Biblical creationism

[falcon]

Why are we so afraid to call Biblical creationism what it is? There is probably nothing that angers me more than Christians, followers of Christ, who don't have the guts to stand up for the Truth of the Bible. Believers who feel the pressure of this lost world we live in to compromise the immutable truths of the Bible. A new term we have created to talk about Biblical creationism is "intelligent design." I get livid every time I hear that word used since we have created it solely for the purpose of being able to share our beliefs on how this world we live in and we came to exist. I submit to you today that "intelligent design" is simply a gutless word for those too afraid to say we believe what the Bible teaches about creation in Genesis 1-2:3!

There are two competing views on how this world and how we came to exist. One is the theory of evolution that suggests over millions of years we evolved. This is the position held by those in the scientific community
that reject the notion of "God." The other view is that there is a Supreme
Being, a God who created everything. This is the position people of faith and those in the scientific community who accept the reality of a "God" hold. Let me end decades of arguments on this issue right now and tell you exactly how this world and we came to exist. GOD TELLS US IN GREAT DETAIL IN GENESIS CHAPTER ONE THROUGH CHAPTER TWO VERSE THREE!

My friend, this world and all that is in it, including us, came into existence EXACTLY how the Bible tells us in Genesis 1-2:3! For every child and young adult out there that is in school, your homework assignment today is to read the first chapter of Genesis through the first 3 verses of chapter 2. Now you will never have to wonder or guess again how we came to be or how this world and all that is in it came to exist. GOD SPOKE IT INTO EXISTENCE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS! GOD CREATED MAN FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH AND MADE HIM IN HIS IMAGE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS! PERIOD! END OF DEBATE!

First of all, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. A completely
foolish one I might add. Not only have a large percentage of those in the scientific community abandoned it, the only reason it is still taught is because those who reject the existence of God have to have some explanation how this world came to exist and how we came to be. That is why I pity those who champion this theory, since even they have no explanation when you take what they believe back to the very beginning. They say we evolved from monkeys. As you walk them backwards all the way to the very beginning, you are still left with the unanswered question of where did that first cell come from? It is the same problem those who try to explain the existence of the earth and all that is in it without there being a "God." You take them back to the very beginning and you are still left with the unanswered question of how did that first event come to be without the involvement of a "God."

The biggest problems with those who hold to a position that this world, we, came into existence without a "God," is that it means this is all an accident and we exist by mere chance with no real plan or purpose. If you believe we evolved from pond scum to monkeys, then our lives are utterly meaningless and this life has no purpose to it at all. For those who truly believe this, they are to be pitied among all men. What a sad existence if you go through this life believing you were an accident and your life has zero meaning or purpose.

That leaves us with the position held by those who do believe there is a "God" who created the earth and all that is in it, including us. I spent several semesters in seminary studying all of the various theories put forth to explain Biblically how the Bible could be correct and there could still have been million of years involved in the creation process. Theories that accepted the existence of a "God," but not exactly how the Bible describes creation. After many hours alone with the Holy Spirit and God's Word, I came to one conclusion. THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF HOW THIS WORLD CAME TO EXIST AND HOW WE CAME TO BE WAS GOD'S ACCOUNT IN GENESIS CHAPTER 1! God literally spoke the world and all that is in it into existence in 6 literal days. and this world we live in is less than 7,000 years old!

Here is the problem if you take any other position. Once you start making excuses for what God's Word says, once you start finding ways for it to say something other than what it clearly and literally says, you are now playing a dangerous game. If the Biblical account of creation is not exactly as God says, what else isn't exactly as God says? Did the walls of Jericho really come down the way the Bible says, or is there another explanation? Did the Red Sea really part as the Bible says, or is there another explanation? Did Noah's ark really exist as the Bible says or is their another explanation? Did Jesus really rise from that tomb on the third day as the Bible says, or is there another explanation? ARE WE REALLY SAVED BY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST AS THE BIBLE SAYS, OR IS THERE ANOTHER EXPLANATION?

You see the problem? Once you start to doubt one part of God's Word, you have to start to doubt other parts of the Bible. My friend, you are free to believe whatever you want about the creation of this earth and all that is in it, about how we came to exist. I am NOT going to argue with you. There are many great ministries out there that deal with these issues. There are tons of great books that go into great detail on this subject. I choose to put my faith and belief in God's Word alone. I believe in BIBLICAL CREATIONISM. This world and all that is in it and we came to exist EXACTLY how God says in His Word!

I love you and care about you so much. One hundred years ago, even those
who rejected God and His Word knew that God created the heavens and earth and created them as well. Fifty years ago, those in the scientific community that rejected God was doing its best to propagate this laughable theory of evolution even though the vast majority of people thoroughly rejected it. Now, in 2006 after 40 years of no prayer and Bible teaching in school, having allowed society to take God out of every aspect of public life, those who hold to the Biblical account of Creation are laughed at as narrow-minded mental midgets while those who "know how to think" hold to a theory that says we came from pond scum and makes our life nothing more than an accident with no purpose.

For those who know the Bible to be God's inspired, inerrant Word, representing Absolute Truth and our final authority in all matters, we have NOTHING to apologize for and nothing to be ashamed of. We certainly have no reason to be trying to hide our beliefs by creating terms like "intelligent design" so we appear to be more intellectual to this non-believing world. The fact we are even discussing what is so clear from God's Word only shows how void of God and His Truth our society has become. The last thing those who know Chris as their Savior and hold to the Truth of His Word need to be doing is compromising or minimizing the power of that Truth.

The world is HUNGRY for the truth we possess. The next time someone asks you how the world came to exist, how we came to be, tell them the answer is exactly as described in Genesis 1-2:3. God Himself tells us the answer and that is good enough for me!

In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller

[Zjeng]

If I may add two things:

Biblical Creationism is an Intelligent Design Theory, but not all Intelligent Design Theories are Biblical Creationism. I believe the reason that this new theory (intelligent design) is being put forth, is not because the scientists espousing this theory are selling Biblical Creationism, but because it’s good timing (they’re seeing the cracks in Darwinistic Evolutionary Theory). And, it calls to all scientists regardless of their faith.

I can also see why they might not be willing to label it Creationism. Think about it this way, when one mentions the Bible, the secularists automatically shut the door on the prospects of it’s validity. Whereas, if you approach this topic using their terminology their brain is forced to acknowledge something/anything of the prospective theory. This is why, those scientists that are against I.D. Theory, quickly try to label it “Creationism.� It gets those who might be willing to entertain the theory to quickly shut it down, without even a chance.

Peace â€Â*

[wallis]

Falcon,

In no way would I even suggest challenging your personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs work for you, are valid for you. Yet, at the same time, it is quite necessary--in the spirit of loving one's neighbor--that we accept other people's views on Creationism and the Genesis story. This does not mean that we have to agree, but at the same time, disagreement sows discontent and argument to the point that no one listens.

In my calling, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides truth and knowledge. Put an argument "out there," and the Holy Spirit will take it from there. Inasmuch as we all live in our own individual pickle barrels, life for one of us is as different from another one of us as a universe differs from another universe.

This is not to state that Christians, for example, should not challenge heretical beliefs. The core of the Bible is the statement that God saves. For the Christian, it is the Christ who has performed the necessary act of dying and rising again that is the embodiement of that core. Anything contrary to that is indeed heretical and should rightly be challenged.

But creationism is not central to the belief that God saves; or for the Christian, that Christ has saved every living person (past, present, and future) for total death.

I would disagree with you on one statement: that if one part of the Bible is errant, then we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I know that there are many Christians who feel as you do. I have some very interesting discussions with many of these Christian leaders. I have to give them credit that they want to stand by their beliefs, even if I believe them to be extremely narrow.

I feel, after much study for many, many years, that the richness of the Bible is enhanced by the many forms it has been written in. To me, the narrowness, if you will, of regarding the Bible as being totally, 100% fact, denies the wonderful beauty of the poetry, the fiction, the parables, et al through which God touches human beings. Even as none of us are cookie cutters of the other, neither is the composite stories of the Bible so cookie-cutter in composition as to make every word fact.

One should look at a particular passage or story in the Bible as being one of several kinds: a saving passage, an informative passage, a historical accounting, a learning or moralistic passage, an inkling to the minds and philosophies of the writers, just to name a few.

I am into exegesis. And, it matters not a whit to me whether or not a person believes that Creation happened exactly the way Genesis 1 describes it, or the way Genesis 2 describes it with a slight alteration. It matters not to me whether "Adam" is refering to the human race or to a person, since the word "Adam" refers to both and is intermingled within Genesis. Why? Because while the purpose of the first three books of Genesis is a declaration that God created the universe (and not Baal or any other god/goddess that were worshipped at the time of Genesis' redaction) and that human beings are totally on the wrong side of God. And, the underscoring of these first three chapters, God is ready and willing to accept human beings to get back on the right side, even to the point of helping them 100% to do so.

[wallis]

Now, if we really want to get into some specifics, we have to get into both archaelogy and what little history that exists from the 7th and 8th Centuries B.C. (B.C.E.)

Archaeology will tell you that the walls of Jericho did not fall.

The story of Noah is told around the world, and these stories predate Biblical records.

The parting of the Reed Sea is correct, and it happens quite often. An Egyptian stele near the Reed Sea accounts for a defeat of the Egyptians by the hands of their opponents.

Was Moses real? One of the great stumbling blocks to an affirmative is the fact that the Bible names places and towns that did not exist in the time period most people place Moses and the Exodus. These towns and places DID exist in the 7th Century B.C., however; a huge indication that the story of Moses was redacted in this time period.

And, by the way, there are many accounts around the world that give some explanation for the creation of the world. The closest account to that of the Bible is the Nemenomicrom (sp?), a myth that the Jewish people were very familiar with and mostly likely altered to keep the "religious police" off their backs while they practiced their own brand of religion.

There is a mistake here, though: to equate the Old and New Testaments as equals. For a long time in the Christian church, the Old Testament was disregarded. The New Testament was not codified for several hundreds of years after the Resurrection. What was being used were letters and testimonies of the apostles (and even the Gospels cannot be verified to have been written by a particular apostle and/or redacted by other hands). The Christian church fought a huge and bloody war over the single point of dogma as to whether Jesus was God or just another Son of God.

When one tries to equate the validity of the Christ based on Old Testament stories, he/she is setting himself/herself up for a big fall. Ultimately, the Old Testament is going to show itself as a collection of stories, ideas, morals, poems, and the like that underscores that God Saves. Nothing more, nothing less. But the New Testament is a witness, almost--but not quite--a personal witness to a man who, as God incarnated, brought the ultimate saving process to mankind.

Again, in consideration of what will save us, there is only one "rock" to stand on: belief in the Christ. When all else has been finally argued out to the nth degree, when there is enough substantial or circumstantial proof to disclaim the accuracy of all else, for the Christian, nothing can shake that person from the "Rock."

As I have written elsewhere, even if a person can prove to me without a doubt that even the Christ is hokey-pokey, that person cannot shake my faith in the Christ. Why? Because in my own universe, the only one that I live in and can remotely share with all the other people and their universes, I know that God has acted, is acting, and will act in my life. And, that is God alone that will save me when I close my eyes in physical death and reawaken in spiritual life, which never ends.

[MinutemanCO]

Now, if we really want to get into some specifics, we have to get into both archaelogy and what little history that exists from the 7th and 8th Centuries B.C. (B.C.E.)

Archaeology will tell you that the walls of Jericho did not fall.

In the interest of accuracy, I submit the following...

The proposed theory that contemporary archaeology does not support the fall of Jericho's peripheral defensive walls has been discredited. In fact, the findings of modern archaeological science and processes do not disprove any claim made through Biblical record. There certainly are gaps in the archaeological record yet to be filled; however, the historical data speaks for itself when viewed with objective motives.


The following article outlines the Jericho subject matter rather effectively.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/jericho.asp

[wallis]

I was tempted to quote my sources on the Jericho question. But I realized that this is digressive to the point I was trying to make.

It should not take a "book" to prove or disprove God. Faith should not be based on a book, which is temporal at best anyway.

Life's experiences and an awareness of God acting in life should be all that is necessary for the strengthening of one's faith and "knowing" that God's promise to save is for real.

-----

I cannot help but make comparisons with Islam when it comes to some Christian churches insistence regarding the treatment of the Bible (the form that came down through the ages since the Council of Trent). Why should it be no different when non-Muslims poke holes in the Qu'ran and deride the "holiness" of the Arabic word but then again insist that the Bible be regarded as "holy" in very much the same way Muslims do with the Qu'ran.

Muslims will physically kill people who defile even one word of the Qu'ran; certain Christians kill in their hearts when others will challenge the words of the Bible (as conveniently translated into a language of their choosing). Both, as far as I'm concerned, have missed the boat. Words reflect the definition of faith; deeds reflect the depth of faith; and faith reflects the living God acting in daily life. Words will pass away; God won't. And when one puts these two "facts," if you will, on a scale, which one do you think you'd like to put your money on as being the more important?

[Joey Bagadonuts]

Hiya Wallis,

Why should it be no different when non-Muslims poke holes in the Qu'ran and deride the "holiness" of the Arabic word but then again insist that the Bible be regarded as "holy" in very much the same way Muslims do with the Qu'ran.

I think most people in general, and certainly most Christians, don't care one bit what Muslims believe as long as their beliefs don't call for harming non-believers, and that they extend us the same courtesy and tolerance.
Unfortunately in far too many cases with Islamists, that is not the case. (Please note that i did not generalize, or say "all" Islamists.

If Muslims want to believe that Muhammed flew away on a horse...or some guy went down into a well....God bless 'em. Go right ahead. No one I know of has any problems with that. I'm not even sure WHY they would be so concerned that "I" consider that holy.

Muslims will physically kill people who defile even one word of the Qu'ran; certain Christians kill in their hearts when others will challenge the words of the Bible

"Kill in their hearts"? Awww come on pal...you're really stretching here to try to put the actions on both groups on a par aren't you? I honestly can't believe you said that.
Orphans and widows aren't made by someone "killing in their hearts".


***

[wallis]

Joey, I was extending what Jesus is quoted to having said in the Bible. He went on to say that even if one thinks "murder" in their hearts, they are guilty of breaking the fifth commandment.

So, while I am not trying to put physical killing and mental killing on a par, I am merely expressing what the core of Christianity teaches about the concept of "murder."

And, I agree with you. What a person thinks religiously is a God-given right. I cannot, in accordance with the practice of my own faith, coerce you to believe in anything. I am open to discuss what I believe and think, and you are equally free to accept it or dismiss it.

I tend to start sharpening my swords when people of whatever faith start going around stating that they have "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Mainly because they are trying to take away my right to believe in those things I want to believe in and those things I could not give a care about.

Secondly, because anyone who stands up--including myself--and declares that he/she has the "truth" usually has no truth at all worth considering.

Thirdly, I hold people who do claim to have the truth as having a hidden agenda of personal aggrandizement. Not all, mind you. But we are certainly witnessing another round of historical events where certain "messiahs" or "messengers of God" are fomenting mass annihation of people in the name of God. I liken them to people who feel that since God won't take the initiative of bringing paradise to Earth, they have to force God's hand. It hasn't worked in the past, and if I can do my part it isn't going to happen during my lifetime either.

And the idea that God is calling upon the "faithful" to commit wholesale slaughter of humans is just a politically-motivated means, using religion as justification, to aggrandize a personal existence of power and control. Now, there is a person worth killing, even if in reality it constitutes murder, I am sad to state.

[falcon]

He is what I believe, that is my believe, if you accept that is fine if not that is fine also. I have given you information to go seek out, then it is up to you to format your views as you want.

You see the problem? Once you start to doubt one part of God's Word, you have to start to doubt other parts of the Bible. My friend, you are free to believe whatever you want about the creation of this earth and all that is in it, about how we came to exist. I am NOT going to argue with you. There are many great ministries out there that deal with these issues. There are tons of great books that go into great detail on this subject. I choose to put my faith and belief in God's Word alone. I believe in BIBLICAL CREATIONISM. This world and all that is in it and we came to exist EXACTLY how God says in His Word!

As for having a hidden agenda I don't know where you are coming up with this mixed idea of a hidden agenda. You can take what I have posted and believe in that, reseach to come up with something in your mind that is better, but I will tell you I take the Word of God as the best documention and that is called the Bible. My last word.

Thirdly, I hold people who do claim to have the truth as having a hidden agenda of personal aggrandizement.

[wallis]

Please believe me that I did not have you in mind, Falcon, when I wrote that comment. I had in mind certain "interesting individuals" who claim that their interpretation of the Scriptures is the only interpretation. And, "by their works you will know them," we see few of these individuals living a life of humility or even par with the rest of their flock.

And, how you believe is definitely a personal thing. You have my complete support in that regard. That we might differ in our beliefs and approaches, it is important to remember that we are still brothers (and sisters) in Christ. The acceptance of that brotherhood (and sisterhood) is probably one of the top three obstacles Christians have to grapple with, since it is a human characteristic to want conformity to preceed acceptance. It is with great sadness that I have on many an occassion spoken with "men of the cloth" who are quick to judge others who differ from their particular understanding and interpretation as being "wrong, wrong, wrong" and on their way to "hell." Talk about setting themselves up in the place of God!

[Sean Osborne]

Now, if we really want to get into some specifics, we have to get into both archaelogy and what little history that exists from the 7th and 8th Centuries B.C. (B.C.E.)

Yes, indeed let's go there!!!

Archaeology will tell you that the walls of Jericho did not fall.

Horsefeathers.

Whose archaeology do you speak of?

The Jericho archaeological on-site research conducted by a German team in 1907-1909 (the first major excavation of the Jericho site) proved that ALL but the northern wall (near Rahab's home) around Jericho were "tumbled down", probably by earthquake.

Subsequent archaelogical research by Kathleen Keyon in the 1950's provided scientific corroboration that the walls were "tumbled down" and that the interior of Jericho was burned exactly as described in the Biblical narrative. The north wall survived and was the location of Rahab's home - exactly per the Biblical narrative.

Read more detail here, if you dare to have your current mindset disturbed by archaeolgical facts:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/jericho.asp

The story of Noah is told around the world, and these stories predate Biblical records.

Yeah, no kidding. The story of Noah predates Judaism by thousand of years. So what? Noah was not Jewish.

THE FACT IS...Jesus Christ taught that the Flood as described in The Word was a real, literal event. Are you disputing the Word of Jesus Christ?

How preposterous if you are!

FACT: ALL of the Old Testament was held up by Jesus Christ as an inerrant recounting of historical data.

Name one passage where Jesus Christ refutes, criticizes or belittles the Biblical narrative which predated His appearance on Earth?

There is none, not one instance whatsoever!!!

In EVERY INSTANCE Jesus Christ validated and reinforced the narrative of the Old Testament, often citing its passages in buttressing His own commentary, proving the existence of the people who lived those times and the events exactly as described.

There is a mistake here, though: to equate the Old and New Testaments as equals.

Wallis, the massive mistake here is yours and yours alone. Jesus Christ maintained the writing of the Old Testament as valid, in fact, He specifically relates the Old Testament as inspired of and by Himself prior to taking on human form. He used the text of the Old Testament to validate the multiple prophecies of His own coming, as well as His Second Coming.

Your version of faith in the sum total of the Word of God has no relation whatsoever to that which I hold sacred.

[wallis]

Thank you, Sean, for allowing me to believe as I wish to believe. I know that you would not impose your beliefs on me, as I would never impose my beliefs on you.

As for the rest of your post, you are free to believe how you want to believe, and this response is how I view the command to "love one another."

[Sean Osborne]

Thank you, Sean, for allowing me to believe as I wish to believe. I know that you would not impose your beliefs on me, as I would never impose my beliefs on you.

As for the rest of your post, you are free to believe how you want to believe, and this response is how I view the command to "love one another."

Wallis,

Another errant view on your part my brother.

You most are certainly free to believe that which I have specifically pointed out to you is in error (i.e.: your non-Biblical, humanist, politically correct mistakes).

However, in the religious discussions forum there is no admonition against using the Bible to invalidate the errant beliefs of another when its comes to the Word of God. The Bible is quite explicit on this point.

It is known as Biblical Rebuking. The Biblical Old Testament Hebrew word for this is "yakach" which means to "judge, rebuke or correct". The Greek New Testament word is "elegcho" which means to "to convict, expose or find fault with or of an error".

Overall, both of these words in the Word of God mean to convey that by some outward speech or correcting verbiage to reprehend someone severely and admonish them by calling them to account for their errors.

Here are some examples:

Ecclesiastes 7:5

“It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise than for a man to hear the song of fools.”

Psalm 141:5

“Let the righteous strike me; It shall be a kindness. And let him rebuke me; It shall be as excellent oil; Let my head not refuse it.”


1 Timothy 5:20

"...rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear."

2 Timothy 4:2

“Preach the word!” And so how is this accomplished? How, exactly, is preaching to be done? Is preaching always rebuking? Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”

Titus 1:13

“rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith."

Titus 2:15

“Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you."

And finally, the Words of God Himself, as given by Jesus Christ...

Revelation 3:19

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.”


I have pointed out in my preceding post the archaeological proofs of your errancies on Biblical historical events.

You chose not to dispute those proofs.

Good choice.

I have also pointed out the Biblical proofs regarding your errancies in Bible-based Christian beliefs and challenged you to: "Name one passage where Jesus Christ refutes, criticizes or belittles the Biblical narrative which predated His appearance on Earth?" in your errant view on the Old Testament versus the New Testament of the one Holy Bible.

You chose to be silent.

Good choice.

Now you know what lines not to cross before I will take issue with your posts in this forum.

See that, this is very good indeed - everybody learns something - which is exactly what topic specific forums such as this one are for - learning and growing.

[wallis]

Yes, yes, Sean. I am sorry that I forgot about your infallibility in interpreting the Bible, et al.

But, excuse me. I am not in error.

And, this is not the forum for proving or disproving the Bible. I have posted elsewhere on the Internet other views (especially archaeological) regarding certain "events" that supposedly occurred or were reported in the Bible. I have decided not to repeat those posts here simply for others to pooh-pooh the sources; it would be just as easy for me to pooh-pooh the source twice or thrice quoted above (and I am familiar with this site).

The original question posited that "because it is in the Bible, it must be true." Whether or not peope wish to believe this is a matter of faith by the individual. It has no bearing on salvation.

You may rant and rave at me all you want. That is not only your right but your freedom to do so. But to demand a conformity to your view or any other view as a condition or prerequisite to salvation is not a right, either one granted by God or by man.

To me (or for me), the necessity that all things in the Bible have to be true is really a non-sequitur in regard to the very simple fact that God saves, God loves, and God is with me to the point of death and beyond. All else pales into near oblivion with this wonderful message of hope, trust, and love.

[Sean Osborne]

Yes, yes, Sean. I am sorry that I forgot about your infallibility in interpreting the Bible, et al.

Wallis,

This reply concerns no one except those keenly interested in Biblical precepts - core, fundamental Christian precepts at that, and is directed specifically to yourself because of the comments you have made in this thread. Period.

First of all, you give me far too much credit, and say things that I have never, ever attributed to myself - which is a thinly veiled ad hominem. I appreciate the vote of confidence, bit I am far, far from infallible. Yet, I reserve the right to respond in kind.

Regarding your posts on this topic, I do know false teaching and false Biblical doctrine when I see it. I also notice that you still have utterly failed to address those specific issues I directed for you to resolve for the sake of your own comments in this thread.

But, excuse me. I am not in error.

Well then, get on with it already - show me and all other readers that you are not in error. Respond to the specific, directed questions I posed to you to prove your point.

That means come back in your next post to this thread with Biblical narrative which supports your contentions - which less we forget by all of your huffing, puffing and non-Biblical dissumulations is actually quite concise and easy to identify...

i.e.:

Name one passage where Jesus Christ refutes, criticizes or belittles the Biblical narrative (i.e.: the Old Testament) which predated His appearance on Earth?

Show us the Bible verse which disproves this. I quote the Bible above to back up my theology - TIME FOR YOU TO DO THE SAME.

I guarantee all that you cannot possibly support non-Biblical precepts utilizing Biblical quotes.

So, let's go already Wallis, BRING IT ON!!!

And, this is not the forum for proving or disproving the Bible.

Hey, a gentle clue and a hint for you here Wallis - I AM MAKING IT ONE!!!

You made some Biblical commentary - I am therefore hard-pressing you to back up your commentary with BIBLICAL PROOFS OF YOUR POSITION.

Simple as that my brother.

I have posted elsewhere on the Internet other views (especially archaeological) regarding certain "events" that supposedly occurred or were reported in the Bible. I have decided not to repeat those posts here simply for others to pooh-pooh the sources; it would be just as easy for me to pooh-pooh the source twice or thrice quoted above (and I am familiar with this site).

Well, if this is tantamount to admitting that you won't provide proof of your statement in this forum for fear of them being shot down in flames - well, golly gee, let's all walk over the the nearest corner, pout and suck our little thumbs.

Number 1: if your sources are non-Biblical - YEAH, ROGER - I will shoot that nonsense down in flames quicker than you can say your own name.

Number 2: It will not be just as easy for you to "pooh-pooh" my source because my source will by the Holy Bible. Period. See what I have to say below about any pooh-poohing of the Biblical narrative, and catch an advance clue as to how I will respond.

The original question posited that "because it is in the Bible, it must be true." Whether or not peope wish to believe this is a matter of faith by the individual. It has no bearing on salvation.

If you publicly deny the words and testimony of Jesus Christ - yes, I am so sorry to have to inform you, it most certainly does have a bearing on your salvation. Need I post Biblical chapter and verse on this as well? Don't you already have enough on your plate to address?

Again...

Originally posted by Wallis:

There is a mistake here, though: to equate the Old and New Testaments as equals.

To which i responded and steadfastly maintain that the massive mistake here is yours and yours alone. Jesus Christ maintained the writing of the Old Testament as valid, in fact, He specifically relates the Old Testament as inspired of and by Himself prior to taking on human form. He used the text of the Old Testament to validate the multiple prophecies of His own coming, as well as His Second Coming.

In other words - your theology is radically flawed, you are denying the testimony of Jesus Christ about Himself and the Word of the Father.

Whether you realize this or not - the proper terms for such public enunciations are heresy and blasphemy - and I am publicly rebuking you for this as directed by the Word of God which I have quoted to you verbatim in my post above this one.

You may rant and rave at me all you want. That is not only your right but your freedom to do so.

You are confusing "rant and rave" with what I have specifically pointed out to you is the Bibilical need for the rebuke. It is my Christian duty to do so specifically per the Biblical adminitions I have related.

But to demand a conformity to your view or any other view as a condition or prerequisite to salvation is not a right

I am not demanding conformity to my particular view. I habe never stated that this is the case at all - and it is disingenuous, in fact - a redirection and dissimulation to suggest that I stated such a thing. I DiD NOT!!!

I am demanding that you back up your theology -allegedly Christian theology - with chapter and verse from the Bible as its basis in fact.

That is the bottom line. Period.

[wallis]

I have made my points relative to the initial question.

I will no longer make any further comments in this thread that are digressive of the initial question.

If you would like to open another thread regarding specifics regarding Biblical authenticity, I would be glad to participate. However, one cannot necessarily use the Bible to prove the Bible. Such a limitation becomes a circular argument.

Again, this thread was about particular requirements to believe non-salvation-oriented "stuff" that often become stumbling blocks in successfully living a Christ-centered life. The core of belief should be centered in the Christ, and how one views the Bible takes a backseat to living that center, which is the Christ. All Christians look at the Bible as a source of inspiration, support, and what-have-you, but how they view it (be inspiration, actually written by God through people, or simply by people expressing their experiences of God acting in history) is fine with me. Since I do not demand adherence to my view of the Bible, no one should demand adherence from me to their views either.

Out here--until next time.

[Sean Osborne]

Wallis,

Fine.

With your total refusal to back up your views I accept your resignation and capitulation to the points I wanted clarified.

[Sean Osborne]

Back to the thread topic, and the truth of the Bible - which others and myself have long maintained - which science is constantly re-affirming as the original TRUTH OF THE MATTER .



Here's a great condensed version of a position paper written to detail how God's blueprint for life (Genesis) was written for a generation to come - OUR GENERATION (1948-2018) - which would unravel and understand the mystery of life that He had created.

This is an excellent read for all. THIS IS EDUCATION IN ITS FINEST FORM !


Written for a Generation to Come:
The History of the World in the Molecules of Life

by Wendy Wippel

The discovery of DNA as the blueprint of life in the 1950s was the starting block of a race to understand the molecular basis of life. One of the more intriguing findings to follow was that specific pieces of DNA can be used to study human history. Genetic anthropologists are now busy decoding that history, written in the molecules of life since the beginning of time. It is a record being deciphered only in our generation, and one which confirms the history of man recorded in Scripture in amazing detail.

Genetic anthropology is conducted using the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA, two segments that have unique properties that facilitate studies of multigenerational inheritance. Y-chromosome DNA is passed only from father to son; similarly, mitochondrial DNA is passed only from the mother to her offspring. In addition, both accumulate changes at a predictable rate, producing genetic “bread crumbs” that make it possible to follow these bread crumbs (markers) as a population moved around the globe.

Intriguingly, in light of current scientific knowledge, the Bible seems to mention DNA itself:

“Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them”
(Psalm 139:16),

as well as its recent potential to record both the time and the places where people lived: God “has made of one blood every nation of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, having determined ordained times and the boundaries of their dwelling”
(Acts 17:26).

Current understanding of genetic processes confirm Biblical accounts throughout Genesis 6:3.

Post-flood reduction in life spans match those predicted by a mathematic model, bringing current human life spans (under ideal conditions) to precisely the limit predicted by God in Genesis, as well as the exact average specified in Psalm 90:9-10.

(Threescore and ten = 70 years)

In addition, Job’s assertion that “man’s days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed” (Job 14:5 ) has also been recently confirmed. Human life spans have been demonstrated to be both pre-determined and programmed into the DNA itself, through a mechanism involving a repetitive DNA sequence at the end of each chromosome called a telomere. Part of the telomere is shaved off with every cell division; its complete removal initiates cell suicide.

The field of genetic anthropology, which allowed man’s history to be studied with DNA, first gained public awareness in 1987 with the announcement that mitochondrial DNA analysis had demonstrated that every human being on the planet descended from the same female. Similar analysis of Y-chromosomes found that every human male was also descended from a single individual human male. Scientists involved (gleefully) proclaimed that, since this identified male lived considerably after the female, the Bible had been officially repudiated, with headlines across the globe declaring “Adam and Eve Never Met!”

The scientists may need to review their Sunday School lessons.

What “mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” really represent are really statistical entities called the Most Recent Common Ancestor, or MRCA, meaning the last shared relative.

As such, they exquisitely confirm the Biblical account. Since the males on the ark were Noah and his sons, all should have had identical Y-chromosomes. The four women, however (Mrs. Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth), ostensibly not related, would therefore trace their maternal lineages back to the Biblical Eve. The MRCA of the men, then, was Noah, but the MRCA of the maternal lineage was NOT Mrs. Noah, but Eve—who did (according to both science and the Bible) live considerably before her statistical counterpart, Noah.

Genetics has confirmed the Bible’s (long discredited) claim that Noah’s family populated the entire world, putting to rest the widespread theory that humans evolved simultaneously in several places. Analysis of Y- and mitochondrial chromosomes also confirm after Noah, the population grew, dispersed into northeast Africa and the Levant, and gathered in the Middle East shortly before dispersing into the rest of the world, also matching the Biblical account of events between the times when eight people exited an ark and when the entire human population, 70 families strong, gathered at a plain in Shinar to build a tower.

We all know what happened next. God destroyed the tower and scattered the peoples. Numerous global cultures remember this event in legend, and, again, DNA analysis confirms it. Genetic and archaeological evidence demonstrate that, shortly after Noah, humans—in a sudden and rapid exodus—filled the globe. Scientists speculate endlessly as to what led these ancient humans to migrate en masse in this “Great Leap Forward”; the Bible provides the answer. DNA evidence can now detail the movements of these early fathers with some precision.

Interestingly, both genetic and linguistic data reflect a trifold division of humanity about the time that Ham, Shem, and Japheth would have existed, with

one group (Ham and his descendants) going west into Africa and east along the coasts into the south Pacific,

one group (Japheth) colonizing Europe as well as central and northeast Asia, North America and South America,

and the last (Shem) remaining largely in the Middle East.

Archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence puts small, ancient original settlements in the Basque area of France, the Australian archipelago, and the Kalahari Desert area of Africa, almost assuredly comprised of the families of the sons and grandsons of Noah. This fact, and evidence of small bands of cousins left along the way, both confirms and provides a mechanism for another Biblical assertion:

“These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth” (Genesis 9:19).

Reproductive isolation of a small population is the defined method, in genetics, of producing a diversity of physical traits leading to the development of defined races (seen clearly in dog breeding and in the prevalence of rare diseases in inbreeding populations like the Amish.) Noah’s descendants, as 70 families spread out across the whole world, would have (influenced by environmental conditions as well as random genetic factors), over time, exhibited a wide spectrum of distinguishing physical traits.

God’s calling out of the Jewish nation—a distinctly scientific concept in its own right called creating a cohort—has also been genetically confirmed. Y-chromosome studies proved conclusively that Arab and Jewish populations shared a MRCA, who by genetic dating lived about 4000 years ago. In addition, it was demonstrated that although dispersed, Jews had remained obedient to the command to refrain from intermarrying; the authors observed that “the level of divergence among Jewish populations was low despite their high degree of geographical dispersion.”

Y-chromosome analysis has also demonstrated a particular set of markers, called the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CHM), which is distinctly associated with Jewish men who claim genetic descent from Aaron and therefore believed to be that possessed by Aaron himself. Analysis of the genetic data estimates that the original possessor of the CHM lived about 3300 years ago, placing him squarely in the appropriate time period.

Further Y-chromosome studies show that the Jewish peoples were, in fact, globally dispersed, yet retained genetic and national identity to a remarkable degree. Jews from Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa shared almost identical genetic profiles, with only slight differences which nonetheless allow the Diaspora to be traced, showing clear westward movement in both Europe and Northern Africa after 70 A.D. One of the more intriguing applications of Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing is its ongoing revelation of the depths of the dispersal, confirming long-held traditions of Jewish origin among certain isolated tribes. The South African Lemba’s claims to Judaic heritage, for example, were largely ignored until genetic profiling finally demonstrated a high prevalence of the CHM among their male members. Numerous similar populations, spread across the globe, have been genetically identified as descendants of Israel as well.

God’s promise to keep His people throughout their exile (and to gather them to Himself before the end times) is also being documented. Genetic analysis has shown that hidden Jews fled the Spanish Edict of Expulsion in 1492 in the crews of Spanish ships bound for the New World and spread their descendants therein, confirmed genetically most recently in long-term Hispanic residents of New Mexico and in the Melungeons, a mystery population in Tennessee who appear to be descendants of the earliest Spanish landings along the east coast, including the vanished colony at Roanoke in the early 1500s. As Jews around the world reclaim their history, genetic confirmation of their heritage is being employed to both confirm their heritage and support their repatriation, creating the ingathering of Jewish exiles predicted by the Bible. We are seeing prophecy fulfilled before our eyes!

As fascinating as the detailed parallel of DNA analysis with the history of the world written in Scripture is, the most significant application of the technology may be yet to come, fulfilling prophetic aspects of the future. Scheduled for June 2007 is what is being billed as “the biggest family reunion of all time, 3000 years in the making!”

Organizers aim to gather every male descendant of the Davidic line in Jerusalem for a celebration of all things Mashiach—including mass genetic testing, with the objective of identifying genetic markers specific to the Messianic line. As exciting as providing a genetic way to verify the credentials of the Messiah may be, the possibility looms that the technology could be misapplied. Will a world leader emerge whose (only recently possible) genetic profile can confirm a valid claim to the Davidic throne? Only time will tell. But DNA, the molecule of life, will continue to write the story.

* * *

Wendy Wippel is a former molecular biologist at the CDC, now a medical and science writer and founder (in her dreams) of the new scientific discipline, molecular theology. She resides in Hernando, Mississippi with her husband and two daughters.

[Brian Baldwin]

Timelines. Jericho existed in many eras and was destroyed many times. The walls fell from earthquake.... Some several thousand years ago. Timelines.

Only one passage in the Bible do I keep to heart at all these days. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." The rest is unimportant to ME. I am an individual that God speaks to in his way. I would never presume to tell God that he can not do that.

From what I've read here today I have learned at least these three things,

God Said to Sean... Read
God Said to Brian... Respect
God Said to Wallis... Love

I don't know about the rest of you but God never told me to Divide.

[Sean Osborne]

Only one passage in the Bible do I keep to heart at all these days. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." The rest is unimportant to ME.

Well... all I can say is that we should keep one passage at heart because it is the bottom-line message to ALL mankind:

Jesus Christ speaking:

"You are Israel's teacher and do you not understand these things?

I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven�the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Yes, I read, and I read and comment on what I read IN CONTEXT.

I do not assign alternate meanings or make commentary which is not explicit to the text that I have read and reference in a given subject.

Divide?

Negative.

Truth and faithfulness unto The WORD as it was written.

The rest of it takes care of itself and him/herself by their own free will.

Period.