ghazzal:
i thougth they wrote exactly what God requires of them. and not in their own words or understanding

They wrote exactly what God required of them doesn't mean it was a dictation session. Lol. They didn't write it in God's language. They wrote it in man's language. Look at Nahum 2:4

KJV
The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.

NLT
"The chariots race recklessly along the streets
and rush wildly through the squares.
They flash like firelight
and move as swiftly as lightning."

That was a prophecy about the motor car by Nahum almost 3000 years ago. He tried to describe what he saw. The closest object he could liking it to was a chariot. Of course, he couldn't have called it a motor car. Motor car was actually a name that everyone has come to agree to call it today.

Notice the last 2 phrases: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings. Compared to chariot speeds of those days, the motor car sure looked as "fast as lightnings" to him. And notice that chariots in those days didn't have headlamps or torches. So it was a strange sight to him.

ghazzal:
i thougth they wrote exactly what God requires of them. and not in their own words or understanding

(2 Peter 1:21) 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.
Under inspiration they wrote what is not contradictory. what equips us for every good work and in serving the most High God in spirit and in truth.

No Contradictions

thelastPope:

They wrote exactly what God required of them doesn't mean it was a dictation session. Lol. They didn't write it in God's language. They wrote it in man's language. Look at Nahum 2:4

KJV
The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.

NLT
"The chariots race recklessly along the streets
and rush wildly through the squares.
They flash like firelight
and move as swiftly as lightning."

That was a prophecy about the motor car by Nahum almost 3000 years ago. He tried to describe what he saw. The closest object he could liking it to was a chariot. Of course, he couldn't have called it a motor car. Motor car was actually a name that everyone has come to agree to call it today.

Notice the last 2 phrases: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings. Compared to chariot speeds of those days, the motor car sure looked as "fast as lightnings" to him. And notice that chariots in those days didn't have headlamps or torches. So it was a strange sight to him.

some some assumptions must have been made. just some or what do you think. since some information could not be described perfectly

TalkingBird:

(2 Peter 1:21) 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.
Under inspiration they wrote what is not contradictory. what equips us for every good work and in serving the most High God in spirit and in truth.

No Contradictions

really! no contradiction. you know or you think or you heard. if you are proved otherwise, what will happen

ghazzal:

some some assumptions must have been made. just some or what do you think. since some information could not be described perfectly

I don't know what you mean by assumptions. God did not speak to everyone in the old testament obviously because everyone could not have understood his intentions and purposes. The people God used to write the bible had to make big sacrifices by separating themselves for the task. Moses stayed on the mountain for 40 days. He wasn't obviously writing only 10 items in 40days! Some people had to stay for days before they could get any communication because God needed them to be sensitive so as to understand what He told them. In some cases, like that of moses, he had to unlearn things he already learnt for him to understand God

@talking bird

Evolution doesn't say an eagle will to a hawk and the hawk to turn to a monkey, rather says life is dynamic and future species arise from the pre existing ones as you have shown. The process is a continous one and over time drastic changes will be made finish!!

If finches develop a species with curved and short beaks, those subsequently experience changes favourable the environment, probably bigger body sizes and the resulting species might grow bigger and more complex eyes, on and on.

Pasteur was testing for spontaeous generation not abiogensis. And so far abiogensis is in its infancy but incredibly backed up by evolution. It is common sense that while discussing the Origin of Life, life must arise from a non living source.

Galileo's conflict with the Church (being the arbiter and interpreter of the Christian doctrine) knowledge. It was the same struggle btw Science and Religion advertising two conflicting "Truths" with separate foundations. Science sees a natural, structured world, Religion sees a supernatural, irrational world. Religion thinks the origin of life has a natural source, Religions dismiss the question entirely. Scientific "truths" shake religious dogmas.

The Bible is yet to be authenticated and logically validated. Religious claims of omnipresence are yet to be confirmed.

thelastPope:

I don't know what you mean by assumptions. God did not speak to everyone in the old testament obviously because everyone could not have understood his intentions and purposes. The people God used to write the bible had to make big sacrifices by separating themselves for the task. Moses stayed on the mountain for 40 days. He wasn't obviously writing only 10 items in 40days! Some people had to stay for days before they could get any communication because God needed them to be sensitive so as to understand what He told them. In some cases, like that of moses, he had to unlearn things he already learnt for him to understand God

so what sacrifice did writers of the new testament make?
i think the use of the word round for sphere must have been assumed based on the writers understanding of Gods words or what do you think? i think hen must have been laying eggs before then. an egg would have been a better choice of word. except the writer does not know what an egg looks like then

Kay 17: @talking bird

Evolution doesn't say an eagle will to a hawk and the hawk to turn to a monkey, rather says life is dynamic and future species arise from the pre existing ones as you have shown. The process is a continous one and over time drastic changes will be made finish!!

If finches develop a species with curved and short beaks, those subsequently experience changes favourable the environment, probably bigger body sizes and the resulting species might grow bigger and more complex eyes, on and on.

Pasteur was testing for spontaeous generation not abiogensis. And so far abiogensis is in its infancy but incredibly backed up by evolution. It is common sense that while discussing the Origin of Life, life must arise from a non living source.

Galileo's conflict with the Church (being the arbiter and interpreter of the Christian doctrine) knowledge. It was the same struggle btw Science and Religion advertising two conflicting "Truths" with separate foundations. Science sees a natural, structured world, Religion sees a supernatural, irrational world. Religion thinks the origin of life has a natural source, Religions dismiss the question entirely. Scientific "truths" shake religious dogmas.

The Bible is yet to be authenticated and logically validated. Religious claims of omnipresence are yet to be confirmed.

lol. @Kay. so what is the non-living source life arose from. is it a one time occurence or it still happens. if it happenened once, that is not science i hope you know. if such still happens, pls give a proof

ghazzal:

so what sacrifice did writers of the new testament make?
i think the use of the word round for sphere must have been assumed based on the writers understanding of Gods words or what do you think? i think hen must have been laying eggs before then. an egg would have been a better choice of word. except the writer does not know what an egg looks like then

The writer neither used round nor sphere because those are English words. The bible was not written in English but in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Like I told you before, English is a very wishy washy language. Round or sphere were used by those who translated the bible to English. The bible says, God sits above the circle of the earth. That was an indication that the earth was round or sphere. But again, like I said before, the bible is not academic book and didn't focus on minute descriptions of exactly how the shape was. If the prophets focussed on those, the bible would probably have been in like 1000 volumes or more

manmustwac: So how old is this planet according to the bible then 6 to 10'000 years? While science give a more accurate description like 4 billion years

How can you say 4 billion years is "accurate"? Accuracy is relative, friend!

thelastPope:

The writer neither used round nor sphere because those are English words. The bible was not written in English but in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Like I told you before, English is a very wishy washy language. Round or sphere were used by those who translated the bible to English. The bible says, God sits above the circle of the earth. That was an indication that the earth was round or sphere. But again, like I said before, the bible is not academic book and didn't focus on minute descriptions of exactly how the shape was. If the prophets focussed on those, the bible would probably have been in like 1000 volumes or more

ok. then i pose a Question... does a sphere have a circle? just an answer since the bible is easy to understand. another way to frame it is if the top view of sphere and circle, are they same?

ghazzal:

lol. @Kay. so what is the non-living source life arose from. is it a one time occurence or it still happens. if it happenened once, that is not science i hope you know. if such still happens, pls give a proof

The theory of evolution is the most ridiculous theory in science. That it is even mentioned in schools is a disgrace. It completely goes against scientific principles.

Newtons law of motion expressly declares that "every object continues in its state of rest or uniform motion except acted upon by an external force". Yet scientists claim that one day, in the absense of God, there was a big baang. Question? Who or what banged the big baang? Because according to newton's law, there could not have been a big baang all by itself. Its is absurdity in its worst form calculated to distort and deceived.

God does exist in absolutely. or can anyone explain what suspends the heavens from collapsing on the earth.
this God is one ....."... the Lord our God is one" (Jesus said: i think this means he is also the God of jesus)

i ll read the omments tomorrow. shalom (peace)

e_prynce:

How can you say 4 billion years is "accurate"? Accuracy is relative, friend!

Lol. You should ask him which benchmark he used to judge that science is correct. Did someone or something that lived 4 billion years ago suddenly wake up to confirm it. Lol. Its called the foollishness of man. They think they know but do not realise how ignorant they are. All the greatest scientists that ever lived, died with questions on their lips. They couldn't even rely on their theories nor could they find solace in their so called discoveries that men are celebrating today.

inurmind: To show u how inaccurate and basless the bible is, here is an example:
in revelation, John said he saw STARS fall from the sky to the earth.lol.

Mind u some stars are even bigger than the sun which is so many times bigger than earth.
So tell me how that is possible.

My friends pls start thinking and do not be limited to the circumstances of ur birth.
The bible is just a bunch of fairy tales by people limited to the undertanding of their time.

4RM WHAT U WROTE HERE IT IS EASILY UNDERSTAND THAT U'RE NOT SANE USING YOUR BRAIN; IF A BIBLE IS BELIEVED THAT THE EARLIEST ONES WERE SET DOWN NEARLY 3500 YEARS AGO WHEREAS IT AS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE AROUND 1400 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era, aka B.C.)SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS AN ACCOUNT THAT IS NOT CORRECT THEN WHAT WILL THE QURAN WHICH WAS JUST 1402 YEARS BE COUNTED ON?

ghazzal:

is the battle over? then it is already a past. the period of a past event can not affect the future...thats not the reason for leap year. science has expalined that the earth revolves round the sun in an orbit in free space.
due to other forces in space, it sometimes miss its orbit and forms another orbit. the time that it misses it orbit must be accounted for. and who says the earth revolves for 365 1/4 days. this is just a reference. the actual word is "about" or in the leap year, how many days is the revolution?

It might be a scientific reference as you call it. But it's a valid reference based in the Word of God. Whatever additional reason that might be responsible for the leap year still answers to the Creator of the universe. The earth is His footstool..let Him toss it to wherever He pleases..and let Science give it a name and theoretical explanation.

I dont think the books in the Bible were meant for religious purposes. They were filled with UFO encounters. Its only people without a clue will bow down and worship it,its more like worshiping an helicopter simply because it flies. That make religious people look pathetic.

The Bible itself is filled with science and yet people still do not know it. The ark of covenant, tower of babel,wall of Jericho,manner falling from the sky(UFO space-craft),Jacob seeing a ladder that lead to a UFO space-craft,Elijah abducted by a UFO space-craft,Ezikeil see a UFO,the three Maggi(wise men) following a moving star(space-craft) to where Jesus the half human/half extraterrestrial child was born. etc and the list goes on including Paul being blinded by a UFO beam of light.

That being said,only a low thinking human will worship the aliens in the bible

mkmyers45:

I have just one question? Is it the earth that stopped rotating or the sun?

Please answer

Geographically, it was the earth rotation that was halted because the night took extra hours to come. Biblically speaking, it was the Sun that seized..but either way, science actually proved that an unusual longer day in the Bible disorganised the calendar.

TerryCarr:

Lemme assume ur smart and not attack ur ignorance but what's ur point?

Kay 17:

How thoughtful! If humanity relies on your approach we would definitely be celebrating ignorance.

Human beings are creature of choices... Celebrate ignorance or not, what I believe is that when I pray He answers.

thelastPope:

The writer neither used round nor sphere because those are English words. The bible was not written in English but in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Like I told you before, English is a very wishy washy language. Round or sphere were used by those who translated the bible to English. The bible says, God sits above the circle of the earth. That was an indication that the earth was round or sphere. But again, like I said before, the bible is not academic book and didn't focus on minute descriptions of exactly how the shape was. If the prophets focussed on those, the bible would probably have been in like 1000 volumes or more

How are you sure the author of that book meant spherical? Or its equivalent in the language he was speaking in? Except of course, you believe the Bible is inerrant.

damilarelr:

Geographically, it was the earth rotation that was halted because the night took extra hours to come. Biblically speaking, it was the Sun that seized..but either way, science actually proved that an unusual longer day in the Bible disorganised the calendar.

If earth took 20 rotations round the Sun, and its rotation froze, how would have the calendar being disorganised?

am loving this..... coz the bible scholars are proving d so call science freaks wrong ...lol

ghazzal:
yes. old testament is not relevant here. smh

There were no Christians in the Old Testament. Just a tribe that God delights in, and preserving in order to bring the Messiah through. The Church was birthed after the ascension of Christ.

oge4real: I will not engage in this debate until I meet someone who can read the original language in which the manuscript of the Bible was written.

We just quote the Bible to suit our arguments, forgetting that some meanings may have been lost in translation.

All those "lost meanings" through the writers of the Bible will be revealed to you by the Author when you're reading it. But you need redemption to access the Author..

Kay 17:

If earth took 20 rotations round the Sun, and its rotation froze, how would have the calendar being disorganised?

It was disorganised by virtue of the extra 6 hours of daylight. That was what science accounted for every four years by adding an extra day to February.

damilarelr:

You failed to distinguish between CREATE and MAKE or FORM. Everything we see today were existing in the spirit form in Chapter one, including man (male and female), the spirit became a visible entity when God made their respective body from soil..

you are clutching at straws here. Dont add or remove or even implied what you want to be what is said.
Create, make or form are thesame thing, go to china and come back it will not change.
Again stop giving your own weird interpretation of what you would have wanted the bible to have said. At no where did the bible say anything about man and woman existing in spirit before God brought them into life from the soil. I challenge you to show the portion of the bible that makes such a weird claim.
You can't explain the inconsistencies and illogicality by merely introducing your own weird interpretation that has nothing to do with the claims of the bible

TO SOLVE THIS, SIMPLY GET TO UR NEAREST ISLAMIC SHOP AND BUY THE DEBATE DISK "THE BIBLE AND QURAN IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE". YOU GET TO KNOW WHICH IS MORE PERFECT

rhymz: you are clutching at straws here. Dont add or remove or even implied what you want to be what is said.
Create, make or form are thesame thing, go to china and come back it will not change.
Again stop giving your own weird interpretation of what you would have wanted the bible to have said. At no where did the bible say anything about man and woman existing in spirit before God brought them into life from the soil. I challenge you to show the portion of the bible that makes such a weird claim.
You can't explain the inconsistencies and illogicality by merely introducing your own weird interpretation that has nothing to do with the claims of the bible

Actually, create, make and form are different. Take off your glasses and read genesis 1 and 2 again. You will see it clearly. God created man in chapter 1. In chapter 2, it said clearly that there was no man to till the ground after man was already created in Chapter 1. Then God formed man from the dust. It is actually very clear. Then God breathed into man and man came alive. That signifying man was originally in spirit form. Read it again.

Where was the bible during d time of Zeus

nathdim: Where was the bible during d time of Zeus

Isn't it interesting how it is easy for you to believe in the story of zeus but not the bible? Hmmm