/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>How does human evolution fit into Christianity?

It doesn't.

>-Adam and Eve are metaphorical persons

>-The entire OT is metaphorical/not a historical statement of anything, rather the NT only is.

These are a blatent lie as then you make the word of God of none affect by saying it means whatever you want it to mean.

>-Adam and Eve were just the first two modern humans to have immortal souls

Souls are not immortal see revelation 16:3

>-Adam and Eve were the literal first two humans and the notion of humanity slowly developing over millions of years is a conspiracy

This is the truth, however old the earth is there was a literal seven day formation of the earth after genesis 1:2.

>How does human evolution fit into Christianity?

It doesn't, evolution was a carnal idea of humans and not of God which they used to explain why the earth is so old when doing radiocarbon dating. But fear not, the Bible also has a explanation for why it is possible for a literal seven day formation of the earth and a old earth. See the entire chapters of proverbs 8, ezekiel 31, isaiah 14, and then the specific wording of hebrews 9:26, revelation 13:8, revelation 20:10,14-15, genesis 1:2, genesis 8:2, and genesis 9:11.

And only use the KJV to look up those verses, there is one located in >>>/pdfs/ . Otherwise it makes little sense if you use another version.

>>583933

>Souls are not immortal see revelation 16:3

I'm pretty sure that's just the living creatures died. Not their soul being destroyed

>>583933

>why it is possible for a literal seven day formation of the earth and a old earth.

Also wrong. Watch more Hovind videos.

He does talk about the radiocarbondatingjew probably more in this video though >>583931

>>583936

<I'm pretty sure that's just the living creatures died.

Revelation 16:3

>And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

>every living soul died in the sea

No, every living soul died in the sea, not the creature, but the soul died.

>>583937

I am not watching those botnet videos. Tell me his interpretation of proverbs 8, ezekiel 31, isaiah 14, and then the specific wording of hebrews 9:26, revelation 13:8, revelation 20:10,14-15, genesis 1:2, genesis 8:2, and genesis 9:11. Does he even account for hebrews 9:26 and revelation 13:8? I highly doubt it.

Or just give me a TLDR of the video. I am well aware of the kikery of measuring the age of dirt and then saying the objects located within that dirt are the same age of the dirt.

>>583944

*2018

>>583943

Again I doibt it. It's like when Jesus says God will destroy peoples souks in Hell.

>26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

What about it?

>>583944

>you deny science

No, I deny flase religions. Evolution is a religion.

>>583944

I just realized this is an ID board, crazy.

Anyway this is part of my confusion. Are the Baptist and Catholic responses on this matter different?

>>583951

Most catholics believe in evolution and the big bang. Most Baptists believe what the Bible teaches.

>>583948

Also Jesus said Abel died near the foundation of the world. Billions if years later is not near the foundation.

>>583948

>Again I doibt it. It's like when Jesus says God will destroy peoples souks in Hell.

No it isn't. Because the only things in the sea are the fish thereof to have had souls. Stop literally denying what God says in the Bible. If you are going to continue denying what God says, then why are you larping as a christian? Get out in such a case.

>>583944

>not a christian

Then why are you here?

>So please don't ruin the name of your religion because of ignorance.

Why should I give a single fuck about what you think? Don't you realise that in radiocarbon dating that it is impossible to measure back to a consistent date before 5700 or so years due to the half life of carbon 14? So they take a sample of the soil around the object they wish to guess the date of. They then say that object is X amount of years old based on the date of the dirt, not the object. (((They))) then invented a near religious following of inductive logic, that states the object is the same age as the dirt and it's explenation is something called evolution. Which is false because the object is not the same age as the dirt in ability to be proven.

>>583953

Stop D&C'ing.

>>583955

>Also Jesus said Abel died near the foundation of the world.

Where in the Bible is this said? Where is the chapter and verse?

>>583960

I just went through referenced to abel's name in the Bible and can't find a single instance where this is said.

>>583957

Again no it doesn't. And their are people in the sea(ships, one if the trumpets talks about it).

>>583960

Like 11

50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

>>583963

Luke 11:50-51 KJV

>That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

>From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

You do realise that since Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world revelation 13:8 that he also counts as a prophet right? Are you implying that there was no prophets after zacharias? Because that would be the logical conclusion if you assume the unmentioned prophet and Son of God Jesus didn't exist because of not being mentioned. Of which Jesus is mentioned in proverbs 8 and in John 4:43-44 as existing before the foundation of the world and as a prophet.

>>583963

>And their are people in the sea

If those people, with living souls, died as you speculate. Then your point is moot regardless. Because it states

>every living soul died

Whether of animals or of fish or of men, every living soul died. If you aren't a christian get out already and don't come back.

>>583966

Again your making a retarded argument. He says from the foindation of the world then talks abot Abel right after. And no, Jesu hadn't yet died, the "slain from the foundation of the world" is because his death which takes place latter still cleanses the sins of people that were born before him.

Also I think some other places may say "before the foundation of the earth" but I can't find it.

>>583968

Yeah they died as in they went to hell. Hell is literally called death

>>583996

<Jesus did not die until only 2000 years ago.

Did you not read the verse in revelation 13:8?

>And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

That is one sentence without stop. The adjective phrase "slain from the foundation of the world" can only be in reference to "the Lamb" because of the sentence structure.

>>583974

And the lake of fire is literally called the second death in revelation 20:14, it is also a place of eternal torment in revelation 20:10. But they didn't stop existing or they couldn't be tormented forver. So a second definition of death is eternal suffering like what Jesus experienced in hebrews 9:26

>>584011

>That is one sentence without stop. The adjective phrase "slain from the foundation of the world" can only be in reference to "the Lamb" because of the sentence structure.

Have you read the original Greek? It's quite clear that the verse isn't saying that Jesus died over 6000 years ago. That would be insane. Just like the other person pointed out, it says "from the foundation of the world" because there were people whose names were in the Book of Life who died before Christ did, but He still redeemed them.

>>583996

I don't know much about quantum mechanics, so I'll just leave that. However, I may need to put this another way. Here's a short exerpt from Foley's article on the matter of this disagreement:

>It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.

<Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case.

The article goes into more detail about individual fossils that are often addressed in creationist assessments, and the chart in my previous post basically covers most of his points.

>>584014

>Have you read the original Greek?

No and neither have you due to the scrap peices of paper known as the (((textus receptucus))) and (((the dead sea scrolls))) being incomplete and having many different versions of the same verses.

>That would be insane

Where do you think you are? Believe what God says in the Bible or don't. But get out if you don't believe what God says.

>Just like the other person pointed out, it says "from the foundation of the world" because there were people whose names were in the Book of Life who died before Christ did, but He still redeemed them.

No, it says that in reference to the noun clause before it, otherwise the adjective clause would be out of place in the sentence. It also would make hebrews 9:26 make way less sense.

If you are going to try telling me the (((original hebrew))) that gives us errors like >>583875 is better then the God inspired KJV Bible which God said He would preserve His word forever in 1 peter 1:25, then you are a liar.

>>583944

Evolution is a red herring, evolutionists need to prove abiogenesis as it is required for their materialistic fantasy to be true.

>>584020

Although the carnal writers of the KJV based their interpretation on parts of the (((textus receptecus))), it was inspired by God because of all scripture being inspired by God due to 2 peter 1:21 and 2 timothy 3:16-17. This is because you can see in it's fruit matthew 7:15-20 of not making God a liar if it were true titus 1:2 even though every other version does so, if they were true.

Do you think God a liar when 1 peter 1:25 is said? God said He would preserve His word forever, and so it is preserved.

Just a reminder to ignore Hafizposter and. His shitty JW tier interpretations of his own.

Fact: God is omnipotent

Fact: Evolution from single cell to modern human is within his power

Fact: Creating a literal human from the elements in dirt is within his power.

>Plausible: God could have created Adam as part of the evolutionary line from single cell to modern human

>Plausible: God could have literally created Adam from dirt while managing the evolution of animals to test our faith.

>>584047

Do you believe that any bible is inspired by God?

>>584047

>God will preserve His word

>therefore the KJV is inspired by God

No, if the KJV is scripture, then it has to be inspired by God because of 2 timothy 3:16. It is scripture because it fits the good fruit defintion of matthew 7:15-20 and doesn't make God a liar against titus 1:2.

God saying he will preserve his word in 1 peter 1:25 is just a side-statement to kill your arguement about the (((originals autographs))) mattering at all, and since you aren't a christian what is your point?

>But you are insane.

1 corinthians 1:22-23

>For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

>But we preach Christ crucified,unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Cease your faggotry and get out if you don't believe.

>>584042

Who is Hafizposter?

>>584061

To him, anyone who quotes the Bible is a muslim who has memorized every single word of the Bible. He would prefer instead of bible quotes using soley non-scripturally backed opinions to vainly bable.

>>584055

That is the question of the century.

>>584055

Of course I do. But that does not mean that He magically made the KJV translators not make any errors. I think that the KJV is a fine translation and I use it myself.

>>584059

>since you aren't a christian what is your point?

What makes you say that?

>>584091

Then show me an error. Otherwise what is your arguement to use any other version?

>>584094

You seem to not believe God when He said He would preserve His word forever in 1 peter 1:25 is why I said that. Especially so since you resorted to ad hominims instead of just believing what is said in the Bible. Or better yet refuting it with another interpretation by quoting more scripture that is relavent.

>>584096

>Then show me an error.

As far as I am concerned, there are no formal errors in the King James Version. Like I said, I use the KJV myself and think it is a perfectly fine translation.

>You seem to not believe God when He said He would preserve His word forever

I never said anything like that. All I said was that it makes no sense to say the KJV is inspired by God.

As far as I can tell, here is your logic:

1. God said He would preserve His word forever

2. The King James Version contains no errors

3. Therefore, God inspired the King James Version

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your conclusion does not follow from the premises. I can write something with no errors in it but that doesn't mean that it was divinely inspired. (Funny enough, some Muslims argue that the Koran is inspired by God because it contains no errors)

Like I said, I have no qualms with the King James Version. I don't think that God magically inspired the translators of the KJV and you really haven't given a good reason for me to believe that.

>>584097

1. God said He would preserve His word forever

2. The King James Version claims to be the word of God and scripture

3. The King James Version contains no errors that would make God a liar

4. Therefore, God inspired the King James Version

There ya go. Fixed.

>Funny enough, some Muslims argue that the Koran is inspired by God because it contains no errors

No it contains errors. Literally every reference to a dog in it completely ignores some verses in 2 samuel I am too lazy to pull up right now.

>I don't think that God magically inspired the translators of the KJV and you really haven't given a good reason for me to believe that.

God said he would preserve His word, the KJV is that word as it claims to be of God and contains no errors that would make God a liar. But this requires believeing God exists and would tell us the truth in the first place, which is circular logic. Unless you have another version we could examine that claims to be the word of God and contains no errors that would make God a liar, to use.

>>584099

>No it contains errors. Literally every reference to a dog in it completely ignores some verses in 2 samuel I am too lazy to pull up right now.

Yes it does. But my point is that it's a terrible argument.

>God said he would preserve His word

ok

>KJV is that word as it claims to be of God and contains no errors that would make God a liar

ok

>But this requires believeing God exists and would tell us the truth in the first place, which is circular logic

It's not based on logic, it's based on Faith. The Lord's sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

>Unless you have another version we could examine that claims to be the word of God and contains no errors that would make God a liar, to use.

That's not my point. My point is that lacking errors =/= divinely inspired. God inspired the Prophets and Apostles and so forth, but I have no reason to believe that God specifically inspired the KJV translators and you still haven't given me one.

>>583928

OP, notice the lack of Catholic flags in this thread. That's because only Protestants are dumb enough to meme against science. Science and Christianity are always compatible because Jesus is Logos.

>>584101

Did you never read matthew 7:15-20?

>Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

>Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

>Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

>A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

>Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

>Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

God, who can not lie titus 1:2, is good according to mark 10:18. So good fruit would be of God and this fruit can not contain lies. Hence the test for what constitutes a Bible that is actually the word of God, if it makes God a liar or not if it were true.

>but I have no reason to believe that God specifically inspired the KJV translators and you still haven't given me one.

There are no errors that would make God a liar in the KJV unlike any other version you could show me. But all of this requires the faith and or circular logic that God exists in the first place and would tell us the truth.

>>584104

Science is a false god, stop worshiping it. Worship the living God of abraham, of isaac, and of jacob. Otherwise why are you here?

>>584104

I kind of was wondering where the catholic flags were.

>>584105

This will be my last post responding to you because you continue to waste my time and have not offered me any reason to believe that the KJV translation was specifically inspired by God. Again, I could, theoretically, if I had the knowledge of those translators, make my own translation and it could have no errors. I'm not saying that I CAN do this, it's just theoretical. But just because I produced a translation with no errors does not mean that God inspired me as He inspired the Prophets and so forth. Without errors =/= divinely inspired.

>>583944

>Evolution is a scientific fact

>2018

Nigga evolution is a theory and will never be more than that.

t. evolutionist

>>584097

>Like I said, I have no qualms with the King James Version. I don't think that God magically inspired the translators of the KJV and you really haven't given a good reason for me to believe that.

Do you think that God ensures that we would receive his word or does God just let his word fall off the face of the planet?

>>584104

Science falsely so called in this case however.

>>584108

If it were of you, a man, instead of inspired by God, then no you couldn't do what they did. Because you would mess up and produce bad fruit of lies in the version you claim to have made from God. You convienently forget about all the additions the KJV writers made that weren't in the textus receptucus and that no one can explain how they got there. Considering the fruit of no lies, surely it is of God.

You obviously don't believe God either in 1 peter 1:25 since you have yet to offer a version of scripture that would be of God and perfectly preserved as stated God would preserve his word forever in 1 peter 1:25.

>>583928

Creationism is naive and too simple in the light of knowledge we gathered up to this point, Evolutionism is straight-out phasing out God, which is obviously wrong.

Genesis is not a documentation of events. It was not God holding a pen or possessing someone and then he wrote through the guy - because that would've violated the premise of free will. It is a theological attempt of describing what we cannot comprehend - inspired by God, yet rather descriptive, because even inspired a human can neither comprehend God nor his deeds that were "before". You have to take into account that the knowledge back in the day was very limited compared to what we can access now. Would a Genesis in our times have been different ? I don't know and I can't say. But what I can say is that evolution is not anti-biblical. It's sure not as easily comprehendable as Creation happened on 6 days, but who knows.

And now comes the real secret:

Knowledge about how God really created the universe and so on is not edifying to your salvation. Infact, it's another topic people obsess about which does virtually nothing to your salvation - it can even be a handicap, because when people obsess about it they will become uncharitable and proud.

The truth is: Whether you're creationist or believe that God guided evolution or that everything came into being last Wednesday, doesn't matter as long as you keep the commandments and live the Gospel, because THAT is what it's all about. Not mental masturbation about Creation.

God bless you

>>583950

Nop

>>583944

It isn't. Infact science can never contradict God and the reality of the Cross. It can only seem so when the results are used and falsified to propagate an agenda. God made the universe - he also made us being capable of building tools to look at an atom. If any, this is further proof that God loves us, because he trusts in us that if we have a closer look at what the universe consists of, we will take it in good faith and say "dude God 'tis some awesome shiet right there man".

Again: science is not anti-Christian, anti-Christians are anti-Christian falsifying results in order to push agendas and nothing else.

>The entire OT is metaphorical/not a historical statement of anything, rather the NT only is.

No. If that is true, then why did Jesus affirm the old testament? More fundamentally, what did Jesus die for?

>>584136

Everything is true, but not all is literally true.

>>584136

>>584138

Everything in the Old Testament can be understood both literally and metaphorically. There is no contradiction, we can have both.

>>584121

>>584129

>>584131

A sane poster in this garbage thread? What kind of magic is this?

>>584121

>>584141

2 Peter 3:3-6

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

>>584121

>Knowledge about how God really created the universe and so on is not edifying to your salvation. Infact, it's another topic people obsess about which does virtually nothing to your salvation - it can even be a handicap, because when people obsess about it they will become uncharitable and proud.

Is it almost like Buddhism in that regard? In Buddhism, wondering about the origin of the universe and its specifics is frowned upon. It's considered an imponderable (speculation about the origin/fate/etc of the cosmos).

Granted, Christianity has both an origin and fate already stated, but the specifics thereof ("Well, how did God start it? At what point before heat death will he end it?") are still counterproductive.

>>583996

>implying aether theories have ever been disproven

>>584550

Is there any biblical backing to what you speak of? If no, then why should anyone here care?

>>584550

Isn't zero-point energy essentially just a new aether theory? In that the aether doesn't store light, but infinite energy.

>>584585

>zero point energy

>theory

Pick one.

>>584585

The entirety of space-time is just another aether theory.

>>584595

What do you mean? The creation of time crystals confirms that ZPE or something like it I observable in nature. I think That makes zero point it a valid theoretical component of the physical world. That doesn’t mean it can be harnessed to do work

>>584643

This is your brain on materialism.

>>584646

Okay then, you explain time crystals and their symmetry

>>583928

>it's one of my primary hangups pertaining to the faith.

Accepting the truth in Genesis brought me to faith.

>>584673

ZPE isn’t even a creationist issue

>>584677

Just saying it seems far outside of my skill set. I'm more inclined with comparative anatomy and the like.

>>583928

Reminder to Catholics in this thread that the First Vatican Council infallibly declares the literal truth of the creation story.

http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm

https://youtu.be/zgAMw0i_TLA

>>584681

Man, that first article pretty much throws every standard canard I've heard thus far, and then some. Faulty fossils, small amounts of time for sudden events, even going with the emotional appeal in the first portion. If this is the standard you wish to ascribe to, count me out.

>at least one of the quotes comes from Harun Yahya

Oh this is rich!

>>584652

The only reason they "repeat in time" is because they're forced to.

>>584688

What’s forcing them to?

You can’t say their base state displays different energy levels because that’s ZPE and it’s a bit ludicrous to say God because why directly physically interfere with a grad student’s spooky crystals and not literally anything else. Maybe a demon or some such?

>>584689

>Reminder that belief in evolutionism is tantamount to apostasy

This is true.

>Either evolution is true and God is the author of death or it is false and Adam brought death into the world through the first sin.

You are wrong on both counts here

Romans 5:12-14

>Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So pretending Adam brought sin into the world

>(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Weird because moses didn't recieve the law until much later

>Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If you are talking about spiritual death as in the lake of fire in revelation 20 then you are a liar. Because Moses will not go to the lake of fire due to 1 peter 3:18-22. You would be implying all those saints from adam to moses are condemned. The correct interpretation is that by Satan in isaiah 14 and ezekiel 31 did sin enter into the world, for Satan is the father of lies after all in john 8:44.

>>584690

They repeat because they're kicked periodically. In other words, they're forced to repeat the same thing over and over. It can't perpetually exist by itself. Matter naturally wants to make an equilibrium with everything around it and crystals are perfect for that. It's pressure mediation, after all. Time, which probably doesn't even exist, is already at an equilibrium with everything else. Time crystals would only be possible if an outside force continuously feeds energy into it. If that's the case then there would be no way to disprove something as not being a time crystal.

>>584694

>time

>not existing

Read revelation 10:6

>And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

Time exists. Actually if you want to get even more specific see ephesians 5:16

>Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Stop saying good day to people, for the days are evil.

>Time crystals would only be possible if an outside force continuously feeds energy into it

Erm, ZPO is possible because it is the definition of empty space with no matter, it is energy. Is there a difference between it and time crystals?

>>584693

>Weird because moses didn't recieve the law until much later

You relaize the "don't eat from that tree" is lart of the law to right? It's not only stuff Moses taught. And if you try to say it is only Moses' laws then that would mean in the NT not honoring the Sabath day is a sin

>>584693

>The correct interpretation is that by Satan in isaiah 14 and ezekiel 31

Serious question why do you keep mentioning Ezekiel 31 when the passage on Satan is from Ezekiel 28:15-17?

>>584707

"The Assryian" is unironically and lol another name for the devil see ezekiel 31:3

>Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature;and his top was among the thick boughs.

And now see isaiah 14:12,25 and the verses inbetween it for context.

>How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

>That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

And if you don't think lucifer is Satan or the devil see ezekiel 31:17

>They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen.

And then see the previous verses in ezekiel followed by revelation 12:8

>And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,

Also because God calls Satan "the assaryian" its very likely that satan's spirit body is white. But there is no way to confirm this.

>>584709

Because of satan being called the assaryian I have unironically taken into consideration that donald trump is literally satan, but still to be obeyed due to romans 13 until revelation 11:15 when Jesus takes the kingdoms of the world back. I only say this because the third physical temple has been completed and the scripture fullfilled for daniel 11's end time prophecies. But it is very unlikely that this is the case as revelation 6:11 would have to be fullfilled for the whole book after that to start.

>>584698

>Read revelation 10:6

I think you should understand what is being said here. It's not a confirmation of time as an existent principle of the universe, but time as the concept of days and hours. In other words, it's time as it's always been understand; it's the measurement of the passing of magnitudes.

>Erm, ZPO is possible because it is the definition of empty space with no matter, it is energy.

Energy is movement. It would be better not to say energy but potential. Energy would actually, logically, be the release of potential, and the lack of movement as the keeping of potential. A bomb before detonation has more potential than a bomb after detonation. But a detonated bomb has more energy, or movement, than before.

>>584711

>Energy would actually, logically, be the release of potential, and the lack of movement as the keeping of potential.

Exactly, hence why empty space contains the most of it. It is the most available for potential reactions. But this is not /christian/ related so take it somewhere else or start a new thread.

>It's not a confirmation of time as an existent principle of the universe,

I know this. That's because it doesn't exist as a principle of the universe. See the next answer.

>but time as the concept of days and hours.

Exactly. If you are a christian then you can accept God's definition of time in revelation 10:6 and call any other force men may discover something else, as it is something else entirely then days and hours passing. What God says is true, end of story. But what men say is subject to change. And from there anything is possible due to luke 11:9-10

>And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

>For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Or is not possible due to revelation 3:7

>And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

>>584744

Have yet another Bible lesson you ignoramis.

>Swearing

Defined at james 5:12 as not adding credence to your speech.

>But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

>profanity

Defined at ezekiel 22:26 as putting no difference between the base and the holy.

>Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

>cursing

Defined at 2 samuel 16:7-8 amongst many other as wishing evil upon someone

>And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial:

>The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the LORD hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man.

>>584754

>ephesians 4:29

It does not say that, use the KJV of ephesians 4:29

>Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Nothing has changed as those verses have always been there. It's just people like you ignore what God says. It is not swearing to say fuck as it adds no credence to speech as defined at james 5:12. It is not profane to say fuck as it does not make base something that is supposed to be holy as defined at ezekiel 22:26. And it is not cursing to say fuck as I have wished no evil upon you as defined at 2 samuel 16:7-8.

Now fuck off, as in leave, and be edified by this post by repenting of creating sins where they were none as has happened before in matthew 15:1-6

>THEN came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

>Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

>But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

>For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

>But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

>And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

>>584759

>it does not make base something that is supposed to be holy

besides matrimony

>it is not profane

but it is one of the most profane words in the English language, and by using it you are contributing to the cancerous casual sex culture

<Matthew 15:10-11

>And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

you are defiling yourself with filthy language

>>584764

Using language is not inherently filthy and you have no biblical backing to say otherwise. How it's used can be for cursing, for profanity, and for swearing/taking a oath and that is all filthy.

For example, and for your edification. Let's pretend I told you I wish you would get a leg injury. I didn't use what you consider "filthy language" but I would have still cursed you according to 2 samuel 16:7-8 .

Yet another example, let's pretend I said to you that God is a liar and that the word of God doesn't exist on the earth any more. I used none of what you would consider "filthy lanuage" but yet I would be profaning, treating unholy what is holy, God and His word which is above His own name according to ezekiel 22:26.

Finally let's pretend I told you I promise to not let you down. That is not using what you would consider "filthy language" but yet I just added credence to my speech against what james 5:12 says.

Now serve God and not the traditions of men.

>>584768

Except marriage is holy, and the f word profanes it.

Do you think Jesus would use that word if he were ministering to us today? And again how are you not defiling yourself by using that word which makes base something that is supposed to be holy?

>>584768

1 Corinthians 8:12

But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

>>584769

>Except marriage is holy, and the f word profanes it.

No it does not. Read hebrews 13:4

>Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The marriage bed is undefiled. Saying fuck does not defile it. Just like saying you are going to have sex with your wife does not defile it, for the bed is undefiled in marriage and honorable in all.

>Do you think Jesus would use that word if he were ministering to us today?

Yes actually, I think Jesus would be using all sorts of combinations of the words: fuck leviticus 20:11, piss 1 samuel 25:22, and shit numbers 25:1. I think he would be using as many edifying words like such as to fullfill 1 peter 2:8

>And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: where unto also they were appointed.

Stop stumbling at the Rock of offense.

>>584772

Is he so weak he can not communicate? Let him go learn english in a school and then come back here then. There's websites like duolingo that teach language, go use one of those. The whole point of that verse is not to cause one to doubt God as to have the brethern perish against what 1 corinthians 8:11-13 says

>And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

>But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

>Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat noflesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

>>583928

Adam and Eve are the ancestral founders of the Sons of Abraham. They are the common link from which all modern Jews are descended, and through that, the ancestors of Christ. They were the ones responsible for the Fall of Man, but they were not the first humans - else there would be no daughters of man for Seth to wed, no sons of man for Cain to be fearful of.

>>584778

1 Corinthians 13, my friend

>>584796

Or they could have been fucking like rabbits and birthing twins or triplets every so often. The Bible doesn't say so it could be so or not so. Regardless I could see them marrying eachother as the incest laws of leviticus 18 hadn't been proclaimed yet.

>>584801

1 corinthians 13:4-6

>Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed

up,

>Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

>Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Where have I broken you? Or decieved you? Or exclaimed myself over you instead of giving glory to God? What question have I not answered?

>>584803

Some things aren't worth fighting for, some things are. We're all avoiding real profanity too, and nobody said anything was wrong with any Biblical language. I don't think we can get anywhere unless we can all know when to let things slide and allow our differences when they don't cause anyone to stumble. If someone really get offended at obscene language, is that really something needing correction? Is it worth starting a fight over?

>>584806

>If someone really get offended at obscene language, is that really something needing correction?

Obscene language is meaningless because of the defintion of obscene. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene https://archive.fo/u2Qq8

>: disgusting to the senses : repulsive

>2

>a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity

First lust is not a sin. Second disgusting other people is not a sin. Third being "abhorrent to morality/philosophy/ethics/mores/what a majority of people think" is meaningless as christians are supposed to serve God.

<Is it worth starting a fight over?

Yes, if we don't understand each other and agree upon the meanings of words then how are we to communicate to edify each other? We couldn't do so in such a case, as we would be like the babylonians in cy+3 and in genesis 11:1-9.

>>584025

KJV isn't scripture though. It's more of a chronicle that contains scripture

>>583928

evolution is real and can be observed.

Adam and Eve are metaphorical. It is mixed with very old traditions of the Near East (the Eden, the flood, etc). Only for the carnals this would be some kind of problem.

>>584824

If you deny the complete text of the KJV is scripture then where is the scripture? By what authority do you declear the KJV not scripture when in 1 peter 1:25 it explicitly claims to be scripture?

>>584828

It is based on the heavily corrupt (((masoretic text))) which misses out a lot of divine scripture and the trxtus receptus isn't the fullness of the textual tradition. Also the translation is heavily altered for a united protestant agenda so that corrupts it further. So yes it contains scripture if you can navigate all the corruption's but is not the fullness so in itself cannot be called divine scripture.

I speak by the authority of the holy spirit and the mystical body of Christ the church which canonised divine scripture at the council of Carthage and was later reaffirmed in ecumenical council.

>>584830

>So yes it contains scripture if you can navigate all the corruption's but is not the fullness so in itself cannot be called divine scripture.

Ok, then prove it now due to no interpretation of scripture being private due to 2 peter 1:20. Where does it make God a liar if it were true against what titus 1:2 says, which is to say an error or corruption in line with the test of matthew 7:15-20?

Also what version do you recomend instead of the KJV then. As God said he would preserve His word forever in 1 peter 1:25 so His word must exist for our edification on earth today.

>>584834

Indeed there can be no private interpretation of scripture and all interpretation comes from Christ the Church, which has laid out with the power of the holy spirit what the divine scripture is. Indeed God does not lie.

The Vulgata is divine scripture that the holy spirit has preserved for us

>>584841

I provided proof. The council of Carthage. Which clearly states what books are and are not in the bible. KJV is missing 7. How can it be scripture if it is missing scripture? Is this a hard a thing to hear?

It's written in both Malachi and Isaiah, unfortunately your KJV does not have the full book of Isaiah but an (((edited))) version therefore yours may not have it.

>>584843

>I provided proof. The council of Carthage

How is this proof of making God a liar in the context of the Bible itself? Chapter and verse, where are they?

>It's written in both Malachi and Isaiah

Which verse in Isaiah, why doesn't it mention malachi? You then tacticly need to deal with 2 samuel 21:19 https://archive.fo/yLoMc

>Tertium quoque fuit bellum in Gob contra Philisthæos, in quo percussit Adeodatus filius Saltus polymitarius Bethlehemites Goliath Gethæum, cujus hastile hastæ erat quasi liciatorium texentium.

>And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

So who killed goliath? David in 1 samuel 17:51 or someone else in 2 samuel 21:19?

>>584847

I wasn't accusing God of lying so that irrelevant point does not need addressing.

I don't recall any mention of someone else slaying Goliath in my Douay Rheims, and I have faith the Douay translators had better source material and translators were better than you. Are you sure you are not in error? In any case I suggest you read what the church fathers have to say about it or check the catholic encylocpedia for your issues.

>>583931

>>583930

i dont believe in species evolution or abiogenesis, but i dont believe in baptist creationism or their stupid arguments about evolution and science

>>584867

by baptist i mean *fundie

>>584843

>The council of Carthage. Which clearly states what books are and are not in the bible.

Why do I care about any council though?

>>584843

Where does Isaiah in D-R say it though?

>>584865

>I don't recall any mention of someone else slaying Goliath in my Douay Rheims,

It says it was David

>[4] And there went out a man baseborn from the camp of the Philistines named Goliath, of Geth, whose height was six cubits and a span:

>[50] And David prevailed over the Philistine, with a sling and a stone, and he struck, and slew the Philistine. And as David had no sword in his hand,

>[51] He ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath, and slew him, and cut off his head. And the Philistines seeing that their champion was dead, fled away.

>>584775

you misunderstand that verse, it does not mean that marriage cannot be defiled, but should not be

if it really could not ever be defiled gay marriage or polygamy would not happen

and even if you still disagree, what you are saying is basically equivalent to saying it is OK to for satan against God since he can't be overcome by the devil

you are defiling marriage with wicked words, and corrupting your own heart as well. Stop it.

>>584944

Polygamous and sodomite mirages aren't actually marriages according to the bible, so they're irrelevant to that verse.

>>584922

Because Jesus gave the apostles the power to bind and loose on earth as in heaven. And the apostles passed on that power to the bishops through the laying on of hands.

>>584960

>And the apostles passed on that power to the bishops through the laying on of hands.

No they didn't. Stop lying. Only the 12 had the power to do that.

>>584980

Also how does that prove the people at that council had that ability?

>>584980

Anon that's their "oral tradition" so it is self-validating. Nevermind Acts 20:28-32, you were supposed to trust the words of men. They are far more real anyway than any silly words written in a book called scripture. There are guys right now with funny hats who can do anything they want if you will just believe in them!

Ah, the same Gish gallop we've seen time and time again. You going to use that "proof against evolution" that's actually the beginning of a video refuting creationist claims? Or better yet, you're just going to use the same claims you did last time with no variation, right?

>>583928

>>585017

>>585020

The second attack on the cosmological argument has come from atheistic scientists who have proposed other possible causes for our universe. The two main options put forth are the multiverse (multiple universes) hypothesis and the quantum mechanics theory that purports things can arise and come into existence without a cause.

However, both alternatives fail when studied closely. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has scientifically proven that that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have had an absolute beginning. In other words, it also requires a cause. As for the quantum mechanics proposal, it is simply not true that things begin to exist from nothing in a quantum mechanics environment. Anything arising results from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, which is not “nothing” by definition. Instead, it comes from energy that is locked in the vacuum, which is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws having a physical structure. No evidence suggests that things come into being from nothing in quantum mechanics.

Both the multiverse and quantum mechanics arguments are examples of what in philosophy is called “drowning the fish.” You can use all the water in the oceans in an attempt to drown the fish, but in the end, it will still be there affirming its existence and presence. In the end, the cosmological argument for God stands intact. The reason we have something rather than nothing is because, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Rather than being defeated by modern science (as is the eternal universe claim), the opening line of the Bible is supported by science. Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaeffer says, “A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”

Dr. John Lennox sums up the overall matter of the cosmological argument well when he writes: "There are not many options?essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second."

There is no debate among both atheists and theists that the Universe, the Earth, and life on earth displays design.

The most vocal atheist alive today, Richard Dawkins, says: “Living objects… look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they’re designed. Biology is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.”

Francis Crick, an atheist and co-discoverer of DNA, says, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Of course, "must constantly keep in mind" simply means "it looks like design, quacks like design, flies and walks like design, but you must always believe against the observational evidence that is is not design."

But now I'm going into the subject of the multiverse and how idiotic String Theory is, at least in its current form. Note that there are dozens if not hundreds of scientific theories built upon both the multiverse theory and Darwinian Evolution - which is essentially building theories ontop of theories which have no evidence and are not truly falsifiable (at least not in the case of the multiverse).

This is important since the multiverse was the only last vestige of "hope" (heh) for the godless fool to flee from the reality of the creation's design and thus its designer. How? Because the multiverse theory is needed for the "bubble universe" theory, the theory that universes expand and then collide, thus producing a new universe. This was the godless oaf's answer to the necessity of there being some cause to the effect of the Big Bang since, logically speaking, nothing only produces nothing.

That's right - it's a theory built on a theory built on a theory which is not falsifiable and has no evidence to even hint at it. It's all make believe. Let this whistful Quantum Physicist tell you himself vid related

>using evidentialism only to teg out with presuppositionalism

The galloping continues

>>584980

Read the writings of the church fathers, they affirm this was passed on. The non written tradition preserved through the church also affirms this. Why would Jesus create a visible church and ordain a ministry which he said would not die, founded on the apostles and then allow that church and ministers to not be passed on and thus die? Why did the apostles appoint a new apostle to replace Judas if they had no power in appointing? Why would Paul appoint Titus and Timothy to lead churches if they was no power to pass on? Why did bishops as the function of the church immediately form with the foundations of churches across the med? Why does St Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John the Apostle say that the church exists with the bishop? Why do all the church fathers agree this is what happened?

The council was made of bishops and the council was affirmed by the entirety of all bishops and the Pope across the church. Thanks to them you know what new testament books to read and you don't have the epistle of Barnabas or Apocalypse of Peter or gospel of Thomas or acts of Pilate in your bibles.

>>583928

>from protestants

https://www.scribd.com/document/131733719/Pope-Pius-XII-Encyclical-Humani-Generis-Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-KeQOVLxyQ

and vid related

Stupidity is not sparse on either side. Plenty of ignorance can be found from Catholics and Protestants on this issue

>>585065

><Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap

Strawman

>>585074

Not really, considering this is on one of the most prominent creationist organization's website.

>Knowing from Scripture that God didn’t create any ape-men, there are only three ways for the evolutionist to create one: 1) Combining Men and Apes, 2) Making Man out of Apes, and 3) Making Apes out of Man.

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/did-humans-really-evolve-from-apelike-creatures/

>>585064

>The only problem here is that the presuppositions used by many of the more prominent creation "scientists," though nearly identical, lead to very divergent views on what constitutes humanity.

Probably because they didn't come off the same boat and either don't share the same presupposition or don't attempt to live consistently with it.

For example, I appreciate the "Reformed" (ie 5 Solas, TULIP) view of someone like Greg Bahnsen who held firm to the reality that evidentialism cannot stand alone and that in any debate there must first be a thorough exposure of both sides' presupposition. I am a biblical Trinitarian and uphold Scripture as the exclusive ultimate authority since the last apostle's last breath.

Now before I continue, I need to know: What is your worldview? How do you think Darwinian Evolution fits into Christ's truth at all?

Until I know what your worldview/presupposition is I can't argue with you because, as has happened dozens of times, I'd only be dancing with a shadow. People who don't state what they believe outright will always be vague and fleeing behind one pillar to another leaving the entire discussion fruitless.

>your more recent popes

I'm not Catholic. Didn't you look at any of the information or videos I posted?

>>585037

finally, someone else with a brain in this thread

This thread has been interesting.

>>585024

I think string theory is crazy in regards to its status as a means of origin for the universe, but IIRC it can be fit into Christianity(?). In a 10-D + universe, God simply rests at the top of the dimensional totem pole, so to speak. Capable of simultaneously witnessing (And I suppose creating, as humans can interact on 2d planes) all possible histories of the universe(s) and witnessing every unfolding event since his Creation of it without interfering. It'd even cover free will, in that case: There are an effectively infinite number of ways you can do a thing, and God knows every possible way, but you are still consciously free to choose from them.

>t. like one article on the multidimensional aspects of string theory

>>585038

>church fathers, they affirm this was passed on

>t-trust me go-guys it was passed to me

>>585037

Great series of posts. I do want to point out that the term you're looking for is typological, not allegorical.

>>585078

They don't represent all Biblical creationists, just the "flood geology theory" variant. So you will want to note that instead of claiming that they represent all of Biblical creationism.

>>585037

>Why does a young earth show signs of age? The same reason why Adam was a man despite being only a few seconds old. Eve was also only a few second old when she was created for Adam.

I never thought of that. Excellent posts.

>>585229

Ok, then what are some other examples? I know Cuozzo made that "complex ape" claim, but that's about it.

>>585235

Flood geology makes a few unnecessary assumptions on which it tries to defend. One of which is that there is a "wide gap" and that therefore skeletal remains can always be classified as man or beast. Not all of creationists are bound to defend that assertion, unless they want to, because it's not found anywhere in scripture.

>>585248

I just don't assume that it is always possible to distinguish between a man's remains and beast remains. So this kind of stuff presents no difficulty for me either way. And also I don't think it's important to be able to, because there is no useful application of that knowledge. Does that answer your question?

>>585255

Seems like a fair statement. Thanks

>>585256

Yeah don't get me wrong I still find natural history very interesting, but I don't base my theology on anything that aren't outright stated in Scripture. But you can keep questioning the flood geologists who do and point out how this point isn't even something they can easily exegete from the Bible. This has been something of a false dichotomy we've been fed by mainstream media.

>>585237

>There is no reason for a mature earth to exist in the YEC worldview, unless God wished to confound man with inconsistent evidence.

Watch more Hovind videos. Mkst the the reason why the earth may look old is because of the flood

>>585264

<Hovind

Pass. Big pass. Huge pads

>>585265

same really

>>585224

>typological

That's the word I was looking for! Thank you, mate

God bless you in Christ, mate

>>585230

I told you, once you realize it you feel silly for not recognizing it sooner. Same thing happened to me. God bless you in Christ

>>585104

Sounds like you're trying to apply String Theory to Molinism and that's only going to end poorly, mate.

>witnessing every unfolding event since his Creation of it without interfering.

>without interfering.

That's not the God we serve. He was interacting with His creation even before the Fall. In fact, He is so intimate with mankind that He is described as personally forming Adam and breathing life into his nostrils. God isn't the type of being to stand back and observe without interfering in anything. He's either directly intending a thing to occur or superintending a thing to occur so that a greater outcome is produced thereafter. Our God is an active God, never passive.

>For God is my King from of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth. - Psalm 74:12

>In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, - Ephesians 1:11

>>585368

>It's only inconsistent because you do want to accept it

*don't want to accept it

>>585368

Ok it's clear you're just on yet another spiel here, just as with the last few times I've seen you post, so I'm just going to let you do you thing.

>>585368

Created old or whatever you would describe that theory as is poor debate because it's untestable AND lacks sufficient evidence of its initial occurrence. Not even all of the Church backs that idea.

>>585795

>implying he cares

>>584112

>>584099

So what are non-English speaking Christians supposed to do? Did God make an equivalently divinely inspired and flawless translation in every other language or did he just prefer English speakers specifically for some reason?

>>592775

Well he's going to end up contradicting himself now if he answers this because there are many languages that do not have a TR Bible and some don't have a Bible at all. And even funnier than that is the fact that the KJV does contain an error: Revelation 22:19.

>>592775

>or did he just prefer English speakers specifically for some reason?

I'm not that guy but what makes you think this? There are equivalent translations in other languages, since they are all based on the originals I don't see the problem. They all say the same thing after, unless they were made from alexandrian manuscripts of course.

Now if you want to railroad this into a question of how God can save isolated tribes, which is assuming that they even deserve this, that's up to you. I don't assume those kinds of things or require God to do anything, other than what He pleases to do. The word says that all have sinned and that the wages of sin is death. So there's your answer for that.

>>583928

I personally just stopped believing in evolution with the main reason being that simply adding random mutations overtime doesn't necessarily lead to more and more advanced species. Just think of trying to change Pong into Final Fantasy just by adding zero and ones. A bit ironic that thinking of it in terms of vidya made me stop believing in a scientific theory, but whatever. It's honestly easier to believe radioactive dating measures are rigged and misinterpreted than pure randomness leading to ordered structures.

Even before that though, I simply thought God micromanaged everything so Adam and Eve were the first two humans out of slow evolution. I also only assumed that really early Genesis (Pre-Noah) was metaphorical with the rest being more or less historically accurate.

>>585237

Abiogenesis is a real sticking point for me when trying to determine how nature appeared from a lifeless world. I guess you could just say "Godly micromanagement", but then you're just a intelligent design believer rather than one in evolution. All of the theories in this subject seem laughable at best if you believe it occurred by random chance, even ignoring things like the innumerable astronomical variables that make Earth suitable for life.

Also, my understanding of the nitrogen cycle is that it's really dependent on legumes. Lightning can fix nitrogen, and there are probably free flying nitrogen fixing bacteria, but would those be enough to kickstart the nitrogen cycle and keep it going until legumes evolved?

One interesting thing that isn't hugely relevant, but I find interesting regardless is that if you ignore the cosmological principle (that all matter is evenly distributed in the universe) while observing the universe, it looks like our galaxy is about in the center of the universe as the number of observable galaxies is about equal in all distances around us (unless the view is disrupted by the Milky Way itself). It's not something provable, but it's interesting how different premises can determine how we see the natural order of things.

>>584705

LOL as soon as I saw this thread I wondered how long it would take you to star spamming your little skull pictures.

Evolution does not exist. Random mutations are a net loss. The idea of evolution is necessary for the godless to promote the false ideas of aliens (demons) and eternal life (transhumanism) without Christ.

>>592781

Because according to >>584016 even the original languages are somehow inadequate or corrupted and then claims here >>584112 that the KJV translators made unexplained additions not found in the textus receptus that are "surely.. of God."

So if that's the case then why did God protect this one specific English translation from errors and not any other translations, English or otherwise? >>584112 If any regular Joe can't make a translation without errors unless God inspires them, then what are people supposed to do? Sit around and wait for inspiration? Does this mean that other translations should be translated directly from the KJV?

I'm just not understanding how this works.

>>593131

>Because according to >>584016 even the original languages are somehow inadequate or corrupted and then claims here >>584112 that the KJV translators made unexplained additions not found in the textus receptus that are "surely.. of God."

Oh that guy is a ruckmanite. I'm pretty sure he stopped posting here a while ago, so you probably won't get a response.

>what are people supposed to do?

At the end of the day what you have to trust is God, that He will provide this and that He will give you understanding. Several places it's told that only those who have the Spirit can get the truth from the word. So you're not alone when reading the word of God, if the Holy Spirit is helping you. And I really think that anyone who is so inclined is also going to reject the alexandrian version since they are heavily altered. That's what happened to me until I realized the scholars claims about this were untrue and that we still do have the received words today uncorrupted.

John 8:47

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

>Does this mean that other translations should be translated directly from the KJV?

In principle you shouldn't, you should use the original language sources, which are the same source that it uses. In practice I don't know how much difference it would make, but it's the principle of translating direct from the originals that is most important to uphold. I met a guy that was doing this not too long ago actually, he basically agreed on this concept and that the KJB is the one that used the right, received, sources. And he was doing the same in his native language.

>>593131

>So if that's the case then why did God protect this one specific English translation from errors

See 1 peter 1:20, God will preserve His word forever is why.

>and not any other translations, English or otherwise?

See 1 corinthians 14:33

>For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

>>593163

I do not know what this "ruckmenite" is you speak of. Aren't most here supposed to be followers of Christ, christians?

>>592775

Well the old greeks and the old biblical hebrews in the middle east and europe already received the word of God in olden times. The gospel has to go out to the entire world because of revelation 14:6. I have no idea the chronlogical series of what the who gets preached the gospel in what order is though. Nor have I gone over other language's versions, save for latin, to see if they fit the definition of titus 1:2 and matthew 7:15-20.

>>592776

Why is this funny to you? Discussing God's word is serious buisness, it is the foundation of the christian faith, higher than God's own name in psalms 138:2. Take the subject seriously lest you profane God.

>And even funnier than that is the fact that the KJV does contain an error: Revelation 22:19.

How is that in error? Men, not inspired by God, copied copies of copies which the uninspired men took away and added words due to error or maliciousness. When God inspires scripture it is without error that would make God a liar, such as adding back those words corrupt men took away or removing ones they added as to get it to the state as when God spoke it. It is not called for word of God for nothing. Do you even understand authority? Those men do not get glory for acripture if God uses them to inspire thusly, God does. There is no error in such IF they are inspired by God.

>>592998

I like what you were shooting for there about transhumanism and aliens, even if I don't agree with you 100%. I saw an article a while back about how Jesus was just an early transhumanist and how a few supermaterialist fringe ""Christians"" think that it's our destiny as mankind to ascend to godhood via transhumanism.

Of course, the laws of physics (which I guess you could consider unwritten settings God put in place so people would stop dicking around looking for loopholes) currently shows that transhumanism can never EVER work out like heaven could.

>>583973

>Adam and Eve were just the first two modern humans to have immortal souls and thus the common ancestors of current humanity

Something like this is probably correct. Adam is the first true human being, earlier hominids lacked something essential. There's probably a long argument we can have about what exactly that something is, but I don't want to get into it.

>Then what would this mean for humans that showed signs of culture, toolmaking, and even altruism well before the dates some people settle on?

All these things are found in other animals.

One point I'd like to make is that you shouldn't expect to know everything. We're imperfect beings, not all of God's plan or the way His world works has been revealed to us yet. Many times when we try to figure out these things, we're going to make mistakes and draw wrong conclusions. That's okay. So long as we don't let our pride convince us that if we can't find a way to reconcile our observations with God's Word, God's Word must be wrong, these mistakes don't put us in danger.