTS of proof to back that up." That is they have lots of proof to back that up assuming that life arose with abiogenesis and gradually changed via natural processes. However if supernatural creation is taken as a possible answer, then 6,000 years is more then enough time. The Bible records God as creating Adam and Eve and everything fully fomed. Also there is record of Jesus creating wine fully fermented in a moment, no need for the long fermenting process. If creation is taken as a plausible option which I believe it is, then 6,000 years works just fine.

First of all let me apologize to you all for taking so long to reply. I have been very busy. I tried to compose a well cited rebuttle to evolutionary theory. However that attempt didn't seem to do any good. My scientific knowledge is limited that is primarily why I cited others. I no longer wish to discuss science with you all, because I'm not that well-versed in science and because I don't have answers to all your questions. I apologize. I would like to pose some questions though, if I may. "All science rests on natural processes, or mechanisms. I would have thought that was obvious. Science comes down to the principle that everything can be explained and follows laws." I would wonder then if science is really the proper method to use. I mean if all science is obviously based on natural processes as you say it is, then it may be a flawed process. According to you, science rests on natural process. I think this implies that there is no supernatural processes or no God. If the only answer allowed for the universe as we know it is "it came about by natural processes" then that eliminates alternative answers, possibly even the correct one. If the only answer to the following question is "oranges"( "what grows on apple trees?" "oranges" ) Then you can see the predestined answer eliminates all other possible answers, even the right one. Science should look at the evidence and determine the answer, not say the answer is "natural processes" then look for evidence to support that. You say science comes down to the principle that everything can be explained and follows laws. What if something can't be explained or follow laws? Then it doesn't exist? I'm just curious. I'm not aware of anything that can't be explained somehow but if it can't be explained it isn't real? Also this principle of order and things following laws is a key concept in creationism, that God created an ordered universe that has design which can be observed and understood. "Who made the first automobile? Is it necessary to know in order to build an engine? Cars are a very loose analog to evolution. Start today with a Hyundia Sonata and work backwards through every car ever made and you'll find lots of successes and failures. In tracing the evolution of the automobile is it necessary to know when or who built the first one?" I suppose it's not necessary to know who built the first one. But if you're an atheist who says there is no God, no creator, then it becomes necessary for you to explain how the first one came to exist, also how the material for that first one to exist came to exist. If you don't answer those questions then you can't say there is no God, creator. And in line with this car analogy. Because all cars share similar charateristics (tires, engine, steering system etc) does not mean they are all related. It simply shows that they shared a common creator (the human mind). The same concept can be applied to life, not all are related but are simliar because of their common creator (God) "The Kalam Cosmological Arguement Premise 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause Premise 2) the universe began Conclusion: The universe has a cause for it's existence "Does God exist? In your flawed premise above God must have a cause for existence. You've painted yourself into a corner using flawed logic." "Unless time is not linear. Or we can apply your same logic to God. Your logic concludes that God "began"." No where did I say God began to exist. Nor do I see how that logic suggests God began. It is logical that an eternal self-existing God could create a universe which is finite if He chose to number it's days. If you understood which God I am speaking of then this confusion would not have arose. I am speaking of the God of the Bible, which the Bible describes as an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present God. Who is outside of time and space, yet created time and space when He created the universe. Now I understand just because the Bible says God created the universe doesn't make it true. That's circular reasoning. However if what the Bible says actually did happen, then one would need to accept the Bible as true and everything contained therein. I wonder why so many evolutionists try to prove evolution when they say "evolution is too slow to observe and thus be proven conclusively". Why not disprove 1% of the Bible, because if they do that, then they will no longer have Christian creationists hindering their search for "truth". All it would take is 1% of the Bible to be proven false for all Christianity to crumble. Despite the Bible being under scrutiny from the greatest minds the world has ever known for hundreds if not thousands of years, no one has ever been able to disprove anything the Bible says. Dear people I apologize for not answering your questions again. I don't have the time currently to research for supporting evidence, now my busy schedule does not mean the evidence does not exist as I fear some of you may try to imply. I will try to search for more evidence when God willing I have more free time. I enjoy reading these posts, you all make me think.

I also forgot to add in my long post, that if you measure the rate at which the sun is shrinking and go back several billion years, you have the size of the sun engulfing the earth....oh and also...When we went to land on the moon, evolutionists were all excited because the moon is an undisturbed environment (no lightening, floods, earthquakes, lava etc) So they figured the best way to get an accurate age of the universe would be to measure the depth of the space dust on the surface of the moon. They knew a certain amount of spaced dust fell on the surface each year (I don't know the number) but they also assumed it would be some billions of years of space dust pilled up there, so they had NASA put on those big flat landing pads on the legs of the lunar-lander, so that the landing-pod would not sink in the deep dust. However when we landed on the moon they found only a small amount of space dust...suggesting the age of the moon to be only around 6,000 years old! Um...that disproves the theory of an old universe..NO IT DOESN'T! Ok well it at least disproves the theory I was taught in school and by some show on the National Geographic Channel...The theory that a huge meteor crashed into earth and killed the dinosaurs while chuncking a big chunk of earth into space, which is our moon. Because life couldn't have evolved from the dinosaur catastrophe to what we have now in 6,000 years...actually we have civilizations that date back 6,000 years...primarily Mesopotamia also Egypt dates to about 5,000-5,200 years ago. India civilizations date to 4,500 years ago and Chinese civilization dates to 4,100 years ago...and historians believe there were people much longer before that, it's just not until then that civilized peoples arose in that area, with the ability to write, build cities etc....And going back to the moon now...we know the moon is slowly moving away from earth...if you calculate the rate of moving away, then go back several billion years ago, you have the moon orbiting the earth at some 15-ish feet...big problem for tall dinosaurs and trees.

(1)"Correct, evolution is a theory about how life changed and changes - it is not a theory about how life came about. This crucial misunderstanding is one that I see you are still labouring under, despite my having made it clear in the past." (2)"Evolution is BIOLOGY and deals with life already being there and explains the diversity in living things." (3)"Evolution has no explanation for the beginning of life. That is an entirely different topic, called abiogenesis. In the same way that the theory of gravity doesnt explain how the universe started, evolution doesnt explain how life started." Abiogenesis= The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation (www.dictionary.com) If I'm mistaken please correct me. I was led to understand that evolutionary theory states that life began with abiogenesis. Life arose from non-living chemicals, in a sort of primordial soup. If evolutionists do not answer the question "how did life come to be?" Then they are left with another unanswered question. You can't simply begin with "evolution" as you all define it without first answering the question, "how did all the required materials needed for life to evolve come to exist?" You can't simply have life that is evolving without first having an origin of life. If there was nothing...then life...that points to intelligent design, a creator, not evolutionary theory which was popularized by Darwin in that Darwin gave the concept of macro-evolution a means or mechanism by which the process could be possible. "Small gradual changes over long periods of time". (4)"4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? Its not organised very well." If you think matter is not organized very well then you are calling Stephen Hawking and others either liars or stupid. The proton is 1,836 times heavier then the electron. If this ratio were different, then the life-building molecules could not form, we'd have no chemistry and no life. Physicist Stephen Hawking says this "The remarkable FACT is that the values of these numbers seem to HAVE BEEN VERY FINELY ADJUSTED to make possible the development of life" (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time- From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p.125) (caps mine) Also Carbon only forms if it possesses a precise level of a nuclear property called "resonance" The slightest variation of resonance energy levels would not allow carbon to form, or instantly destroy it. Conditions need to be PERFECT, FINE-TUNED in order for this basic building block to form. When considering the probability of this fine-tuning the late astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle credited for the discovery of the resonances of carbon and oxygen atoms commented that it was virtually impossible that such resonances exist by chance. He concluded atheism was greatly shaken because of this discovery. (Fred Heeren, Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God, Wheeling, Ill.:Searchlight Publications, 1995, p.179) On top of that the strengths of natures four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) appear to be PERFECTLY balanced to permit a life-sustaining universe. If even one had a slightly different strength, such a universe would be impossible. Scientists have concluded that this precision can be accounted only by a Designer's guidance. Physicist Edward Kolb says "It turns out that 'constants of nature', such as the strength of gravity, have EXACTLY the values that allow stars and planets to form...The universe, it seems is FINE-TUNED to let life and consciousness flower." (Heeren p.184)(caps mine) Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow comments on the amazing PRECISION of the universe, "Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have PROVEN, by THEIR OWN METHODS, that the world BEGAN abrubtly in AN ACT OF CREATION...and they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover.(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: W. W. Norton, 1978, p.15) (caps mine) Remember this guy doesn't even believe in God! Yet he knows one cannot deny the FACT that the universe was CREATED....Genesis 1:1...interesting....Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands". (5)"and you have no explaination for the initial effect of creation." "Actually, vital difference, I don't think there is an explanation for this - therefore I am not too bothered about the fact that I lack an explanation. " :whistle It seems that you don't think there is an explanation for the effect of creation... I may be wrong but I am led to think that you agree with Carl Sagan who said "The cosmos are all there is or was or ever will be". This is the idea of the universe being eternal, without a start, needing no starter (creator) Aside from the proof given by agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow... The Kalam Cosmological Arguement Premise 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause Premise 2) the universe began Conclusion: The universe has a cause for it's existence Premise 1 talks about the law of cause and effect Premise 2 talks on behalf of 2 scientific evidences and one philosophical arguement Scientific evidence 1) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (the energy in a closed system is becoming more disordered or breaking/running down) If the universe is eternal (infinite) and constantly decaying then why has the universe not run down yet? Scientific evidence 2) this pertains to the expansion of the galaxies. Scientists know that the planets orbits are not constant but that the universe is expanding from a central point. This leads one to concluded that the universe BEGAN from a single point. Philosophical arguement: Premise 1) If an infinite number of moments occured before today, then today would never have come because it's impossible to pass through an infinite number of moments. Premise 2) Today has come Conclusion: Only a finite number of moments occured before today thus showing that the universe is not eternal, but began. (5) "Actually, they won't. The oldest fossils ever found are 3.7 billion years old. The author here is mixing up the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. This is quite typical of creationists." 3.7 billion years old... Is that enough time? If I am not mistaken, I was told by several atheist evolutionsists who tried to convice me of evolutions validity said evolutionists rely upon a naturalistic mechanistic view for the origin of life. The mechanistic arguemenent goes like this: "So that if we had amino acids, we then would have proteins, and if we had proteins we would be well along the road to life. Given trillions upon trillions of possibilites for chemical combinations, given a few million years for it all to happen, the components of life would have appeared. And once that had been accomplished, once the bricks and the stones and the lumber for the building of life were present, then all that would have been required were a few more million years for life to actually appear" (Clifford D Sirnak, Trilobites, Dinosaurs and Man, New York: St. Martins Press, 1966, p.54) The current most widely accepted age of the universe is 10 billion years old, with the earth being approx 4-5 billion years old. (Frank Wilczek, "The Comsic Assymetry between Matter and Antimatter," Scientific American, Dec.1980, p.83) Is that enough time for useful proteins to have formed? When it comes to insulin, Asimov estimates that there are 8x10^27 different possible combinations of an insulin-like protiein. (Isaac Asimov, The Genetic Code, New York: The New American Library, 1962, p.92) For the sake of the evolutionist lets assume that each second the universe existed a different combination of an insulin-like protein is produced. After 10 billion years we would have approx. 3x10^17 different combinations, about one ten-billionth of all the possible combinations. To be positive that we have the one combination the body uses we need to wait 10 billion times the presently supposed age of the universe. In other words, we need another one hundred quintillion years for all insulin-like combinations to be produced. When it comes to hemoglobin the chance formation is even less likely. Asimov estimates 135 followed by 165 zeroes as the different combinations of hemoglobin. Once again only a limited number of combinations are useful. Again for the evolutionist' sake lets assume that 10^100 different combinations are produced each second the universe existed. In reality this is impossible, because the total number of atoms in the observable universe is only 10^78. Thus our hemoglobin factory would comsume 10 sextillion universes every second simply to maintain that rate of production. Nevertheless, it would take 10 trillion trillion years for all the different combinations of hemoglobin to be produced. (P.C.W. Davis, "Dirac Completes His Theory of Large Numbers," Nature 250:460, 1974, cited in Mysterious Universe: A Handbook of Astronomical Anamalies, compiled by William R. Corliss, published 1979 by the Source Book Project) (Mcdowell & Stewart, Reasons,Wheaton Illinois, Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1981) I hope this helps... By the way just for logic's sake...let me add Pascals Wager in here. If you believe in God and He exists=you win everything If you believe in God and He doesn't exist= you lose nothing If you don't believe in God and He exists=you lose everything If you don't believe in God and He doesn't exist= you win nothing You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in God. I heard it said like this before "I'd rather live my life as if there were a god, only to die and find out there is no god, rather then live my life as if there is no god, only to die and find out there is a god." In other words...if you don't believe in God. YOU BETTER BE RIGHT!

A university professor challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, He did!" "God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes, sir," the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists. And according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil." The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself, and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the faith in God is a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question, professor?" "Of course," replied the professor. The student stood up and asked,"Professor, does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact, sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is, in reality, the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat. All matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat." The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded,"Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong, sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is, in reality, the absence of light. We can study light, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wave lengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally, the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil." To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold -- a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light." The professor sat down. The young student's name -- Albert Einstein

"Truthfully I will be content with a "tent" in Heaven...I dont need a mansion." -Angel Actually I enjoy camping! Maybe we can pitch our tents next to each other! lol! Love and Peace! :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: