It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Genesis was written by biased men.

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


P.S. mr "adult" poster-dude...

"Light year" is NOT a term to describe TIME. It only describes..


DISTANCE


Please tell me you didn't pay money for your "education" in Astrophysics.

Now, where's my train set???



[edit on 23-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nichiren
 


P.S. mr "adult" poster-dude...

"Light year" is NOT a term to describe TIME. It only describes..



You are funny. This is better than SNL :-) Light YEAR. And you're sayin' ...?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Genesis was written by Sumerian's.

The Old Testament just copied the text, literally word for word.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 
That's the best you can muster after I shredded your argument to dust and blew it back into your face??

Let me try again to dumb it down for you Mr. Adult poster dude...

A "light year" is:

The DISTANCE a particle of light would travel in a year. It's a measurement of DISTANCE.

if the light particle began at point A and exactly 1 year later it was at point B, then a "light year" is the distance from point A to point B.


"As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year ( or light year) is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1] The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. Therefore, a light-year (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 1013 kilometres.

The light-year is often used to measure distances to stars and other distances on a galactic scale, especially in non-specialist and popular science publications. The preferred unit in astrometry is the parsec, because it can be more easily derived from, and compared with, observational data. The parsec is defined as the distance at which an object will appear to move one arcsecond of parallax when the observer moves one astronomical unit perpendicular to the line of sight to the observer, and is equal to approximately 3.26 light-years.[1]"


"Light-Year" Definition - Wikipedia

Keep laughing... you're the ONLY one doing so.




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I only gave you rope, but you hanged yourself ...

By your own definition a light-year is:



"As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year ( or light year) is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.


Note the term Julian year. Please look it up if you're not familiar with it (365.25 days). That's the distance a photon travels in ONE year.

In the science article that you posted the object in question is 111 million light-years away. So how many years did it take the photon to travel to our planet? Of course you can negate a common scientific term and make it up as you please, but then I wonder why you would post the IAU's definition?

See, here is the funny little problem with creationists: you pick and choose "facts" as you see fit, truth be damned.

Ciao.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


I didn't hang myself with anything whatsoever. You are STILL making the false assumption that the speed of light is a CONSTANT. It most certainly is NOT a constant, it varies.

In fact, the speed of light is slooooowing down, well actually it stopped "slowing down" when we began to use the Atomic Clock to measure the speed of light.

(I'll not even attempt to explain this to you, it will fly completely over you head as to why when you use an atomic clock the speed of light appears to be a constant.)

Now, we do know that scientists can slow down the speed of light, and that over time the speed of light has been slowing down. Do you understand what this means? How these facts shred your argument to pieces?

Stop making the false assumption that the speed of light is always the same, or in layman's terms = a CONSTANT. It clearly is not.

heck, I'll explain the ramifications to you..

Thousands (6) of years ago, the speed of light was EXPONENTIALLY greater than what is is today.

Scientists can actually STOP light particles, they did so in January, 2001.

So the speed of light is NOT a constant,. quit assuming/thinking/claiming that it is, you look, well, uneducated. The ONLY period in time that the speed of light has appeared to remain constant was when we invented the atomic clock and used it to measure the speed of light (1960s).

More info for you to ponder:

The universe is EXPANDING and always has been since creation, the Bible says God "stretches out the heavens", long before astronomers realized this fact of astrophysics. So this also means if star A is measured at X light years away, (distance), at time zero star A was Y light years away.

Your argument falsely presupposes TWO things that are not true.

1. The speed of light is a constant and never changes. (this is FALSE, because the speed of light is slowing down by about 1% a year, and scientists have slowed the speed of light to zero in a laboratory.)

2. That star A has always been X light years away from Earth. (This is FALSE, the universe is always EXPANDING, or stretching out, something secular scientists also agree upon.)


"M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, in 1927, was probably the first to propose a decreasing speed of light. He based his conclusion on measurements spanning 75 years. Later, he became more convinced and twice published his results in Nature, possibly the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. He emphasized, “If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained ... There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it.”



"No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant. Many simply ASSUME that it is constant, and of course, changing old ways of thinking is sometimes difficult."



Russian cosmologist, V. S. Troitskii, at the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky, is also questioning some old beliefs. He concluded, independently of Setterfield, that the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero! Furthermore, he attributed the cosmic microwave background radiation and most redshifts to this rapidly decreasing speed of light. Setterfield reached the same conclusion concerning redshifts by a different method. If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the big bang theory will fall. "


SOURCE

Question:

Have you caught up to this "minor" yet???




[edit on 23-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


May I ask you a quick questions? How old is the planet earth according to your belief?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 
First let me apologize to you for being rude, I acted in an un-Christian way when you said I was a minor. I'm sorry.

To answer your question, roughly 6,000 years. I believe what the Word of God says. And I have carefully over my years also read/listened to the arguments presented by the creation scientists and view them as more credible IMHO.





[edit on 24-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Which Genesis? There are two stories of creation that contradict each other.
There are creation myths from all around the world. The Genesis myths even have elements of Summerian creation myths. As far as 'biased' goes, the entire old testament shows it.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Bad Dog
 
I briefly answer your question because the entire answer would completely derail the tread.

The KJV, all other Bible manuscripts other than the KJV have been translated from the Textus Vinaticus and Textus Sinaticus, two Greek manuscripts the Christians at Antioch rejected as corrupt and Gnostic in nature. They came from pagans at Alexandria, Egypt.

And in the Book of Acts the believers at Antioch had Paul, Barnibas, and Timothy with them for a year teaching them doctrine, and the Book of Acts calls them the "first Christians".



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Just "my opinion.
My understanding is that most "theologians" believe the King James version to be the "Most Correctly Translated" version of the scriptures.
If that is so, then clearly the general understanding is that "being translated" to various languages, meanings have been lost, misinterpreted, added too or omitted.
Taking into account the history of corruption of it's leaders, (past and present) the christian religion's moral standing of trust and validity is null and void as their motivations are and always have been "politically motivated".
Serving kings and rulers as advisors and using "manipulated doctrine to control it's followers through fear, has changed the churches internal acceptance of manipulation into a "rule" rather that an exception.
The false belief that they are doing Gods work has actually taken them down a path where they are working against Him.
The first gift God gave us was, "free agency to choose between right and wrong". The churches, through guilt demands of us that we "must" choose the path of righteousness.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No apologies necessary.

Age of earth: 6000 years. Wow, fascinating! I'm not trying to mock you, but is your entire world-view based on the bible? What scientific evidence do you have to support your point? Do you also believe that planet earth is the oldest celestial object?

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Nichiren]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No apologies necessary.

Age of earth: 6000 years. Wow, fascinating! I'm not trying to mock you, but is your entire world-view based on the bible? What scientific evidence do you have to support your point?


Thank you.

yes, my world-view is based on the Word of God. And I don't like the term "Bible" there are MANY versions of it, but I believe there is only one true Word of God that has been preserved. When people make the claim that the "Bible" is full of contradictions, for the most part they are CORRECT. 99% of the Bibles DO HAVE major contradictions in them. That is because all modern versions have been translated from the Greek manuscripts that were rejected by early Christians.

I can delve deeply into this in another thread or in U2U if you would like, but even men who thought they were following God have opened up themselves to a great deception from satan. Mostly the pagans and Gnostics from Alexandria Egypt caused this corruption to come to the Word of God.

One Bible is inerrant, one Bible is the true Word of God, one Bible is a word for word translation of the Greek text the first Christians used at Antioch, Syria. They rest are counterfeits, they are like rat poison, 99% good food and 1% poison. But the death is just as quick and severe to any who hold them as the true Words of the living God.

I have delved into some, the Conservation of Angular Momentum is just one of the laws of Physics that destroys the idea of a "Big Bang". if the big bang were in fact true, every galaxy, planet, sun, and moon within the galaxy would all revolve in the exact same rotation or orbit, be it counter-clockwise or clockwise depending on which direction the "microdot" was spinning before the big bang happened. Observation of the Universe proves this to not be true.

Comets: no one has seen a comet born, there are theories such as the "Ort Cloud", but this has never been found or observed. The fact that we still have comets in space is a testament that the universe cannot be more than 10,000 years old. For it takes about that long for a comet to dissipate.

i myself could go on and on about what I have learned, but if you truly want to see the arguments of Creationists and determine if their interpretation of the data is correct to Evolutionists then you must embark on the same journey I did, read their explanation for the data, and not just dismiss it as false without weighing it as a separate interpretation of the data we can observe and repeat.

Creationists use the exact same data as Evolutionists, the interpretation of that data is different, and one side is correct, and another side is incorrect. But one must look at both sides of the argument.

I appreciate your questions, and I appreciate your honesty. I also appreciate your change in how you view me, not as a "crazy" creationist, but someone who has a brain as well as you do, but interprets the same information differently.

God bless.

P.S. Great places to start if you want to research the argument put forth by Creation Scientists are these:

Center For Scientific Creation

Answers In Genesis

Dr. Dino.com Creation Seminars

Remember, when reviewing this information fight the natural urge to dismiss it on Ad Hominem reasoning, look at the facts presented themselves, judge the facts themselves apart from those presenting the facts. this is hard to do, very hard, but it's the only way to do so with intellectual honesty.

I enjoy talking to you even though we disagree, our conversation has helped me a great deal, especially to realize i was in error in how I combated you on the last page. I felt I was speaking the truth, however I felt shame at the end of the day because I didn't present my side in love and with respect for your personal convictions.

Hope your day is blessed, i have to depart for work but I'm eager to return tonight to this site. Send me a U2U my friend if you will, I'll never turn away someone who wants to understand me, and I can always learn something from everyone I encounter.

Peace be with you.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
You have to be willing to open your mind to accept the truth that we are GOD,that humans very much like us geneticly enhanced primates that were evolving on this planet with their own DNA,our "creators"are no closer to unraveling the truth about their or our origins than we are.

All religons are wrong to encourage people to abbrogate their right to live in the present and change their perspectives as time passes.Following a doctrine based in divinity is OBVIOUSLY really just agreeing to close your eyes to the changing reality of the world around you as "the price you pay to remain in the club"or the religon,the need to be part of a group with a common perspective is a basic and important need that has been used to manipulate humanity for a long time.

All religons are right in the sense that none of them are aware that they were set on paralell paths for a reason,and that reason is that there is now an opportunity through disclosure to BIND ALL EARTHLY RELIGONS TOGETHER UNDER ONE BANNER,THE FORWARD PROGRESS OF HUMANITY.

The vast majority of humanity follows one religon or another,this means that if we can tap into the doctrines of all major religons and bring them together then we will for the first time in our species history BE ON THE SAME PAGE AS EACH OTHER.


The bible is a history book that encourages independant groups of humans sharing a common perspective to follow a general path or direction and all religos books do this ,the bible and these other books are really HANDS ON MANUALS on how to create organised society and create technology and progress out into the universe.


Handbook,guidebook,instruction manual,tip sheet,call it what you want but please dont call any of these books divine in nature because they are not.

This is what has held us back,these books were designed to bring us closer to our creators ,not further away as has happened through manipulation of the information and technology that have been described throughout history,these books were books of knowledge that some smart and selfish humans figured out could be used to control others.

The information in these books MAY HAVE NEVER BEEN INTENDED FOR REGULAR PEOPLE,it may have been the instructions on how to teach us and somehow this instruction book was given into the possesion of the lab project.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
yes, my world-view is based on the Word of God. And I don't like the term "Bible" there are MANY versions of it, but I believe there is only one true Word of God that has been preserved. When people make the claim that the "Bible" is full of contradictions, for the most part they are CORRECT. 99% of the Bibles DO HAVE major contradictions in them. That is because all modern versions have been translated from the Greek manuscripts that were rejected by early Christians.

I can delve deeply into this in another thread or in U2U if you would like, but even men who thought they were following God have opened up themselves to a great deception from satan. Mostly the pagans and Gnostics from Alexandria Egypt caused this corruption to come to the Word of God.

One Bible is inerrant, one Bible is the true Word of God, one Bible is a word for word translation of the Greek text the first Christians used at Antioch, Syria. They rest are counterfeits, they are like rat poison, 99% good food and 1% poison. But the death is just as quick and severe to any who hold them as the true Words of the living God.


Please point me to a link where I can read the correctly translated bible.




I have delved into some, the Conservation of Angular Momentum is just one of the laws of Physics that destroys the idea of a "Big Bang". if the big bang were in fact true, every galaxy, planet, sun, and moon within the galaxy would all revolve in the exact same rotation or orbit, be it counter-clockwise or clockwise depending on which direction the "microdot" was spinning before the big bang happened. Observation of the Universe proves this to not be true.


That's true if the celestial objects didn't interact with each other and their paths stayed undisturbed since the big bang. But that's clearly not the case. There have been catastrophic events (supernovae) that have altered the orbit and spin of entire planets.


Comets: no one has seen a comet born, there are theories such as the "Ort Cloud", but this has never been found or observed. The fact that we still have comets in space is a testament that the universe cannot be more than 10,000 years old. For it takes about that long for a comet to dissipate.


Astronomers detect new long-period comets at the rate of about one per month. By that rough estimate, 24,000 long-period comets have entered the inner solar system since the time of Christ! Orbital analysis show that these approaching comets generally take several million years to orbit the sun, and, as they are more or less randomly distributed in their orbits, we may deduce that the bulk of them are presently beyond the range of our telescopes. Only the exceptional comet, at any given moment, would be in that small portion of its orbit which crosses the inner solar system.
source: www.talkorigins.org...


i myself could go on and on about what I have learned, but if you truly want to see the arguments of Creationists and determine if their interpretation of the data is correct to Evolutionists then you must embark on the same journey I did, read their explanation for the data, and not just dismiss it as false without weighing it as a separate interpretation of the data we can observe and repeat.

Creationists use the exact same data as Evolutionists, the interpretation of that data is different, and one side is correct, and another side is incorrect. But one must look at both sides of the argument.


I beg to differ. Please don't take this the wrong way, but here is the rub. Yes, Creationists use scientific data, but only the part that fits their belief-system. When there is data, like my comet example above, that don't fit the paradigm it's conveniently discarded or deemed inaccurate.

Sorry to harp on the same string again, but that's why I was so adamant about the term light-year. It is a scientific term for distance related to TIME. If you use a scientific term, but use your own definition (c not being a constant) we have no common base for an honest, fruitful discussion IMHO.


I appreciate your questions, and I appreciate your honesty. I also appreciate your change in how you view me, not as a "crazy" creationist, but someone who has a brain as well as you do, but interprets the same information differently.
God bless.


I don't view you as crazy and me calling you a 12-year-old was uncalled for. But it puzzles me how you can believe that our planet is only a few thousand years old. To me that's on the same level as saying the earth is flat. At one time that statement made sense, because humans didn't know any better, but we have evolved.

When time permits I will look at your links with an open mind. Trust me I'm trying hard.


P.S. Great places to start if you want to research the argument put forth by Creation Scientists are these:

Center For Scientific Creation

Answers In Genesis

Dr. Dino.com Creation Seminars

Remember, when reviewing this information fight the natural urge to dismiss it on Ad Hominem reasoning, look at the facts presented themselves, judge the facts themselves apart from those presenting the facts. this is hard to do, very hard, but it's the only way to do so with intellectual honesty.

I enjoy talking to you even though we disagree, our conversation has helped me a great deal, especially to realize i was in error in how I combated you on the last page. I felt I was speaking the truth, however I felt shame at the end of the day because I didn't present my side in love and with respect for your personal convictions.

Hope your day is blessed, i have to depart for work but I'm eager to return tonight to this site. Send me a U2U my friend if you will, I'll never turn away someone who wants to understand me, and I can always learn something from everyone I encounter.

Peace be with you.


Have a great weekend too.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Genesis.... I thought they were formed in 1967


But seriously, if it took 7 days to create the earth then the creator (or whatever pseudonym u would like to use) is a busy dude.

7 days times uncountable planets/suns/etc = he's probably still making planets now....

But remember he loves everyone of his creations as equal, what a person.

The god equation ha ha ha

This to me is silly, scientist's have witnessed the birth of a PLANET... omg proof of the creators handywork...(I think not)

www.independent.co.uk...

I am not daming any religion, this is my own beliefs and I wanted to put this out there.

Im going to hell now right....

:



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I have been seeing and reading an awful lot of threads on here lately about my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, how the Bible is inaccurate, we christians are immoral, and all we do is quote scripture.

The first point I will make concerning all of these comments and threads is this. The people that are starting these threads have "0" knowledge of the scriptures. When we bible thumpers quote the scriptures, you do not even read them. When you do read them, you still do not understand what they are telling you, you start interpeting them.

So, this saying from Paul in II Corinthians should be quoted,
II Corinthians 4:3-5
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the LORD: and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Now, let me ask all of you, who are you to go calling these Holy Men of God liars? Who are you to JUDGE ancient manuscripts? Have you personally lived in those days? Are you a JEW, whose heritage this is all about, THEIR HISTORY? I think not.

I personally researched and dug into the most dustiest of places in the Library and dug out the writings of the men that TRANSLATED the bible from the earliest of manuscripts. The MEN that did the work ended up DEAD for their work. Assassinated. BURNED at the stake, their throats slit.
Why? Because they wanted people to learn the TRUTH! To know God and recieve the free gift of salvation.

You have to be led by the Holy Spirit, and receive the gifts of wisdom, knowledge and understanding to KNOW what the Word of God says. By the way, there is this wonderful gift called FAITH. Not religion, but FAITH.

Hebrews 11:1-3
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Read the book of Hebrews, it is called the FAITH chapter.

And I will stop on this note;
2 Corinthians 2:12-16
Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which MAN's wisdom teaches, but which the HOLY GHOST teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Now the natural man receives not the thing of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who has known the mind of the LORD, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Peter 1:19-21
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowning this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST.

1 John 2:27-28
But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, (Holy Ghost), and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him.

And now, little children, abide in him, that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren


Please point me to a link where I can read the correctly translated bible.


that's not exactly what I said, the modern Bible versions are a great translations in the most cases, but the manuscripts they were translated were corrupt. here is a brief history of the modern Bible translations and the King James Version.

KJV Controversey And Here

the "worst of the worst" or Satan's bible IMHO is the NIV translation, here is a brief glimpse into the huge difference between it and the KJV:

NIV perversion








That's true if the celestial objects didn't interact with each other and their paths stayed undisturbed since the big bang. But that's clearly not the case. There have been catastrophic events (supernovae) that have altered the orbit and spin of entire planets.


There are no supernovae rings in our solar system, yet 2 or maybe 3 planets rotate counter-clockwise, and some of Jupiter's moons rotate clockwise and some counter-clockwise. There is an entire galaxy that rotates counter-clockwise. And entire galaxy is too grand to have been affected by millions of supernovas. You do make a valid point that IF an object encounters resistance it can change its conservation of angular momentum, however it is the rare case, not the norm. We have only observed less than 300 supernovae rings in the universe. And current estimates are there are enough stars that every person on Earth can have 11 trillion of them for themselves.




Astronomers detect new long-period comets at the rate of about one per month. By that rough estimate, 24,000 long-period comets have entered the inner solar system since the time of Christ! Orbital analysis show that these approaching comets generally take several million years to orbit the sun, and, as they are more or less randomly distributed in their orbits, we may deduce that the bulk of them are presently beyond the range of our telescopes. Only the exceptional comet, at any given moment, would be in that small portion of its orbit which crosses the inner solar system.
source: www.talkorigins.org...


Allow me to research this, I don't recall that their orbits around our sun take millions of years, we have seen the known comets coming by every few decades or centuries as recorded by astronomers. let me resaerch this one...




I beg to differ. Please don't take this the wrong way, but here is the rub. Yes, Creationists use scientific data, but only the part that fits their belief-system. When there is data, like my comet example above, that don't fit the paradigm it's conveniently discarded or deemed inaccurate.


But so do Evolutionists!!! Look at radiometric dating data, if the age is what they believe to be true the reading is accepted, if the reading come back contrary to their conceived opinion on the age of an artifact they reject it as inaccurate. This problem is true on BOTH sides my friend, not only Creation scientists.


Sorry to harp on the same string again, but that's why I was so adamant about the term light-year. It is a scientific term for distance related to TIME. If you use a scientific term, but use your own definition (c not being a constant) we have no common base for an honest, fruitful discussion IMHO.


It's not my own opinion that time is not a constant, there is proof from scientists that they can affect the speed of light in a laboratory, and there is credible evidence that the speed of light is decreasing about 1% every year. So it's not a constant, I do give you credit though becasue if the speed of light is a constant, and has always been the speed it is today then your argument would be valid. however, the evidence leans towards the speed of light being exponentially greater at time zero than it is measured today, and the distance of stars today is also much greater than that they were at time zero. Even secular scientists agree that the universe is expanding.





I don't view you as crazy and me calling you a 12-year-old was uncalled for. But it puzzles me how you can believe that our planet is only a few thousand years old. To me that's on the same level as saying the earth is flat. At one time that statement made sense, because humans didn't know any better, but we have evolved.

When time permits I will look at your links with an open mind. Trust me I'm trying hard.


But I didn't believe that at first, at first I believed just like anyone who has had a public education in this country. My change of opinion came from studying the other side's arguments. It's not that I don't understand the Big Bang, or Evolutionary Theory, it's that when I honestly listened to the other side of the argument that I changed my mind, IMHO their explanation is more credible and doesn't violate laws of physics.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to understand my point of view and an honest attempt to see the other side of the argument. That shows great intellectual honesty IMHO, most people stick their fingers in their ears at the mention of "Creationism". I have a lot of respect for you.





Have a great weekend too.


I will, can't wait to go to church tomorrow, and then it's football time! my Colts are finally back on the field after a bye-week.

P.S. If you aren't a Colts fan I'll pray for you to realize that's a sin.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ljib777
 


Thanks for your post. The pillars of my belief system are: faith, study and practice. You are assuming that my original post is based on ignorance. It is actually based on honest concern for the portrail of God in the OT.

Thank you.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





that's not exactly what I said, the modern Bible versions are a great translations in the most cases, but the manuscripts they were translated were corrupt.


Not sure I understand you correctly? So those are great translations of a corrupt source? My question stands: point me to a source where I can read the bible in it's pure, uncorrupted form. Maybe Genesis makes more sense there.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join