LouF95

Here is a 4 minute video by a Christian scientist who explains fused chromosome #2. This is one of many pieces of evidence for evolution. ** Video Link removed ** [ Please note that all videos need to be placed in the video forum for approval before they are placed on Worthy] [Please do not post links to videos outside of the video forum]

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. Let's jump around the Torah a bit to see it's historical reliability. The census taken one year after the Exodus shows that in 3 generations, Manasseh had grown from a single person to a clan/tribe that had 32,200 makes over the age of 20. Levi's great grandsons were Moses & Aaron. Not long after the Exodus, the tribe of Levi numbered no less than 22,000 males. While the Israelites were fighting the Amalekites, Moses watched from the top of a mountain. When Moses kept his arm raised, the Israelites were winning. When Moses lowered his arm, the Amalekites were winning. Is this metaphor or history? To me it shouts metaphor. The author was trying to say something. The story of Isaac, Jacob and Esau closely correlates with the history of Judah & Edom. Also, can we reliably take the story of Jacob and Esau fighting in the womb as a historical occurrence? Has any new born baby show that level of consciousnesses?

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. This is the best explanation I have come across for what the Adam & Eve story means: Man has moral autonomy and is free to disregard moral law but he must be prepared to suffer the consequences of his actions. Evil is the product of human behavior, not a principle inherent in the cosmos. Man's disobedience is the cause of the human predicament. Human freedom can be at the same time an omen for disaster and a challenge and opportunity. As an aside, I believe the snake was not the devil. It was a symbol for man's desire for sensation and experience. The Hebrew word used is "nahash" which translates to snake or serpent. Genesis 3:1 describes the snake as crafty, not evil. The snake doesn't display any magical powers.

The firmament was not solid, but Genesis mentions it to be understood as a dividing layer between the air of the atmosphere, and space. It was composed of water vapor and this firmament collapsed during The Flood. This firmament is what caused rainfall, which had not occurred on the earth before the flood. The ecosystem was completely different pre-flood. So, no, this firmament could not be observed because it was destroyed during The Flood. It appears to me that the ancients viewed the firmament as a solid dome but I don't want to get bogged down with this because it will probably lead to a dead end with neither of us changing our minds. Let's just have the questions coming for now. I do take issue with your statement "It was composed of water vapor". I don't see the text supporting this. It's speculative. Firmament con notates firmness. I don't see water vapor as firm or being able to hold back the waters above it. This is an example of the inadequacy and limitations of words as a way to communicate.

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. "If you cannot trust parts of the Bible" Once it is proven that the bible is 100% factual, then it is an issue of mistrust. "then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all." This is a false dilemma. Just because I view the bible as a mix of history and narrative, doesn't render the bible as useless and a revealer of spiritual truth.

No matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” Mark 13:31. I'm not attacking the bible. I think it's a remarkable book. I only question how some people interpret it.

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Genesis describes the firmament that divides the waters above from the waters below. A firmament is solid, correct? If Genesis is not allegory in any sense as you stated(I believe it's mostly allegory) then we should be able to observe the firmament and the waters above it.

Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength.

shilohlife, don't bother replying. I'm not interested in the rantings of a sad man whose mind is trapped in an unreal world. Enjoy the prison bars around your mind.

Funny you would have to run to a Jew. You purport to believe in the DH. The DH says the Torah was written until starting at 850 BC. The easiest argument for you would have been to argue that there was no Levitical priesthood and that Moses didn't deliver any commandments to Levites like Aaron because Aaron didn't really exist. Does the Jew you are running to for help understand that you don't really believe in the historicity of the Torah?? If not, I think it is a bit dishonest on your part to get him to refute me with a text you don't believe was written until after the Babylonian exile. Does he know you are using him in like that? Most DH proponents I have read believe that monotheism came about after the exile and that the Jews were monotheists prior to that. I would think that since you claim you did your homework that you would have provided answer yourself rather than being someone else's parrot. It's interesting that you don't know the Bible well enough to answer me so you have to have a Jew carry your weight in a debate. I'll answer his comments a little later on. No, several Jews. I cross reference what people tell me. I have read a variety of materials. *** Personal attack and acronym were removed. *** From the Terms of Service Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. ... (Eph. 4: 29) Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18) The use of profanity will not be tolerated. This includes sexually explicit, vulgar, or other profane language or usernames as well as any any signs or symbols that suggests such. ... (Eph. 4: 29)

Was the author of Hebrews a Torah observant Jew? Highly doubtful. MESSIANIC JEW: Actually he was. Only a Torah observant person would know that the golden altar of incense was behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement. That little detail would escape someone else. That little "detail" is wrong. His example proves your point that whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew. Hebrews 9:3-7 says that the golden incense altar was “behind the second veil” in the holy of holies. “Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant.” NIV translation. This is a mistake (which works against the missionary’s argument that an educated Jew wrote the Christian bible). Sh’mot / Exodus 30:6 tells us that the golden incense altar was to the west – in front of the dividing curtain (not behind it as Hebrews says). “And you shall place it in front of the dividing curtain, which is upon the Ark of Testimony, in front of the ark cover.” Judaica Press Translation The incense altar was positioned inside the Mishkan, between the menorah (along the southern wall) and the table (along the northern wall), facing the entrance to the Holy of Holies. The incense altar is mentioned in six places in Sh’mot (Exodus). See 31:8, 39:38, 40:5, and 40:22-26 which says: He placed the golden altar in the Tent of Meeting in front of the dividing curtain. Judaica Press Translation Which again disagrees with Hebrews as to where the golden incense altar was located. Vayikra / Leviticus 16 goes on to say that after the high priest is inside the Holy of Holies he “comes out” (Vayikra / Leviticus 16:17) from the Holy of Holies (again disagreeing with the uneducated author of Hebrews): And he shall then go out to the altar that is before the L-rd and effect atonement upon it: Vayikra / Leviticus 16:18 Judaica Press Translation. Rashi wrote: “what does Scripture mean when it says, “And he shall then go out?” Since he had just performed the blood sprinklings on the dividing curtain, standing on the inner side of the altar to sprinkle [i.e., between the altar and the dividing curtain], for the applications on the altar, [scripture] required him to “go out” to the outer side of the altar and to begin with the north-eastern corner. — [Torath Kohanim 16:45; Yoma 58b. See Mizrachi , Gur Aryeh. Also Chavel, who asserts that, according to the Reggio edition of Rashi, the Kohen Gadol did not stand beyond the altar, but alongside it, from where he commenced to apply the blood from the north-eastern corner.]”

More... (1) On Yom Kippur, the day itself serves to atone. (2) A substitutionary sacrifice, where an animal suitable for an obligatory sacrifice is substituted for another is called temurah. Does it really work? No! God does not permit a substitute. (Lev. 27:9-10)

Shiloh, Another retort to your claims. MESSIANIC JEW: That was the Azazel. The other goat was killed on behalf of all of the people. It made atonement on their behalf for all of their sins. Jesus was typified in both goats. The goat that was slain and the goat that bore the sins of the people away. You're right. He's wrong. He really needs to actually READ the bible! The first goat was a חַטָּאת / chatat (sin offer). A cheit is an unintentional sin through carelessness -- a "missing of the mark." A sin qorban (sacrifice) could not be brought for intentional, willful sins. The high priest brought a bull as a חַטָּאת / chatat (sin offer) for himself and his household. The first of two identical goats was sacrificed as a חַטָּאת / chatat for the unintentional sins of the Israelites. The bull for Aaron and the priests and the goat which was sacrificed for the people were for mistakes (accidental sins, aka a "missing of the mark") and for potentially defiling the Temple grounds (e.g., not being ritually pure by having bathed in a mikvah prior to entering the Temple). Neither the bull or the goat atoned for "big" sins. It begins with When Aaron enters [this inner] sanctuary, it must be with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. (16:3) The bull is to cleanse the inner part of the Temple from ritual impurities that priests may have made during the year. Remember that chatat (sin offers) are for mistakes, a "missing of the mark" -- accidental sins. The bull in question is for Aaron (the high priest himself). So ask yourself: if two goats (one killed and one not) atoned for the sins of all Israel why the bull? Why the ram? Why the other requirements? What other requirements? READ the chapter! He must put on a sanctified white linen tunic, and have linen pants on his body. He must [also] gird himself with a linen sash, and bind his [head] with a linen turban. These are sacred vestments, and [therefore], before putting them on, he must immerse in a mikvah. The high priest must have on very specific clothes. Without these vestments the sacrifice is not acceptable. Get that? The blood sacrifice is UNACCEPTABLE if the priest does not wear the right clothes! Now lest you think this is exaggerating -- go back and read the first line of chapter 16. It speaks of the death of Aaron's sons. They died because they brought an unauthorized fire (sacrifice) to G-d. He shall [begin by] presenting his own sin offering bull and atoning for himself and his family (16:6) The high priest (in this case Aaron, Moses' brother) atones for his sins and for his family -- again accidental sins. Now read lines 15 and 16 which are about the bull Aaron sacrifices for himself and the goat which he sacrifices for the Israelites -- it is not that this goat atones for the sins of the Israelites in general (lumped with the goat for Azazel) -- but it has to do with ritual purity and accidental defilement of the Temple, as the bull did for Aaron himself. READ the text! He shall then slaughter the people's sin offering goat, and bring its blood into [the inner sanctuary] beyond the cloth partition. He shall do the same with this blood as he did with the bull's blood, sprinkling it both above the ark cover and directly toward the ark cover. 16 Thus shall he provide atonement upon the Sanctuary for the contaminations of the Children of Israel. . . Contaminations refers to Israelites entering the sanctuary or eating sacrifice while ritually unclean (Rashi; see Leviticus 15:31) You [Moses and Aaron] must warn the Israelites about their impurity, so that their impurity not cause them to die if they defile the tabernacle that I have placed among them. (Leviticus 15:31) The people knew that those sacrifices did not atone for their serious transgressions. The second goat (the scapegoat) is sent to Azazel in the wilderness. Keep in mind that a person can turn to G-d at any time seeking forgiveness. The uniqueness of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is that on that day G-d comes to us. This shows just how loving, forgiving and kind G-d truly is. Not only are blood sacrifices not required for Him to forgive us -- He will come to us, the King from his Palace, to His creations.

Shiloh, you are totally misrepresenting OT sacrificial law. My associate, who is a highly learned Jew has responded to your claims. MESSIANIC JEW: There is plenty of evidence of substitutionary atonement. You are simply not being honest about the text. As for unintentional sins.... You are forgetting something. There were two kinds of "sin offerings" one is the sin offering. But there was also the guilt offering, the asham. The difference between the sin offering and the guilt offering is that the sin offering was for the root cause of sin. The guilt offering deals with the fruit of sin and covers intentional sins and unintentional sins. Totally wrong. He is totally misrepresenting the אָשָׁם asham when he says it was for intentional sins (as if it covered everything not covered by the cheit - the "sin" offer). The אָשָׁם asham was for three different types of very specific violations. 1. unintentionally taking and using something from the holy Temple. The person must return the items, add 1/5th in restitution and bring an asham; 2. asham taluy is for when you aren't sure if you sinned or not, so just to be sure you bring an asham taluy. If later you discover that you did commit a cheit (accidental sin) you bring a chatat (sin offer); 3. asham g'zelot if you lied under oath defrauding someone of his things or money. In this case again you have to return the stolen things and add 1/5th to it as well as bring the asham g'zelot. Your missionary is ignoring the fact that the worse sins could not be atoned for with blood sacrifice. These include עוון avon (iniquity) or the פֶּֽשַׁע pĕsha (transgression, willful rebellion against G-d) your missionary totally ignores these more serious sins, trying to say that anything that isn't a cheit (an accidental sin) is an asham. Totally not true. עוון Avon (translated by Christians as iniquity) is an impulsive act of lust or uncontrollable urges (could not be atoned for with a sacrifice). An avon (unless it falls under the asham talu or asham g'zelot) cannot be rectified with a qorban, and neither can a pesha. Repentance and turning to G-d to seek forgiveness for sins against G-d and seeking forgiveness to any person that might have been harmed from that person are the methods of atonement; פֶּֽשַׁע pĕsha' is usually translated by Christians as "transgression." It means to willfully go against G-d. It means "rebellion" (could not be atoned for with a sacrifice) -- but other things in this life do atone for them. 1 Kings 8:46-50 include chatat, avon, rasha (wicked or evil) and pesha are atoned for by prayer. Ezikiel 18:21-32 speaks of sin, iniquity and willful rebellion against G-d all being forgiven through repentance. chatat (18:21), pesha (18:22), chatat (18:24), pesha (18:28), pesha and avon (18:30) are all atoned through repentance. "By loving kindness and truth iniquity is atoned for..." (Proverbs 16:6). "If you return to G-d you will be restored; if you remove unrighteousness far from your tent...then you will delight in G-d..." (Job 22:23-27). This whole fixation on blood, blood, blood by missionaries is not supported by the Jewish bible. The missionaries take the statement that blood can atone for SOME sins and somehow morph it into "you need blood for sins to be forgiven." This is akin to eating a slice of pizza because you are hungry and then insisting that the only type of food that exists in the world is pizza. How crazy is that?

So as I assumed, you don't really know anything. You're just parroting what you are told to say. Your Jewish "friend" can be offended all he wants. I didn't say that RASHI tampered with Isaiah. I said that the Rabbis re-interpreted Isaiah and other Messianic prophecies in order to "write" the Messiah out of those passages. The notion that Isaiah 53 speaks of Israel finds its origin from RASHI They did the same type of thing to other Messianic prophecies. They simply offered "new" interpretations of Messianic prophecies and changed meaning of the passage so that Jews would not be led to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Interesting... Now for some truth on the matter. "Now on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be for you a time of holy convocation, and you shall afflict yourselves and present a food offering to the LORD. And you shall not do any work on that very day, for it is a Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. (Lev 23:27-28) "And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins. (Lev 16:29-30) Yes, there was an atonement made for the sanctuary. But as you can see above, that is not the ONLY atonement made above. And again, since Hebrews 9 and 10 are a commentary of Yom Kippur in the light of Jesus' sacrifice, I re-submit the following passage as further confirmation that Jesus as the Yom Kippur sin offering made atonement for our sins on our behalf. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Heb 10:10-14) My contention is there is no such thing as substitutionary atonement in Mosaic law. There is a big difference between atonement and substitutionary atonement. Since there is no indication in the OT of substitutionary atonement and since God forgave the Isrealites numerous times without requiring a sacrifice and since animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins, the concept of Jesus having to substitute for us or taking the punishment we deserve is on shaky ground. Whoever wrote Hebrews was probably not a Torah observant Jew. Why should his commentary trump the Torah? He offered his interpretation as the the meaning of Jesus's death. I don't see Hebrews 10:10-14 making any definitive statement that Jesus's death was substitutionary. He could have meant to say whatever you think separates you from God, Jesus removed it. Just a possibility. Here is how someone attains forgiveness for the sin of stealing someone's camel: 1) Repent 2) Have remorse 3) Give the victim 5 animals for every animal stolen 4) Ask forgiveness from the victim. No animal sacrifice was necessary. You know the first goat on Yom Kippur was released into the wilderness. He was only killed if he came back(the villagers didn't want the goat to bring the sins back to the village)