Martinez19:
very good, you are a thinking man. I like people who don't just believe anything. Now, you should know that the new testament was written in Greek and old testament in Hebrew. Moreover, the men who translated the Bible to English made errors by adding a little based on their thinking and rationality as seen on comparison with the original text (though it is negligible) . The Bible says that the scripture is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That word 'scripture' in Greek is verb not noun meaning that the urge to write was given by God but what was eventually written down was dependant on the writer's scope and revelation. Does 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 chronicles 21:1 appear to contradict? Yes it does, that shows you that the story's inspiration came from God but what was eventually written down was dependant on the writer's scope of understanding. Corruption inspired fela's music not the lyrics, beats and genre.
In that story of David, the person doing the mass killing was not God but the evil one and it was not God's anger but a disobedience to exodus 30:12. David made the census without a ransom for every man so the spirit of death capitalized on this opportunity and many people died mysteriously. And of course, the old testament folks(many) not knowing Satan attributed it to God. God gives and never takes.
Noah's case was not God's idea. Adam's sin caused death to reign not just in the body of man but the earth. Remember that it would have caused nothing for God to kill them right away isn't it? Why waste your time gathering animals and suffering a man to build a boat? Besides, he would have buried them as he buried Moses. During creation, God made two bodies of waters, one below(sea, rivers etc.) and one above meaning a body of water uniformly lined the upper atmosphere. Because death reigned, all was disintegrating and God told Noah to start building ahead of time. If God wanted to kill them, why allow Noah to warn them. They died simply because they would not heed Noah's advice and God's warning so they perished look at Jesus' statement in Matt. 24:37 no attributions to God. They died because they wouldn't listen.
To understand the Bible, you must read it in the light of the epistles so as to rightly divide the Word. Read Luke 9:51-56 Jesus was rejected but he showed the natured of God against His law-bred disciples. God can't, has never and will never kill anyone. He is love.
Any question before I race to Sodom and Gomorrah's story?

Nice perspective, no questions for now,you can proceed!

[quote author=Hiswordxray post=45650252][/quote]

sir i did not report you neither did i know what you are talking about... if you were banned then you must have broken one of nairaland's rules, that is nobody's fault.

donnffd:


Nice perspective, no questions for now,you can proceed!

just like I said there are errors on the part of the translators and let's point it out as I look at the story. Look at Gen.18 closely and you observe that angels in form of men were going somewhere when Abraham invited them to his house. Where were they going? They were going to Sodom and Gomorrah. After they prophesied about Isaac's coming and they were about to leave they contemplated in Gen. 18:17-19 on telling Abraham and they did in Gen.18:20-21. The use of Lord to represent God was erroneous as Abraham out of respect used it for the angels. Gen. 18:20-21 shows you that they heard about Sodom sinfulness, from who? God check it (remember they are angels). They said when they see they would know the extent of sin. Mind you they never said kill. Check it.
The problem here was the translators consistent use of Lord to represent God instead of the angels. Also note that Abraham had this mindset that God gives and take which I debunked in my earlier post (you may need to go through them) and started saying that if the angels saw so so and so people they should spear and not kill. Kill? did they mention kill? Check it out. If you compare the original Hebrew text with the king James you did be surprised at the errors of addition and the rationality of these non-Christian translators coming to play. Look at Rom. 8:1the original Greek translation did not include 'who do not walk according to the flesh but, according to the spirit'. Their rationality came in to play again because they saw the original statement as nonsensical even though it is true (when you study salvation). Matt. 17:21 was never in the original Greek translation at all. But the scholars added it because they thought believing alone can't be enough (which is a lie) and Christians are like this ie. they find it hard to believe the simplicity of God but prefer complexity and working it out. How sad
Before I finish my teaching any disagreement on the part? Mind you, the Bible is not in support of Catholics(story for another day).

Martinez19:
just like I said there are errors on the part of the translators and let's point it out as I look at the story. Look at Gen.18 closely and you observe that angels in form of men were going somewhere when Abraham invited them to his house. Where were they going? They were going to Sodom and Gomorrah. After they prophesied about Isaac's coming and they were about to leave they contemplated in Gen. 18:17-19 on telling Abraham and they did in Gen.18:20-21. The use of Lord to represent God was erroneous as Abraham out of respect used it for the angels. Gen. 18:20-21 shows you that they heard about Sodom sinfulness, from who? God check it (remember they are angels). They said when they see they would know the extent of sin. Mind you they never said kill. Check it.
The problem here was the translators consistent use of Lord to represent God instead of the angels. Also note that Abraham had this mindset that God gives and take which I debunked in my earlier post (you may need to go through them) and started saying that if the angels saw so so and so people they should spear and not kill. Kill? did they mention kill? Check it out. If you compare the original Hebrew text with the king James you did be surprised at the errors of addition and the rationality of these non-Christian translators coming to play. Look at Rom. 8:1the original Greek translation did not include 'who do not walk according to the flesh but, according to the spirit'. Their rationality came in to play again because they saw the original statement as nonsensical even though it is true (when you study salvation). Matt. 17:21 was never in the original Greek translation at all. But the scholars added it because they thought believing alone can't be enough (which is a lie) and Christians are like this ie. they find it hard to believe the simplicity of God but prefer complexity and working it out. How sad
Before I finish my teaching any disagreement on the part? Mind you, the Bible is not in support of Catholics(story for another day).

The bible is the only evidence God gave to mankind to prove dat he exist, yet he cant make sure d bible is accurate. Remind me again wot good things God uses his power for. And he will still destroy those who dont believe in him anyway. Very fair isn't it??

Edybleketara:
The bible is the only evidence God gave to mankind to prove dat he exist, yet he cant make sure d bible is accurate. Remind me again wot good things God uses his power for. And he will still destroy those who dont believe in him anyway. Very fair isn't it??

I understand, your questions are very legal and acceptable but you see we are to rightly divide the word by studying to show our self approved 2 Tim 2:15. How many churches do this instead money and lies are the order of the day and innocent atheists are confounded. I can tell you that the awesomeness of God goodness is supra abundant and can be accessed by believers(not just any believer but those who know what they have in Christ Jesus) people are to see our lives that point towards Christ as we walk in love.
One thing we must know is that God can never interfere with our free will and decisions. Our choices are respected whether righteous or not and the consequences is ours to bear. Many don't understand this. Even knowledge is our choice rejecting it means we have to suffer ignorance which leads to unnecessary suffering as you see among Christians Hosea 4:6. If you desire knowledge from God He will give but all what Christians ask is money centric and materialistic at most times. God has designed us to be the determinate of our destiny by our choices and actions. God may have a plan but if you say no, He respects it 1 Samuel 8.
I can tell things from the Bible that will shock eg. the misconceptions that bad people go to hell after they die(even though hell is real). How many people have told you what I told you? Many people write and say God does not exist, did God stop them? How do you think He could have stopped mistranslation? So you see freewill comes into play. There are many things I can tell if time allows me. Anything else?

Martinez19:
I understand, your questions are very legal and acceptable but you see we are to rightly divide the word by studying to show our self approved 2 Tim 2:15. How many churches do this instead money and lies are the order of the day and innocent atheists are confounded. I can tell you that the awesomeness of God goodness is supra abundant and can be accessed by believers(not just any believer but those who know what they have in Christ Jesus) people are to see our lives that point towards Christ as we walk in love.
One thing we must know is that God can never interfere with our free will and decisions. Our choices are respected whether righteous or not and the consequences is ours to bear. Many don't understand this. Even knowledge is our choice rejecting it means we have to suffer ignorance which leads to unnecessary suffering as you see among Christians Hosea 4:6. If you desire knowledge from God He will give but all what Christians ask is money centric and materialistic at most times. God has designed us to be the determinate of our destiny by our choices and actions. God may have a plan but if you say no, He respects it 1 Samuel 8.
I can tell things from the Bible that will shock eg. the misconceptions that bad people go to hell after they die(even though hell is real). How many people have told you what I told you? Many people write and say God does not exist, did God stop them? How do you think He could have stopped mistranslation? So you see freewill comes into play. There are many things I can tell if time allows me. Anything else?

ur response is matured, though u didn't answer my question. How is it fair for God to destroy unbelievers despite d fact his only proof to mankind is adulterated? D blame shuld be solely on those who mistranslated d bible.

Edybleketara:
ur response is matured, though u didn't answer my question. How is it fair for God to destroy unbelievers despite d fact his only proof to mankind is adulterated? D blame shuld be solely on those who mistranslated d bible.

how do you think I was able to know this? That's because someone conducted deep study instead of following like a blind he goat . The truth is not far off search for and you will find it. Has anyone ever come to say that a new Bible should be reprinted because of the truths I pointed out so people can learn(because some folks are ready to believe anything which is unacceptable)? No body does this because money and comfortable living is the aim of the church over knowledge. Church is highly commercialized and many terrible doctrines such as deliverance, spirit wife, demon possessing Christians abound.
Remember Babylon invasion of Isreal before people were destroyed, they had enough warnings and prophets but yet refused to listen. Even though God said punishment will abound for the Israelites if they fail to obey His laws, yet He gave them enough time to repent and sent prophets to them. Turning away from your sins of sexual immorality and idolatry was it so much to ask? Asking you to be responsible is it too much? Yet God endured their abominations showing God wills for no man to perish. The Israelites wouldn't listen so they were held captive now whose fault? God? No!
Now, God has made Christ his 'doorway' and has warned that the end is coming and judgement is awaiting those that don't concur. If you say I don't want to believe, your decision is respected as God never touches a man's freewill. We were supposed to be destroyed but Christ died for us so as remove sin and give us his righteousness. Yet we must believe and accept because repentance and righteousness are necessary and we get our righteousness from him. Why was His death necessary? Why didn't He just flag our sins down? Well if He did then He would be merciful but unrighteous hence the necessity of Jesus death. The suffering and punishment was given to Jesus for our sake Isaiah 53:5.

Martinez19:
just like I said there are errors on the part of the translators and let's point it out as I look at the story. Look at Gen.18 closely and you observe that angels in form of men were going somewhere when Abraham invited them to his house. Where were they going? They were going to Sodom and Gomorrah. After they prophesied about Isaac's coming and they were about to leave they contemplated in Gen. 18:17-19 on telling Abraham and they did in Gen.18:20-21. The use of Lord to represent God was erroneous as Abraham out of respect used it for the angels. Gen. 18:20-21 shows you that they heard about Sodom sinfulness, from who? God check it (remember they are angels). They said when they see they would know the extent of sin. Mind you they never said kill. Check it.
The problem here was the translators consistent use of Lord to represent God instead of the angels. Also note that Abraham had this mindset that God gives and take which I debunked in my earlier post (you may need to go through them) and started saying that if the angels saw so so and so people they should spear and not kill. Kill? did they mention kill? Check it out. If you compare the original Hebrew text with the king James you did be surprised at the errors of addition and the rationality of these non-Christian translators coming to play. Look at Rom. 8:1the original Greek translation did not include 'who do not walk according to the flesh but, according to the spirit'. Their rationality came in to play again because they saw the original statement as nonsensical even though it is true (when you study salvation). Matt. 17:21 was never in the original Greek translation at all. But the scholars added it because they thought believing alone can't be enough (which is a lie) and Christians are like this ie. they find it hard to believe the simplicity of God but prefer complexity and working it out. How sad
Before I finish my teaching any disagreement on the part? Mind you, the Bible is not in support of Catholics(story for another day).

So according to you, who was responsible for Sodom and gomorrah's destruction if the bible translators made a mistake?

johnydon22:


sir i did not report you neither did i know what you are talking about... if you were banned then you must have broken one of nairaland's rules, that is nobody's fault.

Oh... Okay.
But I still don't understand... my post was completely innocent.

donnffd:


So according to you, who was responsible for Sodom and gomorrah's destruction if the bible translators made a mistake?

First and foremost, Gen. 19:16 confirms the misuse of Lord to mean the angels(study deeply the originals if you have) . What actual was going to happen was a natural disaster the first time of it's happening. The right conversation between Abraham and these angels in Gen. 18 was '... If you see so and so number of righteous people will you do all you can to protect the city?' the angels replied in affirmative. Even if Abraham had reduced the number to one, they would still have responded in affirmative. Remember I told you that they were on a rescue mission. They were to tell the whole city about the forthcoming disaster but instead the people gave them no chance preferring above all things to rape the men and thus no hope for them. Preaching in public was a suicide mission for these angels.
The angels warned lot's household and lot listened unlike his son in laws who laughed it off. So what happened to the city later that night was the reigning of what seems to be to be multiple meteorites. The scientific background then was poor and it was attributed to the Lord(translators tried to make it all match but got it wrong. These translators too had poor scientific background you know before 1611 the Catholic Church then the reigning church supported the geocentric model and other erroneous believes now proved wrong. This was before the time of Newton and the likes. Going against the church was suicidal. The writer of the original text originally made the same mistake of crediting the disaster to God since it seemed supernatural). The rescue mission was for those who were willing to listen. Were lot's daughters righteous? , people who slept with their father to have children. They reached out to lot's son in laws who didn't listen, would you say they were righteous?. So you see God never masterminded the destruction . If we were as crude are they were then, we too would have attributed it to God since it seemed supernatural.
Look at Ananais and Sapphira, do you think the Lord killed them? Big no. Peter then was the head of the church and a deep study of Peter shows he was no well grounded in the knowledge of Christ. 2 Peter 3: 15-16 shows you that he later became a student of Paul's epistles. 2 Peter 3:9 shows you that Peter finally knew that God's will is for to man not to perish. How could God have killed the couple is we have forgiveness of sin through Jesus Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14 and there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus Rom. 8:1.?
If the leader, Peter, was not well grounded in the knowledge of Christ how do you expect Ananais and Sapphira to know much. Besides they have lived long under the law in which anything a prophet says comes to pass. So when peter told them they had lied, he told them they were going to die(he should have put them in order with the Word), and they so much believed it they got heart attacks both of them. Have you see people who got so frightened they slumped and died? So was the case my brother. Peter misused his words and brought about their deaths. Any question?

Martinez19:
First and foremost, Gen. 19:16 confirms the misuse of Lord to mean the angels(study deeply the originals if you have) . What actual was going to happen was a natural disaster the first time of it's happening. The right conversation between Abraham and these angels in Gen. 18 was '... If you see so and so number of righteous people will you do all you can to protect the city?' the angels replied in affirmative. Even if Abraham had reduced the number to one, they would still have responded in affirmative. Remember I told you that they were on a rescue mission. They were to tell the whole city about the forthcoming disaster but instead the people gave them no chance preferring above all things to rape the men and thus no hope for them. Preaching in public was a suicide mission for these angels.
The angels warned lot's household and lot listened unlike his son in laws who laughed it off. So what happened to the city later that night was the reigning of what seems to be to be multiple meteorites. The scientific background then was poor and it was attributed to the Lord(translators tried to make it all match but got it wrong. These translators too had poor scientific background you know before 1611 the Catholic Church then the reigning church supported the geocentric model and other erroneous believes now proved wrong. This was before the time of Newton and the likes. Going against the church was suicidal. The writer of the original text originally made the same mistake of crediting the disaster to God since it seemed supernatural). The rescue mission was for those who were willing to listen. Were lot's daughters righteous? , people who slept with their father to have children. They reached out to lot's son in laws who didn't listen, would you say they were righteous?. So you see God never masterminded the destruction . If we were as crude are they were then, we too would have attributed it to God since it seemed supernatural.
Look at Ananais and Sapphira, do you think the Lord killed them? Big no. Peter then was the head of the church and a deep study of Peter shows he was no well grounded in the knowledge of Christ. 2 Peter 3: 15-16 shows you that he later became a student of Paul's epistles. 2 Peter 3:9 shows you that Peter finally knew that God's will is for to man not to perish. How could God have killed the couple is we have forgiveness of sin through Jesus Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14 and there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus Rom. 8:1.?
If the leader, Peter, was not well grounded in the knowledge of Christ how do you expect Ananais and Sapphira to know much. Besides they have lived long under the law in which anything a prophet says comes to pass. So when peter told them they had lied, he told them they were going to die(he should have put them in order with the Word), and they so much believed it they got heart attacks both of them. Have you see people who got so frightened they slumped and died? So was the case my brother. Peter misused his words and brought about their deaths. Any question?

This is a new interpretation to the bible and i am loving it(going back to the fragmentation we agreed upon earlier on). Alright, lets agree God doesnt kill, how about the obvious myths in the bible such as Adam and eve, the talking snake, the talking donkey, the sun standing still...i want to get your perspective on these fables!

donnffd:


This is a new interpretation to the bible and i am loving it(going back to the fragmentation we agreed upon earlier on). Alright, lets agree God doesnt kill, how about the obvious myths in the bible such as Adam and eve, the talking snake, the talking donkey, the sun standing still...i want to get your perspective on these fables!

Contrary to popular christain belief, the creation story agrees with science and I can show you(story for another time). The Bible made us know that Adam and Eve were the first people created. To make it clear, let us look at the whole story of Adam's fall. When God created man, he made man to be like Him in every aspect. The spirit of Adam was that of dominion unlike angels who were created to serve. In eden, everything was perfect as long as man did not eat from the forbidden tree. The serpent there was referring to lucifer Rev. 12:9 not mere serpent. The Bible made us know that lucifer was in the garden along with man Ezekiel 28:13. What was his duty? To serve man. Lucifer was an arch angel full of beauty and perfection Ezekiel 28:13-14 and bore so much of God's light hence the name lucifer meaning light bearer. The problem started when he was filled with pride and iniquity Ezekiel 28:16-17. Let me put it straight to you that angels too have freewill that was why he could corrupt his wisdom for the sake of his splendor(a choice).
Why did he fall? He already planned to sabotage God's plan Isaiah 14: 13-14. Now note that he didn't say he wanted to be God he said would be like God. How? By stealing man's authority and having man's dominion Gen. 1:26 . If you read Isaiah 13-14, you see that he had a throne as a principality meaning angels of his kind were under him. The stars of God referred to the angels. And by stealing man's authority, he would be like man whose was above the angels. Who was the tree of life? Jesus Himself then known as the Word. The Bible writers even God used a lot of symbolic representation. Read John 15:1, Matt. 7: 16-20, Rev. 12:9 you see the symbolic representation?
Man was created with free will and with Satan's lies and proposition of sense knowledge, Adam committed treason by selling his authority, forgoing God and taking the forbidden fruit. Eve eating alone was not the main target because Adam was the head and god of the world then, sin could only reign by his permission. As a result of his treason, Satan, Adam and Eve fell terribly. The death referred to in Gen. 2:17 meant separation from God. Adam lost it all and he had to function by sense knowledge instead of revelation. Previously, Adam knew things without being told. Death reigned in Adam' body and on the earth. The demons became who they are because they acted with lucifer in his sabotage Jude. 1:6 so you see they made a choice of abandoning their office for what man had and as a result God placed them in darkness. They lost the light of God in them.
The talking donkey, was a pure working of God. The sun standing still was as a pure working of God. Matt. 19:26 the angel there was not of God but a demon. God's angels don't kill human instead they combat demons and go on errands they don't have the keys of death.

donnffd:


This is a new interpretation to the bible and i am loving it(going back to the fragmentation we agreed upon earlier on). Alright, lets agree God doesnt kill, how about the obvious myths in the bible such as Adam and eve, the talking snake, the talking donkey, the sun standing still...i want to get your perspective on these fables!

Contrary to popular christain belief, the creation story agrees with science and I can show you(story for another time). The Bible made us know that Adam and Eve were the first people created. To make it clear, let us look at the whole story of Adam's fall. When God created man, he made man to be like Him in every aspect. The spirit of Adam was that of dominion unlike angels who were created to serve. In eden, everything was perfect as long as man did not eat from the forbidden tree. The serpent there was referring to lucifer Rev. 12:9 not mere serpent. The Bible made us know that lucifer was in the garden along with man Ezekiel 28:13. What was his duty? To serve man. Lucifer was an arch angel full of beauty and perfection Ezekiel 28:13-14 and bore so much of God's light hence the name lucifer meaning light bearer. The problem started when he was filled with pride and iniquity Ezekiel 28:16-17. Let me put it straight to you that angels too have freewill that was why he could corrupt his wisdom for the sake of his splendor(a choice).
Why did he fall? He already planned to sabotage God's plan Isaiah 14: 13-14. Now note that he didn't say he wanted to be God he said would be like God. How? By stealing man's authority and having man's dominion Gen. 1:26 . If you read Isaiah 13-14, you see that he had a throne as a principality meaning angels of his kind were under him. The stars of God referred to the angels. And by stealing man's authority, he would be like man whose was above the angels. Who was the tree of life? Jesus Himself then known as the Word John 1:1. The Bible writers even God used a lot of symbolic representation. Read John 15:1, Matt. 7: 16-20, Rev. 12:9 you see the symbolic representation?
Man was created with free will and with Satan's lies and proposition of sense knowledge, Adam committed treason by selling his authority, forgoing God and taking the forbidden fruit. Eve eating alone was not the main target because Adam was the head and god of the world then, sin could only reign by his permission. As a result of his treason, Satan, Adam and Eve fell terribly. The death referred to in Gen. 2:17 meant separation from God. Adam lost it all and he had to function by sense knowledge instead of revelation. Previously, Adam knew things without being told. Death reigned in Adam' body and on the earth. The demons became who they are because they acted with lucifer in his sabotage Jude. 1:6 so you see they made a choice of abandoning their office for what man had and as a result God placed them in darkness. They lost the light of God in them.
The talking donkey, was a pure working of God. The sun standing still was as a pure working of God. Matt. 19:26 the angel there was not of God but a demon. God's angels don't kill human instead they combat demons and go on errands they don't have the keys of death. Any disagreement on your side? Glad to know you enjoyed the teaching.

Martinez19:
Contrary to popular christain belief, the creation story agrees with science and I can show you(story for another time). The Bible made us know that Adam and Eve were the first people created. To make it clear, let us look at the whole story of Adam's fall. When God created man, he made man to be like Him in every aspect. The spirit of Adam was that of dominion unlike angels who were created to serve. In eden, everything was perfect as long as man did not eat from the forbidden tree. The serpent there was referring to lucifer Rev. 12:9 not mere serpent. The Bible made us know that lucifer was in the garden along with man Ezekiel 28:13. What was his duty? To serve man. Lucifer was an arch angel full of beauty and perfection Ezekiel 28:13-14 and bore so much of God's light hence the name lucifer meaning light bearer. The problem started when he was filled with pride and iniquity Ezekiel 28:16-17. Let me put it straight to you that angels too have freewill that was why he could corrupt his wisdom for the sake of his splendor(a choice).
Why did he fall? He already planned to sabotage God's plan Isaiah 14: 13-14. Now note that he didn't say he wanted to be God he said would be like God. How? By stealing man's authority and having man's dominion Gen. 1:26 . If you read Isaiah 13-14, you see that he had a throne as a principality meaning angels of his kind were under him. The stars of God referred to the angels. And by stealing man's authority, he would be like man whose was above the angels. Who was the tree of life? Jesus Himself then known as the Word John 1:1. The Bible writers even God used a lot of symbolic representation. Read John 15:1, Matt. 7: 16-20, Rev. 12:9 you see the symbolic representation?
Man was created with free will and with Satan's lies and proposition of sense knowledge, Adam committed treason by selling his authority, forgoing God and taking the forbidden fruit. Eve eating alone was not the main target because Adam was the head and god of the world then, sin could only reign by his permission. As a result of his treason, Satan, Adam and Eve fell terribly. The death referred to in Gen. 2:17 meant separation from God. Adam lost it all and he had to function by sense knowledge instead of revelation. Previously, Adam knew things without being told. Death reigned in Adam' body and on the earth. The demons became who they are because they acted with lucifer in his sabotage Jude. 1:6 so you see they made a choice of abandoning their office for what man had and as a result God placed them in darkness. They lost the light of God in them.
The talking donkey, was a pure working of God. The sun standing still was as a pure working of God. Matt. 19:26 the angel there was not of God but a demon. God's angels don't kill human instead they combat demons and go on errands they don't have the keys of death. Any disagreement on your side? Glad to know you enjoyed the teaching.

Yes, i do disagree greatly here, because you are entering the realm of facts and not interpretation.
First off, Adam and eve were not real people, its not possible for them to have been real, you know why?, there is too much genetic diversity in humans for us to have arisen from a single man and woman 6000years ago, its just not possible. We know now that homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 200,000years give or take 50,000years thanks to fossil records, this is way off from the time adam and eve was supposedly to have lived.
The sun standing still? Seriously? First of the sun is always standing still with respect to earth, its the earth thats rotating on its axes that gives us the sense of night and day, so if that miracle really happened, then the earth must hav stood still and stopped rotating for a few hours, Now ignoring the devastating effects it would have across the globe, some people would have experienced darkness longer than they should and would have recorded it, but no such records exist in any of the ancient civilizations. Why is that?

UyiIredia:


How can someone believe in spirits and still call himself an atheist? Those two don't rhyme mate.

How can they claim to believe in the supernatural but not in a god? Isn't God supernatural?

How is there a difference between the imagination of supernatural things and miracles that happen? Are atheists biased or do they really have grounds for disbelief in God? Anybody dumb enough to believe in the supernatural should just add God to the list.

What I've seen so far is that atheists will make excuses for the supernatural as if it isn't as unbelievable as God. Isn't the devil the opposite of God? If you can believe in supernatural activities believed to emanate from the devil or certain spirits out there, why are you so scared or offended to believe there is a God? Isn't God a supernatural entity too?

Inconsistency in atheism. Superstition is different from supernatural. And let that sink into the skulls of all the thoughtless atheists who try to sound sophisticated by talking about "supernatural" as though theism doesn't found itself on supernatural.

It's disgusting and pathetic to see atheists who believe in the supernatural as if theism isn't of the same stock.

donnffd:


Yes, i do disagree greatly here, because you are entering the realm of facts and not interpretation.
First off, Adam and eve were not real people, its not possible for them to have been real, you know why?, there is too much genetic diversity in humans for us to have arisen from a single man and woman 6000years ago, its just not possible. We know now that homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 200,000years give or take 50,000years thanks to fossil records, this is way off from the time adam and eve was supposedly to have lived.
The sun standing still? Seriously? First of the sun is always standing still with respect to earth, its the earth thats rotating on its axes that gives us the sense of night and day, so if that miracle really happened, then the earth must hav stood still and stopped rotating for a few hours, Now ignoring the devastating effects it would have across the globe, some people would have experienced darkness longer than they should and would have recorded it, but no such records exist in any of the ancient civilizations. Why is that?

Remember I said that the people of ancient times had a poor scientific background and the writer's scope of understanding and revelation comes into play. It should occur to you that when they spoke of the sun standing still, they implied it from how they saw it. This is a mistake we were once guilt of until we got this fact from science. It's similar to the ancient Greek belief that the sun was the god apollo MOVING on a burning chariot. To put it in the right sentence, the rotation and revolution of the earth were halted so sun could shine on a particular place on earth continously. If the writers had known this, they would have reported differently. Also note that the the translators then together with the church supported the geocentric model of the universe.
Adam and eve were real people and your answers to the existence of other species verified by fossils lies in the story of creation. The diversity in gene can't be a sufficient evidence to disprove our common ancestry. The essence of genes is not mainly identify as that is not it's sole reason. Gene is to produce certain properties of high peculiarity ie. The genes are for specific traits, design, and capability but you can take advantage of their use for identification.
Talking about gene diversity? What do you expect of humans who vary in skin, intelligence, etc. all determined by genes? And further combination of genetic make up by the intercourse of various races? Have you ever thought of why Adam and Eve were able to produce offspring that might not have had some of their traits (eg. Fat and slim, short and tall, white and black etc.) they had genes that's did this even though not noticeable in them but the genes that made them humans did not change. The most dominant genes mainly at work in you are those of your recent lineage( eg. Your parents and grandma) as we keep on reproducing, the genes from recent lineages is the genes dominant in a child hence gradual departure from previous generation. Mind you the genetic makeup that makes you man is unchanged. More like each intercourse results in rubbing off of genes. Hardly can a man be a carbon copy of his great grandparents.
Apes have our basic shape so we say they must have similar genes with ours makes it so not that we are related. The gene that makes us different is not in them so they can't be entirely like us. The gene is not originally for identification but for characteristics and trait. Any other thing?

Martinez19:
Remember I said that the people of ancient times had a poor scientific background and the writer's scope of understanding and revelation comes into play. It should occur to you that when they spoke of the sun standing still, they implied it from how they saw it. This is a mistake we were once guilt of until we got this fact from science. It's similar to the ancient Greek belief that the sun was the god apollo MOVING on a burning chariot. To put it in the right sentence, the rotation and revolution of the earth were halted so sun could shine on a particular place on earth continously. If the writers had known this, they would have reported differently. Also note that the the translators then together with the church supported the geocentric model of the universe.
Adam and eve were real people and your answers to the existence of other species verified by fossils lies in the story of creation. The diversity in gene can't be a sufficient evidence to disprove our common ancestry. The essence of genes is not mainly identify as that is not it's sole reason. Gene is to produce certain properties of high peculiarity ie. The genes are for specific traits, design, and capability but you can take advantage of their use for identification.
Talking about gene diversity? What do you expect of humans who vary in skin, intelligence, etc. all determined by genes? And further combination of genetic make up by the intercourse of various races? Have you ever thought of why Adam and Eve were able to produce offspring that might not have had some of their traits (eg. Fat and slim, short and tall, white and black etc.) they had genes that's did this even though not noticeable in them but the genes that made them humans did not change. The most dominant genes mainly at work in you are those of your recent lineage( eg. Your parents and grandma) as we keep on reproducing, the genes from recent lineages is the genes dominant in a child hence gradual departure from previous generation. Mind you the genetic makeup that makes you man is unchanged. More like each intercourse results in rubbing off of genes. Hardly can a man be a carbon copy of his great grandparents.
Apes have our basic shape so we say they must have similar genes with ours makes it so not that we are related. The gene that makes us different is not in them so they can't be entirely like us. The gene is not originally for identification but for characteristics and trait. Any other thing?

You havent clarified my point...
The sun standing still, i am assuming the writers ddnt have sufficient knowledge of science, but i do at least to some extent and if they said the sun stood still, it only meant that it was d earth that stood still, now if the earth stood still, there wud be chaos across d globe, because the atmosphere would be stilling be spinning at the rate the earth was spinning and would send everything flying to the left at a speed of 1100 miles per hour, no living thing would survive, and lets ignore that for a second and say everthing was fine, why ddnt the people at the other side of the world who experienced more darkness than they should have record that event.
Now you obviously misunderstood me when i said genetic diversity, i know what genes are, all i am saying is that if all humans were descended from a man and a woman who lived 6000years ago, we would have a far more similar set of genes, something scientists call a genetic bottleneck, because there wont be enough time to produce the genetic diversity seen in humans now in just 6000years, not possible.
The oldest human bones found is about 200,000years old, and adam is supposedly to have lived 6000years ago, how is that possible?
Your only proof that adam existed is that the bible said so, what if the bible was wrong as it is, because all the evidence points to the contrary.
I am sure you have heard of dna testing, where you use you test dna to verify if organisms relate, well thats what biologists have done, and yes the same way they find that you are your fathers son and you and your cousin share a grandfather, thats how the found out that humans share an ancestor with bonobos and the great apes, infact go back well enough and we share a common ancestor with all life on this planet, its a scientific fact, its not a matter of belief,its either you accept it or not.
So until you bring me real hard evidence of adam and eve and not just say the bible said so, then we up and going, i have shown you evidence that its literally impossible for adam and eve to have existed.

donnffd:


You havent clarified my point...
The sun standing still, i am assuming the writers ddnt have sufficient knowledge of science, but i do at least to some extent and if they said the sun stood still, it only meant that it was d earth that stood still, now if the earth stood still, there wud be chaos across d globe, because the atmosphere would be stilling be spinning at the rate the earth was spinning and would send everything flying to the left at a speed of 1100 miles per hour, no living thing would survive, and lets ignore that for a second and say everthing was fine, why ddnt the people at the other side of the world who experienced more darkness than they should have record that event.
Now you obviously misunderstood me when i said genetic diversity, i know what genes are, all i am saying is that if all humans were descended from a man and a woman who lived 6000years ago, we would have a far more similar set of genes, something scientists call a genetic bottleneck, because there wont be enough time to produce the genetic diversity seen in humans now in just 6000years, not possible.
The oldest human bones found is about 200,000years old, and adam is supposedly to have lived 6000years ago, how is that possible?
Your only proof that adam existed is that the bible said so, what if the bible was wrong as it is, because all the evidence points to the contrary.
I am sure you have heard of dna testing, where you use you test dna to verify if organisms relate, well thats what biologists have done, and yes the same way they find that you are your fathers son and you and your cousin share a grandfather, thats how the found out that humans share an ancestor with bonobos and the great apes, infact go back well enough and we share a common ancestor with all life on this planet, its a scientific fact, its not a matter of belief,its either you accept it or not.
So until you bring me real hard evidence of adam and eve and not just say the bible said so, then we up and going, i have shown you evidence that its literally impossible for adam and eve to have existed.

when Joshua (with no scientific background) asked God to make the sun stand still, want do you think he meant? He wants to see the sun 'static' and it was done. The record of the sun standing still was as a result of the writer's erroneous and innocent belief that the sun moves and this might have been what influenced egocentric model of the universe. You know the sun appears to move relative to us but it's not. The purpose of Joshua's prayer was to help him finish off his battle. God understood what he meant and answered. If God allowed the atmosphere to spin, the purpose of the prayer will be lost. God did a neat job. The atmosphere did not move. Ecclesiastes 1:5 shows this erroneous belief of the moving sun.
Concerning fossils and DNA, your answer lies in the story of creation . Note that the 6000 years started counting from Adams fall and the number of years he spent in the garden was not specified but I suspect he spent a large amount of time before he fell and you know animals were there with him. The story is a long and detailed one. But before I dish the creation story out any other disagreement?
I commend your thinking, it probes the truth and shows you don't believe blindly but with God everything is all about faith. You must first believe He exists. Heb. 11:6.

Martinez19:
when Joshua (with no scientific background) asked God to make the sun stand still, want do you think he meant? He wants to see the sun 'static' and it was done. The record of the sun standing still was as a result of the writer's erroneous and innocent belief that the sun moves and this might have been what influenced egocentric model of the universe. You know the sun appears to move relative to us but it's not. The purpose of Joshua's prayer was to help him finish off his battle. God understood what he meant and answered. If God allowed the atmosphere to spin, the purpose of the prayer will be lost. God did a neat job. The atmosphere did not move. Ecclesiastes 1:5 shows this erroneous belief of the moving sun.
Concerning fossils and DNA, your answer lies in the story of creation . Note that the 6000 years started counting from Adams fall and the number of years he spent in the garden was not specified but I suspect he spent a large amount of time before he fell and you know animals were there with him. The story is a long and detailed one. But before I dish the creation story out any other disagreement?
I commend your thinking, it probes the truth and shows you don't believe blindly but with God everything is all about faith. You must first believe He exists. Heb. 11:6.

Ok, God did a neat job, the atmosphere did not move, but what abt the people who would have been living at the other side of the world? Why ddnt they record that on a certain day, the sun refused to come out?...

Even if 6000years count from Adam's fall, it still doesnt address my point, your assumption is fossils bones are of other animals, but i assure you, we have found human bones, real humans, thats homo sapiens sapiens, and the oldest is 200,000years old, Now if adam was the first man and he fell 6000years ago, where did that human bone of 200,000years come from?

donnffd:


Ok, God did a neat job, the atmosphere did not move, but what abt the people who would have been living at the other side of the world? Why ddnt they record that on a certain day, the sun refused to come out?...

Even if 6000years count from Adam's fall, it still doesnt address my point, your assumption is fossils bones are of other animals, but i assure you, we have found human bones, real humans, thats homo sapiens sapiens, and the oldest is 200,000years old, Now if adam was the first man and he fell 6000years ago, where did that human bone of 200,000years come from?

why they didn't record it I don't know and besides not all historical records are available today some would be discovered while some are lost forever. Don't forget wars were fought and many cities were burnt down remember many cities and people were wiped out during isrealite's journey in the wilderness.
Do you now that many animals of old are now extinct eg. Behemoth, leviathan etc. Job 40:15, Job 41:1. As I have said many answers lie in the story of creation. The gene perspective is wrong among scientists gene though have properties of identification of parental bond, it can't be trusted with wider variety of different species. From the story of creation, which I haven't told you, the gene is the basis of the creation of all life forms. A single gene was the basis and it's variation produced different organisms. Remember a small amount of alterations of genetic makeup of a certain intensity is enough to produce a different organisms. If the alteration is not that large, the resulting organisms will share some similar characteristics and that doesn't mean they are related. This is were scientists scientists made their mistakes. You are able to determine one's parents because the child is a combination of the genes as I told earlier but extending that to a large amounts of species is erroneous.
It is right to say that the chimps look similar to us because the genetic makeup for their creation was a slight variant of ours not that we are related. Humans never evolved from apes. Our evolution from apes is a theory base on the wrong perspective of genes and the believe that God does not exist. Similar with the big bang theory and the likes. Close scrutiny shows is nonsensical. The story of creation accounts for carbon dating. Dinosaurs, animals closely resembling humans and others existed with Adam but many of them died after his fall because the climate became unfavorable and death began to reign. The fossils are evidence of these animals. Never will you see exactly humans skeletons dated more than than the year since Adam fell. Except you stumble on Adam and Eve. Anything you want to ask?

Martinez19:
why they didn't record it I don't know and besides not all historical records are available today some would be discovered while some are lost forever. Don't forget wars were fought and many cities were burnt down remember many cities and people were wiped out during isrealite's journey in the wilderness.
Do you now that many animals of old are now extinct eg. Behemoth, leviathan etc. Job 40:15, Job 41:1. As I have said many answers lie in the story of creation. The gene perspective is wrong among scientists gene though have properties of identification of parental bond, it can't be trusted with wider variety of different species. From the story of creation, which I haven't told you, the gene is the basis of the creation of all life forms. A single gene was the basis and it's variation produced different organisms. Remember a small amount of alterations of genetic makeup of a certain intensity is enough to produce a different organisms. If the alteration is not that large, the resulting organisms will share some similar characteristics and that doesn't mean they are related. This is were scientists scientists made their mistakes. You are able to determine one's parents because the child is a combination of the genes as I told earlier but extending that to a large amounts of species is erroneous.
It is right to say that the chimps look similar to us because the genetic makeup for their creation was a slight variant of ours not that we are related. Humans never evolved from apes. Our evolution from apes is a theory base on the wrong perspective of genes and the believe that God does not exist. Similar with the big bang theory and the likes. Close scrutiny shows is nonsensical. The story of creation accounts for carbon dating. Dinosaurs, animals closely resembling humans and others existed with Adam but many of them died after his fall because the climate became unfavorable and death began to reign. The fossils are evidence of these animals. Never will you see exactly humans skeletons dated more than than the year since Adam fell. Except you stumble on Adam and Eve. Anything you want to ask?

So are you saying 99.8% of scientists made a mistake?, they ddnt make a mistake for gravity or electromagnetism or the higgs boson, BUT they made a mistake about Evolution and genes!... really?, you said no human bones can be found before adam and eve, but thats where you are wrong, very very wrong.

Science has nothing to do with belief in God, it only cares about facts and it starts wit a blank mind and investigates whats true about the real world, it doesnt hold preconceived notions.

For you to discredit 99.8% of scientists who all agree on evolution, the catholic church, majority of educated people, biologists, geologists, physicists, psychologists and say they made a mistake, wow, thats really something. You are being biased and not looking at the evidence. Like i said before, the oldest human bones found is about 190,000 years to be exact, this is a FACT, look it up if you want to, and your adam lived 6000years ago, doesnt that tell you that its totally a myth?

Moreover, whats your evidence that adam exists?, the book of genesis, which was written by moses and inspired by God. Now wait a minute, Moses wasnt there, he had a relevation, so you mean to tell me that you would blind yourself to all the evidence in the world and take moses revelation instead? Does that seem objective to you?

Its very obvious you dont understand the process behind evolution and thats because you have already blocked your mind towards it from the beginning, if science worked that way? Do you think we would even know the earth revolved around the sun? Or that the universe is 13.8billions years?...be objective and open to evidence

Mind you, dinosaurs got extinct 65million years ago, mammals were not even as rampant as they are now at the time because if they came out, they would be lunch for a hungry dinosaur, so they idea that dinosaur and man lived together is outrageous.

How do we know this? Radio dating, another way geologists use to determine the age of rocks, read up on it...please and please be objective and open to evidence.

donnffd:


So are you saying 99.8% of scientists made a mistake?, they ddnt make a mistake for gravity or electromagnetism or the higgs boson, BUT they made a mistake about Evolution and genes!... really?, you said no human bones can be found before adam and eve, but thats where you are wrong, very very wrong.

Science has nothing to do with belief in God, it only cares about facts and it starts wit a blank mind and investigates whats true about the real world, it doesnt hold preconceived notions.

For you to discredit 99.8% of scientists who all agree on evolution, the catholic church, majority of educated people, biologists, geologists, physicists, psychologists and say they made a mistake, wow, thats really something. You are being biased and not looking at the evidence. Like i said before, the oldest human bones found is about 190,000 years to be exact, this is a FACT, look it up if you want to, and your adam lived 6000years ago, doesnt that tell you that its totally a myth?

Moreover, whats your evidence that adam exists?, the book of genesis, which was written by moses and inspired by God. Now wait a minute, Moses wasnt there, he had a relevation, so you mean to tell me that you would blind yourself to all the evidence in the world and take moses revelation instead? Does that seem objective to you?

Its very obvious you dont understand the process behind evolution and thats because you have already blocked your mind towards it from the beginning, if science worked that way? Do you think we would even know the earth revolved around the sun? Or that the universe is 13.8billions years?...be objective and open to evidence

Mind you, dinosaurs got extinct 65million years ago, mammals were not even as rampant as they are now at the time because if they came out, they would be lunch for a hungry dinosaur, so they idea that dinosaur and man lived together is outrageous.

How do we know this? Radio dating, another way geologists use to determine the age of rocks, read up on it...please and please be objective and open to evidence.

Well you know I believe in God and I know the Bible in light of God existence. God made it so that to know him, we must first believe in Him Hebrew 11:6 the Bible tells us that you can't prove He exist by evidence. You don't expect me to sound like scientists. Their theory of evolution came from there their interpretation of the 'evidence' they saw. The fact that people are educated or majority supports a view does not count in the ways of God. There are materialists and there are rationalist, all are educated but you know both can't be right.
Mind you Adam didn't start living 6000 years ago. The 6000 years Christians scholars are talking about started after Adam fell and Adam live 930 years after the fall and it may surprise you that Adam died in the great flood check and count in Gen. 5. Mind you, all animal life were created before man. Haven't observed Gen. 1:3-5 and Gen 1:14-19 in the first, you saw creation of light happening in the 'first day' and in the second verse, God created the sun, moon and the stars in the 'fourth day'. Since the sun, moon and stars are vital in distinguishing what we call day from what we call night, what do you think the 'first and fourth day' referred to?
Mind you the Catholic Church and their practices are not biblical and they contradict the Bible. In light of the scripture, it should be branded false.

Martinez19:
Well you know I believe in God and I know the Bible in light of God existence. God made it so that to know him, we must first believe in Him Hebrew 11:6 the Bible tells us that you can't prove He exist by evidence. You don't expect me to sound like scientists. Their theory of evolution came from there their interpretation of the 'evidence' they saw. The fact that people are educated or majority supports a view does not count in the ways of God. There are materialists and there are rationalist, all are educated but you know both can't be right.
Mind you Adam didn't start living 6000 years ago. The 6000 years Christians scholars are talking about started after Adam fell and Adam live 930 years after the fall and it may surprise you that Adam died in the great flood check and count in Gen. 5. Mind you, all animal life were created before man. Haven't observed Gen. 1:3-5 and Gen 1:14-19 in the first, you saw creation of light happening in the 'first day' and in the second verse, God created the sun, moon and the stars in the 'fourth day'. Since the sun, moon and stars are vital in distinguishing what we call day from what we call night, what do you think the 'first and fourth day' referred to?
Mind you the Catholic Church and their practices are not biblical and they contradict the Bible. In light of the scripture, it should be branded false.

Oldest human remains- 200000 years ago
According to u, Adam fell and died about 6000 years ago and he was the first man on earth. How do you explain DAT?

Oluwaseytiano:
Oldest human remains- 200000 years ago
According to u, Adam fell and died about 6000 years ago and he was the first man on earth. How do you explain DAT?

How many human remains are we even talking about? I would take my time to check the 6000 years from the Bible again. Mind you the carbon dating has accuracy problems from 4000 years upwards. This is because the comic radiation has varied over the past and as a result the ratio of stable carbon and radioactive carbon has varied(remember in a previous post I said Adam's fall brought about unfavorable climate changes)

The Truth is "One is Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding but atheist is foolish, silly and ignorant. One is sane, the other is insane".

orunto27:
The Truth is "One is Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding but atheist is foolish, silly and ignorant. One is sane, the other is insane".

the Bible calls those who say God doesn't exist fools. But never the less, the questions posed by atheists are legal and acceptable and if we are of a true belief, we should provide them with answers after all the truth stands the test of time.

Martinez19:
Well you know I believe in God and I know the Bible in light of God existence. God made it so that to know him, we must first believe in Him Hebrew 11:6 the Bible tells us that you can't prove He exist by evidence. You don't expect me to sound like scientists. Their theory of evolution came from there their interpretation of the 'evidence' they saw. The fact that people are educated or majority supports a view does not count in the ways of God. There are materialists and there are rationalist, all are educated but you know both can't be right.
Mind you Adam didn't start living 6000 years ago. The 6000 years Christians scholars are talking about started after Adam fell and Adam live 930 years after the fall and it may surprise you that Adam died in the great flood check and count in Gen. 5. Mind you, all animal life were created before man. Haven't observed Gen. 1:3-5 and Gen 1:14-19 in the first, you saw creation of light happening in the 'first day' and in the second verse, God created the sun, moon and the stars in the 'fourth day'. Since the sun, moon and stars are vital in distinguishing what we call day from what we call night, what do you think the 'first and fourth day' referred to?
Mind you the Catholic Church and their practices are not biblical and they contradict the Bible. In light of the scripture, it should be branded false.

You cant prove God existence with evidence? Then how can you prove it?

Imagine i told you to rest you back on a newly painted wall, but said it was dry, what exactly would be your first instinct? Yes thats right, touch it first, you wouldnt take my word for it, you would need a far more tangible evidence thats y u touch it to confirm. Now you use reason and evidence in every aspect of your life,but wen it comes to the ultimate truth, evidence and reason goes out the window?

How can the earth be created in three days but the sun, moon and stars in just one day, trust me, your maths is off by a million trillion!

Carbon dating is only one type of radio dating, the halflife of carbon is about 4000years so it doesnt help much in find out deep time, they are others, like plutonium, uranium and some others i can remember now, their halflife is way way longer and those are the ones scientists look for in rocks!

Martinez19:
the Bible calls those who say God doesn't exist fools. But never the less, the questions posed by atheists are legal and acceptable and if we are of a true belief, we should provide them with answers after all the truth stands the test of time.

Its also the same bible that said anyone who calls someone a fool would be in the dangers of hell, mattew 5:22

donnffd:


Its also the same bible that said anyone who calls someone a fool would be in the dangers of hell, mattew 5:22

if you compare the two meanings of the word fool in those two instances Ps. 14:1 and Matt. 5:22 from the originals, you see that one is intended as an insult and strife towards a fellow man and the other is a description of those lacking wisdom. Look at Jesus in the walk to Emmaus, when he saw their lack of understanding of the scriptures He termed them foolish Luke 24:25.

Martinez19:
if you compare the two meanings of the word fool in those two instances Ps. 14:1 and Matt. 5:22 from the originals, you see that one is intended as an insult and strife towards a fellow man and the other is a description of those lacking wisdom. Look at Jesus in the walk to Emmaus, when he saw their lack of understanding of the scriptures He termed them foolish Luke 24:25.

So one is an insult and the other is a descriptive insult, i see...that sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me

donnffd:


So one is an insult and the other is a descriptive insult, i see...that sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me

I didn't say descriptive insult, in Ps. 14:1 Luke 24:25 one can say fools=those lacking the right wisdom and Understanding. In Matt. 5:32 one can say fools = retarded idiot (in an insulting regard).

Martinez19:
the Bible calls those who say God doesn't exist fools. But never the less, the questions posed by atheists are legal and acceptable and if we are of a true belief, we should provide them with answers after all the truth stands the test of time.

Who are the fools? Those asking questions or those blindly following ancient manuscripts written by Jewish cavemen?