GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sonofason

Pages: [1] 2
1
Some things just need repeating

By The Barbarian-----
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.


Amen
 ::tippinghat::

I personally have no problem with the concept of evolution being true.  I don't know if evolution is true, but it is a logical theory, and it does not contradict the Bible.  God created man from the dust of the earth.  We don't really know what that means.  Did God pick up a pile of dust and whirl his magic wand and...POOF...Adam appeared?  I highly doubt that.  We don't know what the creation of man entailed; from dust to human being leaves a lot of room for speculation.  Why not evolution? 

2
Nope.   Since the early 1960s, when the discovery of mid-oceanic ridges explained why the continents split apart from each other, no geologists doubt that the did so.

Nope.   Oceanic crust is much different than continental shelf, being thinner, denser, and composed of different rock.     It was, as you just learned, produced from mantle material upwelling from blow.   Continents are mostly granite

Indeed...and the ocean plates...all of the ocean plates are much younger than all of the continental plates.  There was a time when there were no ocean basins on this earth, but I don't see anyone talking about that fact.

3
Sports Forum / Re: No more kneeling
« on: Sun May 27, 2018 - 22:33:25 »
To be honest, they're all lucky to still have there jobs.  You may have a legal right to kneel while on the job, but you do not have the right to keep your job if you do kneel on the job. 


Go ahead and go to work and kneel for 8 hours, and let me know if you still have a job the next day. 

4
Everyone thinks the decision by the Supreme Court concerning Roe vs Wade was settled once and for all by giving the right for pregnant woman to abort their babies.,  No that decision  was NOT  final because the court asked the defendants to prove when life began and when that fact is established they would rule in favor of the defendants  in effect washing their hands of the matter and throwing the ball in our corner to settle it and for more than 40 years we have been dribbling that ball around and around and never really trying to score the win.

That win can be finally achieved by Congress establishing when life begins by passing Senator Rand Paul’s Life Begins at Conception Act.  This will finally give the court the answer for which they have been patiently waiting for now over four decades  AND NOW IT IS TIME TO GIVE THEM THAT ANSWER.  Christians it is now your duty to God and these babies to flood your representatives in the U. S. Senate and U. S. House of Representatives with calls, e-mails and letters demanding this legislation be passed or they will never receive your vote for any public office they seek to obtain.

The Doomsday clock by God is ticking against America for its failure to stop this genocidal holocaust of the unborn which has grown far worse than that of Nazi Germany.  Another Sodom and Gomorrah awaits America if it will not end this abomination of abominations before God. It has already started with the school shootings, wild and catastrophic weather, killings and new diseases along with the wild fires unprecedented in American history (a little taste of hell and Sodom and Gomorrah) and will progressively get worse as time wears on until full repentance of all the abominations this country commits finally occurs.

A new human life begins at conception.

5
Actually, Africa, India, and Antarctica separated and India moved north into Asia.

The evidence was first noted by Alfred Wegener:

Fossils:


Glacial marks on rocks:


Rocks and mountain ranges:
 

But it didn't expand.  The old oceanic crust was being subducted under continents, or under newer oceanic crust, forming volcanic mountains or volcanic island arcs.

Yes.

You're missing the many subduction zones where old crust is destroyed even as new crust is being formed at mid-oceanic ridges:



Convergent boundaries happen when two plates push together.   If it's two continental crusts, you get piled-up crust and non-volcanic mountains.    If it's oceanic crust and continental crust, the oceanic crust is shoved below the continental crust, melts, and rises to form coastal volcanoes.   If it's two oceanic crusts, the older one is subducted, melts, and rises to form volcanic island arcs.


If this is true, what two continental plates pushed together to form the Rocky Mountains?

6
Mt. Everest is composed of the fossils of marine creatures.    It is former continental shelf that crumpled up into mountains as India collided with Asia.    That collision is continuing.   We measure it as a few centimeters a year.   And yes, the Himalayas are still getting higher.

What exactly is the evidence that India collided with Asia, as opposed to the idea that Africa pulled away from India?  Once Africa pulled away from India, resulting from the fracturing of the earth's crust due to the earth expanding in size, the new oceanic crust forming in the void between the two continents would then be pushed against India, as well the continent of Africa, thus forming the Himalaya mountain range.  You will notice that the mid oceanic ridge that lies between India and Africa behaves very much the same as the one between the North American plate and the continent of Europe, and that of Africa.  Can you provide your evidence and please explain?

7
All emphasis in the following is mine.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


God's word conclusively states that creation took six literal days, even defining the parameters of what we know to be a literal 24 hour day including evening and morning. The latter He pronounced at the end of each day even before there was a sun and moon and means of morning and night as we know them, in order to clearly define and express the exact time involved in the process. He then conclusively stated in His fourth commandment these very truths again to be remembered by all every seventh day in order to establish and maintain proper relation between the Creator and the created. Only those willingly ignorant of God's word, or in rebellion against it's plain testimony deny these most obvious truths. They demonstrate their faith in the observations of fallen humanity above and over faith in the word of God.
You may be right, but not necessarily so.  Understandably you have your own impressions, and your own understandings.  But words are quite fluent, and can often suggest something we might never consider.

What is a day?
What is a morning?
And what is an evening? 

It's a matter of perspective.  We aren't the author, and therefore we do not necessarily have insider knowledge of the authors true intent when He used the words He used.


day:
- a period of opportunity or prominence
- an era of existence or influence
- the interval of light between two successive nights
- a time of light
Day - definition of Day by The Free Dictionary

My friends, "God is Light". When God is present, it is as day. When he is not, it is as night. While God is present and creating it is as day. When He steps back to consider what He has made, it is as night.


morning - The first or early part; the beginning
morning - definition of morning by The Free Dictionary

evening - A later period or time
evening - definition of evening by The Free Dictionary

Every time God was present it was day. When He was beginning His work for the day, it was morning. When He was finishing with His work for the day, it was evening. And God saw that it was good. "...And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5)

But then again, as far as I know God may very well have created the heavens and the earth in six 24 hour days.  There's very little God is not capable of doing.


8
Oh yes, and never ever build your house under a dam.

9
Ummm, that "crook" was my own dear father. He was my insurance agent. And, no. He didn't "laugh all the way to the bank." He was heartsick about my house flooding and my family being displaced. My home was outside the floodplain, so I wasn't required to purchase flood insurance at the time of purchase. Not many people who live outside a floodplain purchase flood insurance.
If they hadn't opened the gates on the dam, my home would have never flooded.

Ahh, see...there are exceptions to almost every rule.  I should have known better.

10
OK, that's a little harsh.
My previous home flooded terribly in 1986. The home wasn't in a 100 year flood zone, so we weren't advised to buy a flood policy. I left that suburb and moved to another one - much higher and drier. When I drive through my previous suburb, and see all those huge homes being built where we flooded in '86, I have to wonder if those people in their new homes even know about that flood 30 years ago. From this recent news report - many of them don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BinM-Aq8iLg

IMO, people will continue to build/live in flood zones as long as the government (tax payers) foot the bill for the damage. Traditional homeowners policies don't cover flood damage, but our government does, through the National Flood Insurance Program. So every time a person makes a claim on a flood policy, we tax payers are footing the bill. Over and over, again.

You're right, it's a complicated issue.  Personally, I think all insurance is a sham.  Yes, it can be beneficial to a person who loses his house, car, spouse, or other valuable asset, but all in all, it is a sham.  I bet your insurance company knew very well the odds of your home being flooded, and when you did lose that house, they were likely laughing all the way to the bank.  You'd been paying your insurance all along, the house was destroyed, and they didn't have to pay a dime...laughing all the way to the bank.  Yeah they're crooks for not telling you that you probably ought to have had flood insurance, but I believe it is our responsibility when we build or buy our homes to find these things out.  It's not unknowable, and its extremely important.  Who cares about the house?  The lives of our family members are far more important than a building.  You don't build your house on a beach.  You don't build your house at the base of a mountain.  You don't build your house on a flood plain.  You don't build your house on tornado alley.  And you don't build your home on a fault line.  We ought not be permitted to build homes in such places, or if we do they ought not be insurable.  And the simple reason I believe this is because I don't want to participate in helping to pay for any of those homes to be rebuilt over and over again.  Our country will needlessly be spending billions of dollars to rebuild after this latest storm, and I can't see a good reason why.

11
Evolution is a lie.
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be
100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will
prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution
will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory,
instead of a law.
 
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
 
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
 
Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.

Indeed, evolution may be a lie.  Although I do believe that evolution of species seems reasonable, I have seen no evidence that it actually occurs.  I therefore have no good reason to believe that it does occur.  But I promise to keep an open mind.

12
God has set the natural laws.  Because of this, floods happen.  If a man is so foolish as to live where floods can happen, then that man truly deserves to die in a flood.  Is that God's judgement?  I suppose one could say that.  But you could also say that God did not intend for anyone to die.  But foolish men perish by the choices they make.  And yes we are free to make our choices.

13
Yes we do know.  God has established His creation such that the character trait that he seeks, namely the faith of the individual human being, can be exhibited.  That is the reason for the physical universe generally as created and specifically mankind as created with free will to choose.  Without the creation as it is and without the free will to choose. the very idea of the faith in God by the individual would be moot.

I guess my statement was not clear.  I was simply saying that God did not intentionally cause Harvey to come for the purpose of punishing anyone.  The hurricane came because that is what air and water does under certain conditions.  The conditions were met, the floods came, and people died.  No one died in Texas because of God's judgement on them.

14
General Discussion Forum / Re: Where are the moms
« on: Sat Sep 02, 2017 - 12:53:41 »
Does this bother anyone else but me or am I just being paranoid.

Ads on television , primarily.

We are getting an increasing number of ads that are showing the dads being the one in charge of raising the kids....

The dad making the lunches for the kids to take to school.

The dad doing the kid's laundry. (There are 2 or 3 of these)

The dad concerned when his kid dropped his backpack close to the tot in the high chair talking about another throwing up in school... and the dad is concerned about germs and starts to spray Lysol on the backpack.

The dad cooking for the kids.

The dad making sure his daughters favorite playdress is cleaned right away so she can put it back on.

And the one I find most bothersome is

The dad teaching the daughter how to shave her legs, and what to do when she gets a nick.

No I am not knocking dads but where are the moms?

I've noticed this, and it bothers me too.

Now, whether wrongly or rightly we learn that parents fulfill particular roles in the family.  Forever, it has been the man who hunted for the food, and the woman who cared for the children and maintained the home.  With feminism comes the notion that women can fulfill the roles and obligations that the men were formerly responsible for.  With homosexuality and transgender identities comes the notion that men can fulfill the roles and obligations that the women were formerly responsible for.  With Joel Osteen and the like, we get confirmation that we can be what ever we want to be.  Meanwhile, divorce runs rampant.  I believe there is a connection of course.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires" (2 Timothy 4:3)

Today we see in the media which is utterly leftist images of men fulfilling the responsibilities of the woman of the house.  I believe it is being shoved in our faces because it satisfies much of what the left is trying to do.  1. Destroy the God's concept of family.  2. Shame anyone who desires to live a godly life.  3. Elevate the ungodly LGBT agenda as if it were the norm.  4. Legitimize the ungodly behaviors of ungodly people.

15
There are only three answers that can be given. Two of these can clearly be ruled out. If for correction, then who is God laboring to correct?

Respectfully, I suggest that you consider Jesus' words in Luke 13 and John 9:

It is entirely too easy to say that God is rendering judgement on people when disasters happen, because sometimes He does! However, there are other possibilities, as Jesus explains. Even if it is true that God deliberately and intentionally sent that hurricane to cause all the flooding and related suffering, we cannot conclude that He did so as punishment for wickedness. There is a danger that we would have the same attitude as those Jesus was addressing in Luke 13. "Look what happened! They must have been terrible people!"

More importantly, if God did deliberately and intentionally send that hurricane, isn't it more likely that He did so to provide His people the opportunity to show great, unconditional love to those in great need? That the works of God might be displayed?


Yes, there is great wickedness in large cities, but there is also great wickedness in small towns. "They" are no greater sinners than we.
You have provided excellent biblical references from God's Word on the matter and I couldn't agree more with your conclusions.  We don't know the exact reason why God causes and/or allows such human suffering, but we do know as a matter of fact that such disasters are certainly an opportunity for God's people to help those who are suffering because of them.  Furthermore, we know that God does in fact expect us to help those who are suffering.

"Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered." (Proverbs 21:13)

I believe we can get ourselves into some trouble if we begin to look upon such tragic events as being deliberately caused by God for the purposes of judgement.  If we do that, we could ask, what right do we have, as believers faithful to God, to provide any help whatsoever to people that God has deliberately brought judgement upon?  What right do we have to try to undo what God has done by saving people He has intended to destroy?  We could say that every person suffering from starvation is suffering as they do because God has brought judgement upon them.  What right do we have to feed the hungry when it is God who is causing them to starve in the first place?

While I do believe that God can bring judgement upon people, I also believe that God can show mercy towards those same people.  It may very well be that we can be the hands of God's mercy, and that God can use us to show His mercy.  Thus, even if God has determined to bring judgement on a people, He can at any moment use us to display His mercy, using us to feed the poor and to help those who are suffering as a result of His judgement upon them.

But then the question becomes, if God is capable of using us to display His mercy towards those who are suffering, does He also use us to bring His judgement upon those he determines to destroy?

Could it be that God created the elements with properties?  There are certain elements that have innate properties which enable them to come together to form air.  It is God who has established these properties.  There are other elements that can come together to form water.  These two substances have properties such that they are capable of coming together to become moisture laden air. Moisture laden air has such properties that heat as from the sun is capable of affecting the quantity of water which the air is capable of holding.  There are other elements which when combined form what we call soil.  When air contains certain amounts of water, there may arise conditions due to the properties of the elements that God has created which cause the water in the air to fall from the air onto the ground.  This water can mix with the soils on the ground and form what we call mud. Mud also has properties that have been established by God which result in the ability of the mud to flow down hill, depending of course on the viscosity and slope of the terrain and other existing forces like gravity. 
In other words, mud slides happen because the conditions are right for them to happen.  Indeed God is fully responsible for the fact that mud slides can happen.  But it is a far stretch to say that God intends the death and destruction that can happen because of a mud slide.  There is no good reason to think that God ever intends the death and destruction that so often occurs as a result of the elements simply doing what they were designed to do. 

Whose fault is it if a man builds his house on a floodplain, and a flood comes and kills his entire family?  Is it God's fault?  Did God deliberately cause a flood to kill that man's family?  Or is the man to blame for his families destruction for being so foolish to build his house on a floodplain? 

Nevertheless, we are commanded to help even the foolish if we can.

16
General Discussion Forum / Re: A Jealous God?
« on: Thu Aug 31, 2017 - 19:41:49 »
I cannot accept an answer that says.. God is God and he is exempt from sin.. So he is allowed to be jealous.. Jealousy is a sin and even God is accountable to that. For the Longest time I had been comparing Jehovah with the Hindu God Krishna. Krishna never accepts Jealousy as an attribute of his character and yet Jehovah does. Because of this I have accepted Krishna over Jehovah because I can find no fault in Krishna. I didnt want to stop there.. I couldnt believe that the God who claims to be perfect could be a sinner as well. So I looked up the word Jealousy. Jealousy (uncountable) A state of suspicious guarding towards a spouse, lover etc., from fears of infidelity.  (countable) A resentment towards someone for a perceived advantage or superiority they hold.

I read that God has Righteous Jealousy but I could not accept that any Jealousy is Righteous jealousy because it's all the same it is still jealousy. So I came to the conclusion that the Bible must be in error. God is perfect but yet scripture is telling me that he is a sinner. So I was researching Krishna some more and I found that for Krishna he is a zealous God. Zealousy is defined as Full of zeal; ardent, fervent; exhibiting enthusiasm or strong passion.

God is not a Jealous God like the 10 commandments say. It is in error. God is a Zealous God. He has a strong passion to be with us he isn't jealous in any way of the sense of the word.

The Hebrew word in Exodus 34:14 is קַנָּא, "jealous" (qanna'; Strong's 7067), from קָנָא (qana'; Strong's 7065), "jealous, zealous or envious."

Exodus 34:13-15 Young's Literal Translation 14 for ye do not bow yourselves to another god -- for Jehovah, whose name [is] Zealous, is a zealous God.

Excellent.  You're right, we cannot simply assume that our English translations or any particular translation of the Bible is completely accurate and true.  We must be diligent, spending time, as you have done, studying the words carefully, acknowledging the range of possibilities that might lead us to the true and correct understandings of the words as they were intended and as they were written by the men who wrote those God inspired words that were written, maintaining an understanding that our perceptions of the intended meanings of those words may not actually reflect the true intention of God.  And all the while we need to be praying about it, that God might help us understand His true intentions.

17
Why does Does God send such flooding as we see in Southeast Texas? There are only three answers that can be given. Two of these can clearly be ruled out. If for correction, then who is God laboring to correct?

I personally cannot say for sure why God would either send or even allow such flooding as we see in Texas, but I would not rule out the possibility that such events separate the sheep from the goats.  I doubt that God is punishing Texans, but I suppose He could be.  I doubt that God sent the hurricane at all, but of course He could have.  Nevertheless, the true colors of many people are certainly exposed as a result of such events.

18
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 22:38:47 »
Hmm.  That is not what I said but you're talking as if you and... wait for it... just a little more... The Barbarian went to the same college because he also lacks in Reading Comprehension and tells people what he thinks they said as you just did.  That is both rude and dumb. And Jesus us that except we become (believe) as a small child.  The scriptures are very clear, so clear that Primaries have no problem, what-so-ever, understanding the Gospel, the Epistles or the Old Testament a.k.a. the Bible Jesus and the Disciples taught from.

Now, you drew me off course, so, the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings, is essential to the Bible because all the rest of the Bible is built it for a foundation and if it is a lie, then the whole book falls.  However the Bible stands and it protected by the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God of the Creation. In Duet 4:2 and at the end of Rev 22 we are warned of adding or subtracting from the Bible and truly I would be careful with the Word of God!

I agree with you that it would be wrong to add to or to subtract from the inspired words of God that God inspired men have written down that have since been collected and put into one book known as the Bible.  Actually, it would be wrong to add or subtract to any entities words without their explicit consent.  I assume that we both believe that every word of this Bible, as they were originally written down were truly inspired by God.  Indeed, in 2 Timothy 3:16, in the original Greek, we find the word "θεόπνευστος".

"πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ" (Timothy 3:16)
A direct translation reads:
"Every scripture [is] God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, [and] for training, (τὴν) in righteousness..."

Interestingly, the King James translates this word that should mean "God-breathed" as "inspired.  Well, I do love the KJV version of the Bible, but I must keep in mind that it is only a version and it is not the original words of God.  It has been manipulated by men.  And so we must therefore put forth our best diligence in order to understand as best we can the true message that God intended to convey to those men when He inspired them to write what they wrote.  You see, we have already added to and subtracted from the Bible.  And now we must do our best to try to restore it. 

My point here is that we must distinguish the intent of God, not the intent of God according to the perceptions of men.  And that my friend is not so easy.  Indeed understanding God's intent requires God's intervention.  Indeed, it is true what Paul wrote to Timothy,

"For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear".

God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth..."
(Genesis 1:11)

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind"
(Genesis 1:12)

Did God leave something out?  Do we know the full capabilities of the earth?  I don't recall God telling us very much about how the earth brought forth life. 

God tells that the earth brought forth every kind of plant.  Indeed, every tree, and every plant and every animal has come from the earth.  It seems to me that the earth, because it is God's creation is capable of doing whatever it is that God wants it to do.  If God desires that the earth do something, God is fully capable of enabling the earth to do it. 

What is it that the earth can do then?  Well, if we want to know what the earth is capable of, it's a good idea to discover and learn what the earth has been doing.  It makes proteins.  It makes enzymes, it makes RNA, it makes DNA, and apparently as God has ordered it, the earth also brings forth life.  And every single living being is the progeny of other living beings of the same kind. 

God never tells us that all of the decedents of one kind of creature will remain the same kind of creature throughout all eternity.  No, God tells us that the earth somehow brought forth grass and trees and every every other living organism, and that each organism that comes forth comes forth after its kind. 

That in no way discredits evolution.

That being said, I've never seen evidence of evolution, although I hear there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea.  But on what grounds would you deny the possibility that evolution is true, and on what grounds do you find evolution to be a contradiction to what God has told us.

20
General Discussion Forum / Re: DNA
« on: Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 18:32:49 »
Thank you "Sonofason"!

  I "Googled" around, and watched a bit of a Youtube video on it, and then ordered, via Amazon, joseph Lumpkins's "The Books of Enoch". Although it only deals with the first 3 books so I understand.  The book sub-title mentioned yet another phrase "The watchers", which I have come across when reading the prophets "books" in the Bible.  So we now have 3 mysterious names : "sons of the gods", "sons of the morning" and now  "the watchers"!  Looking forward to some interesting reading - hopefully this coming weekend!

You're welcome.  As I understand it, there are three major interpretations of Genesis 6 with regard to the "sons of god", the daughters of men, and the nephilem (the giants), those "mighty men of renown"...reminds me of Hercules and the Greek gods "myth".  Did you know that myths can be true?  The reason we call them myths is that we have not so far been able to prove that the stories are true.  That doesn't mean they aren't true.  Anyway, here's a link from Bible.org that explains the three major interpretations of the terms we find in Genesis 6 and of course the Book of Enoch.

I personally have greater confidence in the idea that the sons of god were the fallen angels; the daughters of men, well they were just daughters of men.  And those mighty men of renown of course would be the offspring of those fallen angels and the women they coveted.

21
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:48:02 »
Comes down to evidence.    The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.

Evidence.    If you see all the evidence, there's no way to dodge it.

Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth.    That wasn't important to God.  What was important was that He directly gave us immortal souls.

It's not a salvation issue if you want to assume that this is a literal history instead of a parable.   
 
All one can say is that it's consistent with evolution.

Can God be deceptive?   He could if He so chose.   But it is contrary to His nature.

If you believe that what God can do, is a guide to what He did do, there really isn't much you can rule out.

God is truth, and therefore not deceptive.

He humbled himself, becoming fully human, subject to His parents.    So yes.   Like us.  Fully human, and yet fully God.   

Why should you be ashamed of being an ape?   We are creatures, evolved from other apes, and Jesus took that nature in becoming man.

You're having an emotional difficulty with having a body that evolved from other primates.   "Ape" has such a negative connotation to many people that they respond with disgust to it.   There's no need for that.   We aren't our bodies.   We have a body.   We are souls.

Indeed, we are not just physical entities animated by atomic forces, we are souls indeed.  We're not just alive, by the grace of God we have life.

22
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:14:44 »
So, you were taught and convinced, and so believe that men all are apes. I have no problem with that, as that is your honest conviction. Though I would have to say I don't have the same conviction as you do. My conviction is that, men were not created by God by evolution, but were created as scriptures taught. That the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. So that's how God created Adam, the first creature of the humankind. Now Eve, the second to be created of the humankind, the Lord God created by taking a rib from Adam, and which He made into a woman. And from the written scriptures, the implication is that both Adam and Eve were created, not as babes, but as adults. And from their union as husband and wife, so came the generation of mankind. And so, we have different convictions.

With regards the creation of man which you believe is by evolution, what can you say of this scriptures?

Luke 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Does that not give you the idea that God can create something which is initially to be of age, that which when science examines it, finds it to have been created at a time much earlier time than when it was actually created? That God can create something, which you believe was created by evolution, in its 'evolved state' as we have it today?And I am thinking, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so? If this cannot be ascertained, will that not make what science have come up with, as all to be based on assumptions? I don't know how or if science can, but I think that science have to first ascertain that what God have created in the beginning, whether all were initially of 'zero' age at the instant of creation.

With regards your conviction, what can you say of Jesus? I assume that you believe that he is a human. Was he an ape, since he was a human and since humans are apes? Or do you not consider him to be so for some reason, perhaps since he was born supernaturally?   

These are just some of the questions that come to my mind if I were to consider your convictions. And these questions also goes to those who have the same or similar conviction as Barbarian with regards creation by evolution.

I do not know if evolution is true.  I believe it could be true.  I find it to be a reasonable theory.  However, I've not yet been convinced by the supposed overwhelming evidence that many people believe exists.  I simply find it reasonable. 

So the question is, is evolution compatible with the Bible, which I believe is true?  Well, the Bible hasn't let me down yet. 

Consider the discussion you and I just had about being born again.  We were talking about being "born" again, and questioning if being born is the same thing as being begotten.  You were saying it was not the same.  I was saying it was the same.  You had some good evidence to support your belief.  I thought I had some decent evidence to support my perspective.  When man first conceived of the word, the verb "to be born", what was he thinking?  Was he thinking about the living beings that were emerging into the world from a mother's womb?  Or was he perhaps thinking of something new coming forth, like a new idea that emerges from a mind?  Do we know?  Does it matter?

I see many people criticize the words of the Bible, such as when it speaks of talking snakes and talking donkeys, or the dome of the earth.  What is a dome anyway?  I read that a dome is a rounded vault forming the roof of a building or structure, typically with a circular base.  Is the sky a roof?  We're dealing with ideas here; concepts of human beings, each of which has his own brain, and his own perspective.  To some people the sky is nothing like the roof of a building.  To me, I suppose it could be.  It shields us from solar radiation, Thank God.  And I've met quite a few snakes in my time, and most of them are still walking and talking. 

The point is metaphor, metaphor, metaphor. 

Can God make a donkey talk?  Of course he can.  Did He?  Well, I don't know.  I wasn't there.  The Bible says a donkey talked.  I have to say that a donkey did talk.  Is Satan a reptile?  I don't know.  I thought he was a fallen angel, but I'm sure he's a snake. 

The dust:
If you were to rub your hands together, what is it that falls on the ground?  Well it is dander.  Dander is comprised of skin cells mostly which includes DNA, proteins, and well, all sorts of stuff.  When these tiny bunches of matter become removed from the living body, and fall onto the floor, and we sweep them up into a little pile, we have dust.  We are dust.  Carl Sagan tells us we are star dust.  Was he wrong?  I don't know.  He could be right.

Where did the first DNA molecule come from?  The term biology is derived from the Greek word βίος, bios, "life" and the suffix -λογία, -logia, "study of."
Does all life contain either DNA and/or RNA?  How did the first life forms get their DNA and/or RNA?  God had said, "Let the earth bring forth life" and  "Let the waters bring forth life".  Did God already place in the earth the necessary ingredients for the earth and the water to fulfill this task?  Of course.  Life came about because God made it possible for such things as DNA and RNA and proteins and enzymes to form, without the presence of life; and the simple became more complex.  It's rather astounding when you think about it.  To me, the fact that God made it possible for the earth to bring forth life is so much more amazing than to have, in the words of most atheists "magically popped every living species into existence as is from nothing".  Could He have done that?  Of course.  Did He?

Let's go back...we discovered in our previous conversation that we can be born of the flesh, and we can be born of the spirit.  We know that everyone, whether they are born again or not are alive, unless of course they have died.  God breathed into Adam life.  Adam was a physical living being.  Was he born again?  Did Adam have in Him what it takes to have eternal life?  He had life.  Did he have eternal life?  Are there two kinds of life?  If so, which kind of life did God breath into Adam's nostrils?  Adam was formed of the dust of the ground.  In other words, everything you find in Adam you can find on the ground.  He had nostrils.  So he must have been alive.  God then breathed life into Adam.  How can this be, unless we are speaking of the second kind of life.  Did Adam have eternal life?  Yes he did, and then he sinned and had to die.  Before the fall, man was eternal.  Afterwards he had to die a physical death.  From then on eternal life would be given only by the grace of God.  Sins had to be paid for.  Life would require redemption.  Is Adam in heaven?  I don't know.  I hope so.

The Bible tells us that "All things came into being through Him (God's Son), and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men."  "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."  Indeed man became a living being, but in what sense?

When we read our Bibles, we have to consider who wrote it.  Did men write it?  Or did God write it?  I think we need to decide. 
Please forgive my ramblings.  I've got much to say on the subject, but I don't want to bog anyone down.  Feel free to critique these ideas...I know they're a complete shambles.

23
General Discussion Forum / Re: DNA
« on: Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 20:49:22 »
The meaning of the phrase "sons of the gods" that appears in Genesis 6:1-4 is in IMO highly debatable! Could it refer to what Paul describes as "principalities and powers"? Whatever the meaning - the outcome was evidently the Nephilim.  I think there is an assumption somewhere in commentaries on Psalms that, "gods" refer to "authorities" - now were they just ordinary humans in positions of power (e.g. judges) - or were they demonic?

 Jesus himself quoted the start of Psalm 82:6 - 'I said "You are gods, and all of you children of the Most High, bur you shall die like men, and fall like one of the Princes."' - That last reference to "princes" reminds us of Paul's "principalities" but this doesn't help clarify things much - except that they will "die like men"!

I once had an old vinyl disk, as part of my collection of Ralph Vaughan Williams musical works, the ballet music "Job : A Masque for Dancing" which  referred to the "sons of the morning" (they were not a good lot!) and the story of Job, but my concordance didn't help me pinpoint any relevant reference in Job  However, in Isaiah 14:12 we see another reference "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning"

Genesis 6:8 starts the sorry story "Noah was a righteous man, the one blameless man of his time; he walked with God."

It's all very mysterious!

The Book of Enoch may have more insight into the matter.  But keep in mind it is not considered a God inspired writing except for perhaps the Catholic Church.

24
End Times Forum / Re: Implantable microchip- The mark of the beast?
« on: Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 20:45:27 »
Dmdar---

A whole company recently used this chip on it's employees. The chips were used for access, and to purchase things within the company. I do believe these are the first steps to the "mark". It is not foolishness, neither is it immaturity to realize these things are happening around us. These things are "foolish" to unbelievers and to preterists ( those whom Peter refers to as "willingly ignorant") but to those who know their Bibles they are fore-warning of things rapidly approaching.  You are very wise to "watch" and take heed. God bless you my friend.

You can be sure, if the United States moves in the direction of single payer health care, RFID chips will become mandatory.  If I am not mistaken it is part of and included in Obama's health care plan to be implemented in the very near future.  It's coming soon.   ::cryingtears:: (No health care for me I guess)

25
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 20:33:23 »
That's a very good observation. I looked at the Greek word translated "only begotten" and is the word "monogenes" which could be taken to  mean "only", "only-begotten", "unique".

So, knowing that Isaac is not the only son nor only begotten son of Abraham, it is safe to take the word monegenes here to take the meaning of "unique", which may well be by reason that Isaac was born of Sarah who was barren and begotten according to God's promise , that is, supernaturally, compared to the other sons of Abraham who were naturally begotten.

In the case of Jesus, the word monogenes may be taken as "unique" by reason of a supernatural birth, but also as "only-begotten" since the Father himself testified of having begotten Him. And we hear from Jesus that He said of himself as coming forth from God. We know of no other who was said to have been begotten of God and have come forth from God.


I agree.  I searched for it but didn't find it anywhere except outside the context of scripture.  Example:
"Men who obey and love God as sons are begotten of Him (John 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18;"
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/begotten/

Yet, when I searched those verses, no form of the word begotten was used for any son of daughter of God other than Jesus.

26
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 20:27:21 »
Indeed, I said, "Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God."

Lets have a look at verse 1 in context with verse 2 and see what God is talking about here.

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(1 John 5:1-2)

Okay now.  Verse one says that if we believe that Jesus is the Christ, we are children of God.  When we accept this fact, we must also acknowledge that Jesus is also begotten of the father and is indeed a son of God.  Yet Jesus was with the Father prior to Creation.  He is also the Christ which makes him unique from all other sons and daughters of God, and we call him "The Son of God" which sets him apart from all other sons and daughters of God.  By what power is Christ the Son of God?  Is it not by the Power of God's Holy Spirit.  Was not the physical manifestation of Jesus, the man, conceived and manifested by the Holy Spirit?  How indeed, and by what power is a simple man adopted and received into the body of Christ, and into the family of God?  Is it not by that same spirit, God's Holy Spirit?

The second part of verse 1 says that everyone that loves God loves his children.  Verse 2 says that we can know that we love these children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments.  Do you see we have come full circle.  Everyone who loves God loves his children.  If we love God, we keep his commandments.  If we keep his commandments, we know we love God's children.

Now take your eyes to verse 18:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."

a reasonable translation:
We know that everyone who is born of God does not sin.  Rather, everyone who is born of God keeps himself from sin, and that wicked one cannot touch him.

I am not suggesting that the interpretation I have given is right.  I am not demanding that yours is wrong.  I have put forth what I believe is a reasonable interpretation that ought to cause everyone to stop and think.  Are you really so confident in your interpretation despite the risk condemning God's children?


I was only asking. I understand where you are coming from, as to why you said that they are all begotten children of God. Now, why do I asked? Because we have scriptures such as:

Romans 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
 
Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
 
Galatians 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Ephesians 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Also, consider what John, who wrote the subject verse you cited, says in the ff:
 
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

In verse 12, John speaks of them who receive, that is, believe in Jesus Christ, that God gave them the right to become children of God. And he describes them in verse 13 as to have been born of God. And while he speaks of them as being born of God, the idea of them having been begotten is absent here, rather, the idea is that of having the right to become children of God, which is in harmony with what Paul speaks about concerning the believers in the above cited passages, which is, the adoption as sons.


Of course, I understand where you are coming from as well.  I must again press the point that I don't really know the answer, and that I understand that your interpretation may indeed be the better interpretation.  I began with trying to present a logical argument to support my claim, but have decided rather to quote a well known Bible Commentary by John Gill regarding this matter we're discussing.  It appears to me, from his perspective we're both right.  Here's what he says regarding the second part of 1 John 5:1, which reads:


"and everyone that loveth him that begat;
that is, God the Father, who has begotten them again to a lively hope, according to his abundant mercy and sovereign will; and as he is their Father that has begotten them, they cannot but love him: and such an one

loveth him also that is begotten of him;
not only Jesus Christ, who by nature is the only begotten of the Father; for those who know God to be their Father by adoption and regeneration, will love Christ, who is the Son of God by nature; see ( John 8:42 ) ; but also every regenerate person, all that are born of God; since they are the children of the same Father with them, belong to the same household and family, and bear the image and likeness of their heavenly Father on them."
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-john-5-1.html

The point is, we who believe that Jesus, the "only begotten Son of God" is the Christ are indeed sons and daughters of God.  Yes, Jesus is King.  He is Lord and Savior to all of us who have been born of the Spirit of God.  We love God.  And we love all of God's sons and daughters, from Christ our King to the very least of us.  Tell me my dear friend, which of your children shall you condemn to hell?  Yes, some children are more obedient than others.  Are you willing to condemn your least obedient child to hell?

I don't think so.  God isn't condemning any of his kids either.


27
End Times Forum / Re: Implantable microchip- The mark of the beast?
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 19:42:06 »
Right now they are working on a microchip that they can implant into your hand to take the place of having cash or a credit card, you would just wave your hand at the checkout and it would debit the money from your account.

'Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,5 qto be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, rthe name of the beast or sthe number of its name. ' -Revelation 13:15-18

This could conceivably become mandatory- this may very well be the mark of the beast! There is a YouTube video describing it here:

https://youtu.be/BWgUTrvRlA4

Regardless whether RFID chips are the mark of the beast, precursors to the mark of the beast, or even if it is completely unassociated with the mark of the beast, I will not knowingly allow such a thing to be placed into my body so long as I live.

28
I have not but long story short... I have a pen pal who is.

WE basically agreed to disagree but he sent me a link to download the book of Mormon

I have not done so yet, and before I do was wondering if anyone has read it and opinions.

I have read it, but I was not very impressed. 

29
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 17:38:31 »
Indeed, it is quite possible that the rate of decay of all radiometric isotopes changes over time.  I wonder what the impact of a universal decrease in density is on these rates of decay.  Indeed, I wonder what it's affect is on the diameter of our planet as well?

30
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 16:32:19 »
Furthermore, the Scriptures, according to the King James Version of the Bible tells us that Issac was the only begotten son of Abraham.  How do you resolve this absolute contradiction? 

I resolve it by understanding that "only begotten" may not have been the intended meaning of the Greek word that was originally written.  In fact, I would suggest that the true sense of the word used means unique, uniquely begotten, or even beloved.

31
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 16:19:30 »
Indeed, I said, "Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God."

Are they all begotten children or adopted?

Lets have a look at verse 1 in context with verse 2 and see what God is talking about here.

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(1 John 5:1-2)

Okay now.  Verse one says that if we believe that Jesus is the Christ, we are children of God.  When we accept this fact, we must also acknowledge that Jesus is also begotten of the father and is indeed a son of God.  Yet Jesus was with the Father prior to Creation.  He is also the Christ which makes him unique from all other sons and daughters of God, and we call him "The Son of God" which sets him apart from all other sons and daughters of God.  By what power is Christ the Son of God?  Is it not by the Power of God's Holy Spirit.  Was not the physical manifestation of Jesus, the man, conceived and manifested by the Holy Spirit?  How indeed, and by what power is a simple man adopted and received into the body of Christ, and into the family of God?  Is it not by that same spirit, God's Holy Spirit?

The second part of verse 1 says that everyone that loves God loves his children.  Verse 2 says that we can know that we love these children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments.  Do you see we have come full circle.  Everyone who loves God loves his children.  If we love God, we keep his commandments.  If we keep his commandments, we know we love God's children.

Now take your eyes to verse 18:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."

a reasonable translation:
We know that everyone who is born of God does not sin.  Rather, everyone who is born of God keeps himself from sin, and that wicked one cannot touch him.

I am not suggesting that the interpretation I have given is right.  I am not demanding that yours is wrong.  I have put forth what I believe is a reasonable interpretation that ought to cause everyone to stop and think.  Are you really so confident in your interpretation despite the risk condemning God's children?

32
General Discussion Forum / Re: DNA
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 14:20:43 »
Many in Ireland were Scots or from northern England.  What is the actual accuracy of such a test?  Do siblings get the exact same results if they had the exact same parents?


I do not believe that siblings get the exact same results, even though they had the same exact parents.  Perhaps the following link will help you to understand why.
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask445

33
End Times Forum / Re: Why Preterism is False
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 13:42:29 »
I'm happy to try, but I don't claim to understand Revelation in its entirety.

As nearly as I can tell, Revelation is making a reference back to the book of Daniel with that verse.  In Daniel, God prophecies through Daniel to the king of Babylon and tells him that his kingdom will be taken from him that very night.  You're probably familiar with the story of God's hand writing on the wall - mene mene tekel upharsin (spelling?).  "You have been weighed in the balance and found lacking."

In THAT story from Daniel, the armies of the Medes and Persians (kings from the East) undertook a massive building project by which they actually DIVERTED the course of the Euphrates river.  The river ran under the walls of Babylon, and this left a dry riverbed.  The Medes/Persians simply marched UNDER the wall and took the city.  That very night, just as Daniel had prophecied.

Why does Revelation refer back to this story?  (can I beg a question?)

Revelation refers back to a lot of things from the book of Daniel.  It appears to me that the New Testament authors believed in MULTIPLE FULFILLMENTS of Scriptures.  They expected that the words of the Old Testament could be applied to events in their own time (or future) and that they would come true again.  But (and this is important) maybe the words would come true in a different sense than they did the first time.  I can show you this in several prophecies in the Bible, but maybe a different thread.  It would be long.

Throughout Revelation, the author refers to "Babylon" but it doesn't appear it's really Babylon he's talking about.  Some people say it's really Jerusalem.  Some say it's Rome.

Whichever it is... by repeating the prophecy of the destruction of (the real) Babylon, and particularly the removal of the thing protecting the city (the river), Revelation is prophesying the same kind of destruction on the new "Babylon," and that the protection of that city will be removed unexpectedly.

I'm happy enough with that explanation.  ::tippinghat::

Jarrod

It's an interesting theory you have.  It is not beyond the possibilities that the Euphrates River as mentioned in Revelation is a symbolic expression of something else.  It's so easy to speculate.  Perhaps the Euphrates River in the Revelation prophesy is a symbolic representation of The United States.

34
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:47:26 »
Perhaps true, but the moment science is in opposition with Gods' Word, a choice must be made.
There are people on this board who make the claim that man evolved from apes, and insist that this is a scientific fact.
Those who claim that theology is not under attack by science are in self-denial.
And those who think evolutionists do not have an agenda to promote their theory, even if the data argues to the contrary, are seriously deluded.

The worst thing however are Christians who do not dispute such data and go to great lengths to corrupt interpretation of scripture so that it fits the claims made by evolutionists.

I personally cannot insist that mankind has evolved from some kind of creature that was not mankind.  Although I have seen many claims of science to that affect, and also claims that vast amounts of evidence exists to that affect.  I haven't seen it.  Or if I have seen it, I have not been convinced by it.  That is not to say that evolution of species is not occurring.  It very well may be occurring.  I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that it is true.

I agree with you, in that " the moment science is in opposition with Gods' Word, a choice must be made."

I agree with you that "There are people on this board who make the claim that man evolved from apes, and insist that this is a scientific fact."  And the truth is, some of them are Christians.  Yes, some of them are God's children, whether or not evolution is true.

I agree with you in part that, "Those who claim that theology is not under attack by science are in self-denial."  However, science is knowledge, it is not something capable of attacking anyone, or anything.  But people who use science with a purpose to attack theology do exist.  And it is therefore true that anyone who claims that no one is using science to attack theology is indeed in self-denial.  It is happening all around us.

Therefore, what you say here must also be true in part, that "...those who think evolutionists do not have an agenda to promote their theory, even if the data argues to the contrary, are seriously deluded."

I say in part because I do not believe that all evolutionists have such an agenda, to attack theology.  Some do, of course.  Some Christians are evolutionists.  And true Christians do not have an agenda to destroy theology.  Rather they may simply have a thirst for knowledge and truth, however misguided, if misguided at all. 

As I have said, I do not believe in evolution.  I see it as a reasonable theory and tool of creation.  It may not be true at all.  I don't know.  If you have any evidence that evolution is not true, I'd love to see it.  If you have verses of scripture which forbid the possibility of evolution as being truth, I'd love to see that as well.  As a Christian, I am not at odds with science.  I am however skeptical of science.  That is, I am skeptical of all knowledge.  Convince me, and I will believe.

Your final comment is more difficult to answer.  You say, "The worst thing however are Christians who do not dispute such data and go to great lengths to corrupt interpretation of scripture so that it fits the claims made by evolutionists."

I cannot dispute scientific data that I do not understand.  And I cannot dispute reasonable interpretation of the Scriptures either.  To dogmatically accept one interpretation of scripture when another is equally viable is just as unreasonable as to accept scientific claims on the grounds that they were conceived in the name of science, therefore it must be true mentality. 




35
General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« on: Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:11:38 »
Salvation or not, is all about agreement with God's word or not... According to your understanding, anyone can make the bible out to say anything, and then still be saved because no one will lose salvation over just a disagreement. BALONEY!   

Those who choose to disagree with and argue against the plain testimony of God's word, will not have eternal life...

God's word is truth. Those who deny it are and will be deceived unto damnation.

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
(1 John 5:1  KJV)

A reasonable interpretation:
Everyone who believe that Jesus is "The Christ" is a child of God: And everyone who loves God also loves all of God's children. 

Because this is the word of God, because it is the inspired Word of God, I believe we ought to be very careful not to condemn any of God's children. 

I believe we should take a moment to consider what is being said here.  Some of you might believe that the second part of this verse is suggesting that everyone who loves God also loves God's Son Jesus.  While they would not be incorrect, because Jesus is indeed God's Son; many people miss the fact that this verse is not only referring to Jesus our Lord and Savior, but to all of God's children.  It is not that if we love God, the one who begets, that we also love Jesus, often said to be "the only begotten Son of God"; but if we love God, the one who begets, we will also love all of God's children.  Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God.  If we say we love God but do not love all of God's begotten children, we are liars, and the love of God is not in us.  I believe that the confusion is rooted in interpretations.  In John 3:16 of The King James version of the Bible, as well as many other versions of the Bible, interpreters have interpreted God's word, that was written in Greek  to say,"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

It is interesting to note that the King James version of Hebrews uses the same terminology when referring to Abraham's son Issac when Abraham was commanded to offer up his son Issac as a sacrifice unto the Lord.  The King James version states in Hebrews 11, verse 17 that "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son"

We all know that Abraham did not have a one and only begotten son at the time Abraham set Issac upon the alter as a sacrifice unto God.  Indeed, Abraham had another son.  His name was Ishmael.  And Ishmael was indeed a begotten son of Abraham.

Jesus is indeed a Son of God.  He always was a Son of God.  And that is what makes His Sonship unique. 

Therefore, I would not be so quick to condemn any of God's children to hell.  That is, I would not be so quick to condemn any person to hell that believes that Jesus is the Christ.  Let not the translations of men condemn you as well.

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death."
(1 John 5:15)

Indeed, if you see a brother sin a sin that is not unto death, do not condemn him, but pray for him instead.    The condemnation of God's children has no place among God's children.

Pages: [1] 2