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.
Originally posted by Deetermined
Originally posted by MrXYZ
I will believe stuff in the bible that's backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence.
Here's what's not backed up by objective evidence:
- People living inside whales or resurrecting from inside whales
- Genesis
- Global flood
- ...
In addition to that, there are over 400 cases where the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong not only scientifically, but also historically: LINK
What's your evidence that Adam lived over 900 years? Please don't tell me you believe it simply because it's in the bibleedit on 11-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
I'm not sure why you would believe any of it if all of it needs to be proven scientifically to you.
Yes, the Bible requires belief through faith. Faith is a major topic discussed in the Bible.
Yes, I believe Adam lived 930 years because the Bible says so.
God will never allow man to scientifically prove everything. Man is imperfect and God knows that if he shared all knowledge with man that man would only corrupt it due to sin. Just like his perfect angels who exercised their free will until they corrupted mankind and became the "fallen angels". Too much knowledge and power combined with free will only leads to a power struggle between the Creator and those He created. It won't happen again. God will destroy those who misused their knowledge and power.
Edit to Add: Man was given a second chance, through Jesus, to be redeemed. The "fallen angels" will not be given that chance. They will be destroyed with no chance of living another angelic or eternal life.edit on 11-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Garfee
The context was attacking the integrity of the Word of God as it's written.
Dude, believe whatever you want to, my point was this is nothing new, not by a long shot.
It's not the word of god until god says it is, right in front of me.
That's included in "believe whatever you want."
Was it okay for Hitler to believe that all non-aryans should be wiped off the planet? To believe that Allah said to kill the infidels? Is it okay to believe that women are inferior? Not only is it wrong to believe in such things, it is also wrong to sit by and let these beliefs infect the entire world.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
Throw me an example of where the Bible was proven wrong and I'll try to answer your question.
As for your link, it looked like most of the questions revolved around the Bible not giving enough detail to answer them.edit on 11-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)
That link lists over 430 cases where the bible is wrong
Originally posted by gunmetal
I just cannot believe that this guys does not believe in the creation story....I hope he comes to peace with his soul. What is the world coming too.
Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post by Deetermined
Yes, and they are all based on the biblical quotes, there is nothing there beyond faith alone to "prove" anything. What I am saying is, there has to be more than supporting evidence from the bible for many people to accept it, especially when you are dealing with passages that are highly improbable in today's world.
I have a copy of "Hunger games" beside me, and I could tell you what is in it is true, and if you question any of it, I could say "but the book says!" then go find some in-depth review of the book, and use it as back up, when truly, the only source for the book, and it's review, is the book itself. Where is the independent evidence?
Until that time, the Bible says we're supposed to have faith. The Bible also says that most won't believe or have faith until then, which should't surprise us since Jesus himself walked the face of the earth with people, performed miracles in front of them, saw Jesus' prophecies come true and yet most still wouldn't believe Him and rejected Him. So, why would we expect anything different now?
Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist
au.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.
He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC's Q&A program last night.
Originally posted by gps777
How many lives were taken by Starlin/Pol Pot?
Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, and in a speech in 1922 he remarked, "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter..." In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1.2), Hitler stated:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
How many lives are taken on a daily basis by athiests around the world,how many sell drugs,murder or break and enter or bash or rape etc etc.
How many of those were Christian on a daily basis?
I`m pretty sure this world is as screwed up as it is because of unbelief.
But hey just another bashing thread which is allowed to continue,so I guess this must be good for ATS.
Originally posted by MarlboroRedCowgirl
Hilariously, some scientific communities had proved the existance of our DNA stemming from one man and one woman. Its not every day that the scientific community finds positive findings on matters of faith that men of the cloth deny.
This is a really silly interpretation of a coalescent date for a genetic locus. It is NOT true that "mitochondrial Eve" means that the population size of our ancestors fell to the point where we all have but a single female ancestor. What actually happens is that in all populations, of whatever size, some individuals leave no or few descendants, while other individuals leave many.
Barring new mutations, each generation would lose a certain amount of its pre-existing genetic diversity and, with enough time, all of the pre-existing genetic diversity is lost and all individuals would carry just one of the pre-existing genetic variants. This is what happened in the case of "mitochondrial Eve," enough time has gone by that all of the other mitochondrial DNA variants present more than 200,000 years ago have disappeared except for one. The only reason we don't actually all now have the same mitochondrial DNA is that during this interval there have been many mutations occurring. So over time, the diversity that had existed is lost, while new mutations generate new diversity within the remaining lineages.
Think about it in the sense that there may be nothing special about the oldest tree in a forest other than by chance it is the one that has survived the longest without getting destroyed by fire, pests, etc. And if that tree gets destroyed, then there will be a different oldest tree, one that germinated more recently in time. But the fact that we can identify an oldest tree in the forest does not mean that there were not many other trees around when the tree that is currently oldest first germinated.
It is true that we can trace the origin of all human mitochondrial DNA back to a common mitochondrial ancestor around 200,000 years ago. However, this is simply the common ancestor of our mitochondrial DNA - a far cry from the common ancestor of all of DNA. All of our other genes would trace back to their own common gene ancestors (most of them much farther back in time). Thus, it is erroneous to claim that the individual carrying our common mitochondrial ancestor was THE common ancestor of humans.
To help clarify the fallacy, imagine a hypothetical person named Joe traced the gene responsible for his hairy ears back to his paternal grandfather. It would be erroneous to claim the paternal grandfather as THE ancestor of Joe. Joe had four grandparents that each contributed aspects of his genome. In the same way, "mitochondrial Eve" contributed the mitochondrial DNA to all humans alive today. However, the mitochondrial genome is a very small part of human DNA, and we know that many thousands of other individuals contributed other aspects of our current genetic diversity. Thus, genetics, in no way, supports a literal Adam or a literal Eve. And I say this as a Christian.
andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com...
Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by lost artistic
The only mention of Lilith in the Bible is in a NSRV version and she's only mentioned once as being some kind of demon in the book of Isaiah. There is no story outside of "Jewish folklore" created between the 8th - 10th century of Lilith being tied to Adam or the creation story based on my research.
en.wikipedia.org...
You may have missed the fact that I am a Christian, I just don't believe the Bible is a :literal truth, there are two many inconsistencies, and contradictions in it.
Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Xaphan
Jesus' main mission for coming to earth was to die. He knew it and he preached to his apostles why he would be put to death. It was the only way to cleanse sin in order to achieve salvation.