Originally posted by whodey I used to be like RJ. I was told by my church that evolution was evil and mutually exclusive in relation to creationism. I was also instructed that the six days were six literal days, end of discussion or you were a heretic.
However, I then picked up a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. In it he revealed that many rabbi sch ...[text shortened]... ng. I don't view it as having any blatant errors that would lead to heretical thinking.
It's not until I got down to "As for myself, I believe in creationism, and I believe that the universe is billions of years old." , that I got you. Thats great. So do I. more or less. Twist a word here, move a meaning there. Nothing untoward , just my take on things.
It really isn't so much of a stretch as RJ makes it out ... (between science and bible stuff)
Originally posted by whodey I used to be like RJ. I was told by my church that evolution was evil and mutually exclusive in relation to creationism. I was also instructed that the six days were six literal days, end of discussion or you were a heretic.
However, I then picked up a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. In it he revealed that many rabbi sch ...[text shortened]... ng. I don't view it as having any blatant errors that would lead to heretical thinking.
I have never claimed any particular translation of the Holy Bible was inspired. It is the orignal scriptures that I have been referring to. If you have noticed I do not always quote from the same version, but I do favor the NASB and the NKJV because they are easier for most people to understand. I do not dismiss the fact that there remains errors in these translations, but I see them as of minor importance to doctrine.
Originally posted by karoly aczel It's not until I got down to "As for myself, I believe in creationism, and I believe that the universe is billions of years old." , that I got you. Thats great. So do I. more or less. Twist a word here, move a meaning there. Nothing untoward , just my take on things.
It really isn't so much of a stretch as RJ makes it out ... (between science and bible stuff)
Well the Bible is not a science book, rather, it is a message to a dying and hurting world of hope. It lays out a better way for us to live and interact now and it lays out a hope for a life hereafter.
Originally posted by RJHinds I have never claimed any particular translation of the Holy Bible was inspired. It is the orignal scriptures that I have been referring to. If you have noticed I do not always quote from the same version, but I do favor the NASB and the NKJV because they are easier for most people to understand. I do not dismiss the fact that there remains errors in these translations, but I see them as of minor importance to doctrine.
Have you ever read the original Hebrew? Translations only lend themselves to error.
Originally posted by whodey Have you ever read the original Hebrew? Translations only lend themselves to error.
I have studied more of the Greek New Testament and better understand it than the Hebrew. Actually, I have not spent much time trying to learn Hebrew, even though I have a book in which I am supposed to be able to teach myself, I have failed to do so. I do have an Interlinear Bible of both Hebrew and Greek texts, but more on the Greek New Testament. I have the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament. But I mainly study the Old Tesstament from my copy of The Septuagint with Apocrypha which is in Greek and English, because I know more about the Greek language.
P.S. It appears that the apostles were using the Septuagint based on some of their quotes of the Old Testament.
Originally posted by humy right. So will you answer my question?
Are you unable to?
Are you too scared to?
Why should I be scared of you?
I am able to answer your question.
I have already anwered your question and there is no need to repeat my answer for you can check it up yourself.
Originally posted by RJHinds Why should I be scared of you?
I am able to answer your question.
I have already anwered your question and there is no need to repeat my answer for you can check it up yourself.
Why should I be scared of you?
where did I suggest you were?
I am able to answer your question.
Good. So what is your answer?
I have already anwered your question
Nope; you answered your own question about “hypothetical lies” that nobody asked, and not my question -well done!
So, back to my question:
purely hypothetically, IF the Bible ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH AND DID explicitly say that the Earth is millions of years old and DID explicitly say abiogenesis and evolution happened and and life and humans evolved by Darwinian evolution with common ancestor and DID explicitly say the Big Bang theory is correct, would you THEN accept the said scientific evidence for evolution and old-Earth etc as being valid evidence?
Nope; you answered your own question about “hypothetical lies” that nobody asked, and not my question -well done!
So, back to my question: ...[text shortened]... said scientific evidence for evolution and old-Earth etc as being valid evidence?
Originally posted by RJHinds Nope, I answered your question.
you answered you own question which was about the Bible telling lies. well done!
Now state your answer to mine that is NOT a question about the Bible telling lies....
Originally posted by RJHinds Nope, I answered your question.
Originally posted by RJHinds
If, hypothetically, the Holy Bible was full of lies, it would not be the word of God or the Holy Bible. It would just be a Bible like any other religious book.
Well done; you have answered your own hypothetical question (since you do not believe the Holy Bible is full of lies, but you are able to deduce the consequence of it hypothetically being full of lies).
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Originally posted by RJHinds
If, hypothetically, the Holy Bible was full of lies, it would not be the word of God or the Holy Bible. It would just be a Bible like any other religious book.
Well done; you have answered your own hypothetical question (since you do not believe the Holy Bible is full of lies, but you are able to deduce the consequence of it hypothetically being full of lies).
Originally posted by RJHinds You are not the boss of me.
We all know that you are too scared to answer the question for it would reveal that your religious beliefs are irrational -why else will you not answer?
And it is obvious to all of us here reading this thread that you have not answered MY question as you keep claiming but rather just your own.
My question is clearly NOT asking about hypothetical lies but rather hypothetical truths.
Originally posted by humy We all know that you are too scared to answer the question for it would reveal that your religious beliefs are irrational -why else will you not answer?
And it is obvious to all of us here reading this thread that you have not answered MY question as you keep claiming but rather just your own.
My question is clearly NOT asking about hypothetical lies but rather hypothetical truths.
Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence
31 May '12 02:53
Back to Top