Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I get it, you materialists don't really know, do you, you have simply taken it upon trust. How vewy vewy vewy intewsting!

Just Google 'molecular clock'.

What's interesting is your participation in this thread, firstly claiming that science backs the Genesis account and then admitting that it doesn't, then you claim you've partaken in a little research 'in the interim', when in fact you've done no such thing.

Why are you being liberal with the truth? What do you gain from it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh naw, this does nothing to address the point, which is, how do scientists arrive at the dates for the so called 'DNA evidence', used by geneticists and so beloved by the anti biblical and lets be sure about this, my assertion is not that they are covering up, but they are reading from the same cook book.

The arrogance in your position is stunning. In what respect is anything whatever in science "anti-biblical?" How do you account for the countless Christians (of many denominations), Jews and Muslims who are active in science?

The only anti in this game is the new fangled "literalism" of the mostly American new evangelical right who see in this and similar debates a pathway to status of one or other variety. The only thing science is inherently "anti-" is your style of obscurantism which sets about dictating to the world that you have found the correct meaning of the bible in conflict with not only science but also most believers in the very biblical faith you put to shame by your pig headed obstinacy.

I'm an atheist and even I have grown past the stage of feeling the need to be anti biblical. It is not an issue for me even as an atheist. I'm no longer quite sure what you even might mean by the expression. I might as well be anti poetry and anti music while I'm at it. you are spouting paranoid delusions. What is an issue is stupidity compounded with intentional misrepresentation compounded with intolerance and bigotry, of which you are becoming a very obvious example.

It's worth bearing in mind that Christianity is anti biblical. It represents a radical break with most of the bible. St Paul was anti biblical. He established a new religion. The fact that Christians then inserted their new testament into the bible simply results in a compound of the two sections in which one revises the other. But much of Christian teaching is not in even the new and extended bible, but in the interpretations of that scripture which has evolved further. Your stance would be seen by many as not so much pro-bible as anti Christian. It is certainly outside of several thousand years of Christian tradition.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh naw, this does nothing to address the point, which is, how do scientists arrive at the dates for the so called 'DNA evidence', used by geneticists and so beloved by the anti biblical and lets be sure about this, my assertion is not that they are covering up, but they are reading from the same cook book.

so lets get this straight. you are saying that for some bizarre reason all scientists and all future generations of scientists have decided on one train of thought and gone against their urge to compete and be more successful and prove wrong and to win accolades. for some odd reason you are suggesting scientists have given up formulating their own opinions.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Just Google 'molecular clock'.

What's interesting is your participation in this thread, firstly claiming that science backs the Genesis account and then admitting that it doesn't, then you claim you've partaken in a little research 'in the interim', when in fact you've done no such thing.

Why are you being liberal with the truth? What do you gain from it?

I admitted nothing of the sort, what you claim are the prerequisites for the designation
of the term science are clearly different from my prerequisites and i have already
explained why your materialistic theories do not constitute being termed science. Why
don't you just tell me, it should be easy, should it not? I don't in fact believe you can.
Interesting that you should cite the term evidence and not be able to explain what that
evidence is, its just like the God of science to produce a mantra, like E=MC^2, which
everyone knows and hardly anyone understands.

Originally posted by finnegan
The arrogance in your position is stunning. In what respect is anything whatever in science "anti-biblical?" How do you account for the countless Christians (of many denominations), Jews and Muslims who are active in science?

The only anti in this game is the new fangled "literalism" of the mostly American new evangelical right who see in this and simil i Christian. It is certainly outside of several thousand years of Christian tradition.

St Paul was anti-Biblical, bwhahahahahahah, first of all, he was an apostle to the nations, not a saint and secondly the scriptures indicate that he used the Bible, in the form of the Hebrew parchments which were available at the time to reason with persons proving with references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die, and here you are claiming that he was anti-Biblical. Feels bum and hopes this is a bad dream.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
St Paul was anti-Biblical, bwhahahahahahah, forst of all, he was an apostle, not a saint and secondly the scriptures indicate that he used the Bible, in the form of the Hebrew parchments which were available at the time to reason with persons proving with references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die, and here you are claiming that he was anti-Biblical. Feels bum and hopes to be brought back to reality.

So reality for you is somewhere in that vicinity then? Curious. Keep feeling about and I hope you find it.

If Paul was an apostle he was a very honorary one at best. Beyond that my ironic point is wasted on such a literalist.

Originally posted by finnegan
So reality for you is somewhere in that vicinity then? Curious. Keep feeling about and I hope you find it.

If Paul was an apostle he was a very honorary one at best. Beyond that my ironic point is wasted on such a literalist.

its wasted on anyone capable of discernment and rational thought.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I admitted nothing of the sort, what you claim are the prerequisites for the designation
of the term science are clearly different from my prerequisites and i have already
explained why your materialistic theories do not constitute being termed science. Why
don't you just tell me, it should be easy, should it not? I don't in fact believe you ...[text shortened]... cience to produce a mantra, like E=MC^2, which
everyone knows and hardly anyone understands.

Truly unbelievable, the arrogance permeating from you is almost seeping out of my monitor and keyboard.

So let's get this straight. Robbie Carrobie, the man who confessed to being 'closed minded' and 'ignorant' about that which conflicts with his dogmatic religious beliefs, namely certain scientific fields, is now declaring what constitutes science. LOL!!!!!!

You are a crackpot mate, 100% nut-job. Now forgive me while i go rolling on the floor laughing uncontrollably. Unbelievable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
St Paul was anti-Biblical, bwhahahahahahah, first of all, he was an apostle to the nations, not a saint and secondly the scriptures indicate that he used the Bible, in the form of the Hebrew parchments which were available at the time to reason with persons proving with references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die, and here you are claiming that he was anti-Biblical. Feels bum and hopes this is a bad dream.

I think of Jehovah's Witnesses when I read the words of Paul about Israel:

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(Romans 10:1-4 NKJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think of Jehovah's Witnesses when I read the words of Paul about Israel:

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that [b]they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have ...[text shortened]... Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(Romans 10:1-4 NKJV)[/b]

Absolutely. Paul here tips the bible (strictly no such thing at the time I know but the same Old Testament that was incorporated into the bible) on its head. The scripture as it was in his day was what the Jews were observing and he announced a novel religion, in which Jesus was deified. He then sets in motion a new testament which overthrows the old, even though Jesus is quoted as saying that he did not come to overthrow the laws but to bring them to perfection and of course not only Jesus but also his apostles were Jews and the latter remained Jews, teaching in the temple at Jerusalem until its destruction some forty years later.

Of course Paul did indeed search through the Old Testament for those phrases and themes that he could reinterpret in support of his radically novel proposals. Only the most absurdly uncritical audience would mistake what he did for anything other than a complete transformation of the material to suit an entirely novel purpose. It worked for those who wanted it to be so, and patently failed to convince the Jewish scholars of his day or any day since. So it was part of his strategy to accuse those Jews of being blind or worse, a classic ad-hominem approach to debate which is rhetorical and not logically coherent or persuasive. Nor of course did it convince any of the Muslim scholars in following centuries, who also studied the Old Testament very deeply.

I over simplify of course but the essence remains that, strictly speaking, Paul was "anti-bible" in at least some reasonable definitions of that absurd concept. See earlier posts. He wished to use it for his purposes, but not to respect it because he set about altering so much of its meaning to fit his agenda.

Of course, the bible is fair game for such reinterpretation and fresh uses, but only if it is considered as an historically interesting cultural resource, not if it is regarded as the literally true blueprint for God's plan. You may think this today but Paul did not.

Originally posted by finnegan
Absolutely. Paul here tips the bible (strictly no such thing at the time I know but the same Old Testament that was incorporated into the bible) on its head. The scripture as it was in his day was what the Jews were observing and he announced a novel religion, in which Jesus was deified. He then sets in motion a new testament which overthrows the old, eve d as the literally true blueprint for God's plan. You may think this today but Paul did not.

the biggest pile of hogwash i have had the misfortune to read on these forums in a
long time, full of self certified opinion and not one Biblical reference,

1. no such thing as the Bible as we know it?

he had the entire Hebrew cannon at his disposal, which contained more than 400
messianic prophesies, archetypes from which he draws a plethora of examples.

2. he announced that Christ was deified, utter hogwash, he announced no such
thing,

3. It did not over through the old in anyway, in fact without Paul we would not know
how many of the archetypical representations found in the old covenant related to
Christians and he goes into great length to explain them, you are talking pants.

4. He failed to convince the Jewish scholars, no he did not, in fact many became
Christians, if you read the scriptures you would know this fact.

5. On the contrary Pauls method was to use reasoning from the scriptures to
demonstrate that it was necessary for the Christ to die, how this most simple fact
can be construed to, it was a classic ad hominem is perhaps another testimony to
your prejudice, ignorance, who can say? I don't know what you do for a living, but
you are certainly not a student of the Bible, for sure.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the biggest pile of hogwash i have had the misfortune to read on these forums in a
long time, full of self certified opinion and not one Biblical reference,

1. no such thing as the Bible as we know it?
...... I don't know what you do for a living, but
you are certainly not a student of the Bible, for sure.

I am not a student of the bible. I see no need for a biblical reference in my earlier post. I get accused of writing too much as it is. But as for your spluttering diatribe, I rest my case on the following, a sample of many alternatives available to us all:

The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians.
...The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

The first complete NT in a single volume appears to have been complied around 250 AD. Church historians recorded that it contained all the books we know today, as well as a letter written by Clements of Rome and an "allegory" story called "The Shephard" by Hermes. These last two books were placed after Revelation, and treated by the historians as being of lesser inspiration then the other books.

The Nicean Council around 325 AD was asked to publish 50 copies of the Christian scriptures. After debate, it was decided to include the Greek translation of the Old Testament (with its additional books). They all agreed with no debate on 22 of the 27 books currently found in the New Testament. There was debate over the letters of 2 and 3 John. Each is only a few lines in length, and contain no major theological teachings. They were personal letter written by John to friends. There were some who felt that, while they were of historical value, they really had nothing to contribute to the understanding of Christianity. But as they were the writings of an apostle, they were included.

There was also some debate about the letter of James. There were some who questioned the authorship of the letter. Same with Hebrews, as the author is unknown. But as both books were found in every collection of the epistles known to the church, showing their acceptance for the entire 300 year history of the church, they were included.

The book that almost did NOT make it was the book of Revelation. There was a second book of similar end time prophecies called the Apocalypse of Peter. The council when back and forth on whether in include both or neither books in the canon. They finally decided to include Revelation (as there was evidence that it was the older book) and exclude the Apocalypse of Peter.

The 50 Bibles that were finally completed around 350 AD contained the 27 NT books found in all Bibles today. It is possible that the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest "complete" and still readable Bible manuscript is one of those 50 Bibles (or a direct copy from one of the 50).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081211181942AAQ7ZWA

Unless you wish to debate this information, you will agree that the first bible was produced in the year 350 CE. Whatever Paul referred to, I see nothing inaccurate in what I wrote: "the bible (strictly no such thing at the time I know but the same Old Testament that was incorporated into the bible)." Do you?

Originally posted by finnegan
Absolutely. Paul here tips the bible (strictly no such thing at the time I know but the same Old Testament that was incorporated into the bible) on its head. The scripture as it was in his day was what the Jews were observing and he announced a novel religion, in which Jesus was deified. He then sets in motion a new testament which overthrows the old, eve ...[text shortened]... d as the literally true blueprint for God's plan. You may think this today but Paul did not.

Jesus the Christ was unable to convince the Jewish scholars (Pharisees) of the day either and they veiwed Him as a threat and had Him crucified. However, we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
(Romans 8:28 KJV)

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by finnegan
I am not a student of the bible. I see no need for a biblical reference in my earlier post. I get accused of writing too much as it is. But as for your spluttering diatribe, I rest my case on the following, a sample of many alternatives available to us all:
[quote]The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belo time I know but the same Old Testament that was incorporated into the bible)." Do you?

It is ironic that the Jehovah's Witnesses accept the canon of scripture, as inspired writings, adopted by the bishops of the Universal Christian Church, yet deny the truth in the Christian Creeds adopted by those same bishops.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Just Google 'molecular clock'.

What's interesting is your participation in this thread, firstly claiming that science backs the Genesis account and then admitting that it doesn't, then you claim you've partaken in a little research 'in the interim', when in fact you've done no such thing.

Why are you being liberal with the truth? What do you gain from it?

Science does back the genesis account. However, evolutionists have hijacked a part of science to advance the devil's purpose, which you have fallen for. 😏

P.S. Here is a video produced by the evolutionists showing the mountain of evidence that man descended from apes.

YouTube&feature=b-vrec

A book for you since you like reading:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Delusion-Scientific-Pretensions/product-reviews/1458758567