cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Creation, Evolution, Young Earth, gap theory
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> CHAPEL
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:43 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Q.If Genesis was just a metaphor or symbolic, wouldn’t that mean ALL Christian doctrine,
including the gospel, was based on a myth?


A. You’re quite right. If Genesis was just a metaphor, we’d have to throw out all Christian
doctrine, and the gospel itself would be meaningless.


Over the years, I’ve had a number of pastors insist that Genesis 1–11 was just a metaphor — that it
wasn’t meant to be taken as literal history.

I like to challenge these Christian leaders by referring them to the genealogies that are repeated in
the Old and New Testaments. For instance, in Luke the genealogy is listed to show that Jesus Christ
became a descendant of Adam. As you read through the genealogy, it mentions a particular person
being a descendant of a specific person and so on all the way back to — a metaphor?

Of course not — these genealogies go all the way back through real people to a real first man,
Adam — otherwise they’d be meaningless.

Paul, in Corinthians, compares the first Adam and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) to explain the origin
of sin and death and the need for a Savior. If the first Adam was just a metaphor, then this makes the
whole message of the gospel meaningless.


Did Eve Really Have An Extra Rib?
And Other Tough Questions About The Bible
Ken Ham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.thedailybeast.com/arti...d-go-extinct-on-election-day.html
10/31/16
Creationism in Texas Could Go Extinct on Election Day
The state’s education agency quietly killed anti-evolution propaganda from the public school curriculum in September. Now there’s a fair chance it will be illegal to teach next year.

Teaching creationism in Texas public schools may become illegal next year.

In September, a group of educators chosen by the Texas Education Agency to streamline the state’s science curriculum standards removed portions of four passages that contained creationist language. The new standards must still be approved by the Texas State Board of Education where creationists are fighting to reverse the changes. The board members, unlike the education agency staff, are elected officials. That means the fate of creationism in Texas could be determined on Election Day.

If the decision stands, it would be a major blow to political creationism and the first time in a decade for any state’s creationism policy to be overturned.

Written in 2009, Texas’s creationist standards include a requirement for students to learn “all sides” of scientific theories like evolution and to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.” They also call for students to analyze the “sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Complexity of the cell is a stand in for irreducible complexity, the creationist belief that the structure and function of cell components (and pieces of other larger body parts) are too interdependent to have formed through evolution, piece by piece over many generations. Instead, creationists posit that cells were created fully formed and all at once, by God.

more
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Psalm 24:1  A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psa 24:2  For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.



Deepest water found 1000km down, a third of way to Earth's core
11/23/16

JULES VERNE’s idea of an ocean deep below the surface in Journey to the Centre of the Earth may not have been too far off. Earth’s mantle may contain many oceans’ worth of water – with the deepest 1000 kilometres down. “If it wasn’t down there, we would all be submerged,” says Steve Jacobsen at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, whose team made the discovery. “This implies a bigger reservoir of water on the planet than previously thought.”

https://www.newscientist.com/arti...wn-a-third-of-way-to-earths-core/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CJ
Site Admin


Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32187



PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BA, thats so precious its going in my Sonday news today!

Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Twenty-Six Reasons Why Genesis 1:1 Is the Most Offensive Verse in the Bible

By Daniel J. Phillips January 9, 2017

Hello, PJ Media readers. Good to meet you!

This being my maiden voyage here, it would make sense to tell you a bit about myself and where I’ll be coming from. Or here’s an idea: show, don’t say! Instead, let’s talk about why Genesis 1:1 is the most offensive, infuriating verse in the Bible.

That’s right, the familiar “In the beginning” verse. Forget the ones about homosexuality, Hell, wifely submission, all the rest. Relatively small potatoes, every one of them. If you understand it correctly, Genesis 1:1 is the single verse that should send the modern mind into apoplectic fits of rage.

Let me count it out for you. In the process, I’ll also be laying out what moves and shapes how I approach the world – which is actually more consequential than any kind of bio or curriculum vitae would be.

Hitting the highlights, here are twenty-six reasons why Genesis 1:1 is the most offensive, enraging verse in the Bible to the modern mind:

1. Genesis 1:1 starts with God. It presents the specific living God of Scripture as the sole sufficient starting place for reasoning, not as a conclusion reached at the end of a syllogism or evidence chain. We don’t get to stack the deck by massaging a preselected set of facts to adorn our predetermined conclusion. (It isn’t our deck to stack.)

2. Genesis 1:1 presents God alone as sovereign and self-sufficient. We like to reserve those adjectives for ourselves.

3. It was counter-cultural when Moses wrote it, and it is counter-cultural today. Attempts to argue the contrary have been shelled to ruins.

4. It explains why actual science can even be done. Many erstwhile scientists hate this fact, twisting themselves into pretzels in an effort to erect a contrary.

5. At the same time, it explains the limits inherent in all empirical experimentation, and gives all such endeavors an interpretive framework. If our “knowers” weren’t warped beyond our ability to repair, this would be welcome news. As they are hopelessly twisted (Jeremiah 17:9), it is not (Romans 1:18-23).

6. It packs a premise that leaves us with a binary choice. We don’t like to be cornered or to have our commitments exposed.

7. Its choice of opening word (Hebrew berešȋt, in-beginning, rather than, say, on the first day) points both to a purpose and an end. We imagine that we can invent both for ourselves.

8. It shows us that matter matters, but is not absolute. Matter is created, only God is ultimate. We like to play the insane game of both asserting the ultimacy of matter, and gassing about intangibles such as meaning and right and wrong. It can’t work, it won’t work, and Genesis 1:1 points us to the truth of the…well…the matter.

9. It reveals matter as real, but not as real as God. The first part is unwelcome news to mystics of all stripes, as is the latter to all materialists, who are exposed as missing the greater while worshiping the lesser. These days, we want to pose as both.

10. It tells us that creation comes to us predefined. Our fantasy is that we are free to redefine, and that our redefinitions are equally valid with the Creator’s definitions.

11. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 exposes all attempts to ignore, reshape, violate, or rebel against created categories as suicidal fools’ errands. We prefer to see them as heroic, noble, and life-affirming.

12. It challenges our de facto assumption of our own deity. This leaves our religion in shambles.

13. It makes the universe not to be all about us. This is ruinous to our self-image.

14. It makes God literally infinitely big, and us literally infinitely smaller, anticipating God’s response to Job. We prefer the reverse and hate His response.

15. It means that, if I ever disagree with God, I am not only wrong, but foolishly wrong; and the longer I argue the contrary, the greater fool I am. This is, to us, unthinkable.

16. It dooms every attempted moral argument that starts with with “It’s my body” to ultimate failure. But we like those arguments!

17. It similarly destines any attempt to ghettoize Biblical faith to defeat. “The heavens and the earth” is a merism, a figure of speech where naming two poles includes everything between them. But we want to see God-talk kept out of the public square, and believers banned from public life.

18. It assures me that God alone is ultimate, and that He doesn’t need me; whereas I am dependent, and utterly do need Him – on every level, and regardless of how I feel about it or what I prefer to think.

19. It collapses all my feelings into irrelevance in the face of God’s fact.

20. It affirms God’s priority over every individual created thing, and over all created things, combined. That would include me, and all my favorite SJW causes. #triggered

21. It shows arguing or disagreeing with God to be literally infinitely above our pay grade and robs the exercise of all its faux pretenses of nobility.

22. It frames the worldview within which the gospel of Jesus Christ not only makes world-tilting sense, but is the best news we could ever want to hear. (See a book-length explanation here.)

23. It sets the framework within which the truth of Jesus’ Godhood will later be revealed (John 1:1, 3).

24. It sets the norm against which our childishly God-defiant age is judged a foolish, fraudulent, and failed rebellion.

25. It sets the stage for that future day when “The kingdom of the world [will] become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Revelation 11:15), and raises the question of where we fall in that equation. These are thoughts we prefer not to face seriously.

26. Ultimately it shows us why we need to know Jesus Christ, and why we can only know Him through the submission of repentant faith. The world was created perfect. It is our sin and rebellion which has twisted and marred it. Therefore the ultimate righting of our wrongs would need the intervention of one who had the power, purity, and infinite worth of God, but who could address the moral and spiritual deficits of man as man. The names in that category reduce to one: Jesus Christ. And we really, really don’t like that.

The list is not exhaustive, but it will do for starters. Take Genesis 1:1 on its own terms and every word that follows, all the way to “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen” (Revelation 22:21) makes perfect sense. Try to steer around it and nothing makes perfect sense.

That is why it is the most offensive, infuriating verse in the Bible.

Want proof? Just read the comment section under the assertion of any one of these deductions…let alone all of them.

https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/01...ost-offensive-verse-in-the-bible/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Democratic Rep. Files Resolution to Recognize ‘Darwin Day’ on Feb. 12
1/16/17

A Democratic lawmaker filed a resolution in the House of Representatives that, if approved, would recognize February 12, 2017, as “Darwin Day” and celebrate the father of evolution’s contributions to science.

House Resolution 44, filed on Wednesday by Democratic Rep. James Himes of Connecticut, seeks to honor Darwin on the 208th anniversary of his birth.

“Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth,” the resolution asserts.

In addition to celebrating Darwin and his legacy, the resolution criticizes biblical creation, claiming it undermines the well-being of the nation’s education systems.

“[T]he teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems,” H.R. 44 claims.

Thirteen other Democratic representatives co-sponsored the resolution, which was referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

“Whereas February 12, 2017, is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 1809 and would be an appropriate date to designate as ‘Darwin Day,’” the resolution says, “Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—(1) supports the designation of ‘Darwin Day’; and (2) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol on which to celebrate the achievements of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge.”

In a statement, Himes praised the notorious naturalist as a “true hero.”

“In our modern political climate, when the very facts and truths revealed by science are under attack, honoring the efforts of scientists, the true heroes of human history, is vitally important,” he said. “By celebrating and commemorating the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, we not only acknowledge his enormous contributions to our better understanding of the origins of life, but send a message that we value education, knowledge and science as our guiding principles.”

On Thursday, the American Humanist Association applauded the pro-Darwin resolution.

“With widespread problems of fake news, climate change denial and anti-vaxxers plaguing American society, now is the time to look to the rationality of Charles Darwin and other scientists who carry on his legacy of curiosity and critical thinking in the pursuit of truth,” said the group’s executive director, Roy Speckhardt. “We urge Congress to support the Darwin Day Resolution to uphold science, reason and innovation, values that we need now more than ever.”

Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, says the celebrations of Darwin’s birthday show that evolutionists are increasingly aggressive and intolerant in promoting their “anti-God philosophy.”

“Evolutionary ideas provide the foundation for this worldview because they seemingly allow mankind the ability to explain the existence of life and the universe without God,” Ham wrote in response to a 2015 Charles Darwin Day celebration in Delaware.

“As Christians, we need to be bold in proclaiming the truth of God’s Word to a hurting (groaning, Romans 8:22) world,” he said “This year, on February 12, instead of celebrating Darwin’s anti-God religion, we can take this opportunity to show the world that Darwin’s ideas about our supposed evolutionary origins were wrong, and that God’s Word is true from the very beginning.”

http://christiannews.net/2017/01/...o-recognize-darwin-day-on-feb-12/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://donboys.cstnews.com/does-the-bible-prove-a-young-earth
Does the Bible Prove a Young Earth?
Posted by Don Boys on August 1, 2014

In previous columns I have dealt with the mistakes, uncertainties, ambiguities, contradictions, and general unreliability with radiometric dating of fossils. The dates produced by many modern methods are often dates that are called “scientifically correct” but embarrassingly inaccurate! A perfect example of this is the Richard Leakey case. He discovered Skull 1470 near the east shore of Lake Rudolf in Kenya and thought the skull was 2.6 million years old. The next decade would take him and his “skull” for a long ride.

Leakey’s Skull 1470 was initially dated at Cambridge Laboratory (England) with the potassium-argon method. The first date was 221 million years, but it was rejected because it didn’t fit the evolutionary scenario. Further testing produced dates from 2.4 to 2.6 million years. Leakey could accept that date since it was closer to his evolutionary teaching although he preferred a younger date. (Many millions of years difference in those dates and the first date!) After more tests they got another date of 1.8 million years from the University of California, Berkeley. Now, that’s more like it. That date fits their fairy tale! Isn’t it interesting how they can adjust their “science” to fit their philosophy? And did you notice that a bone finder can “shop around” at various testing agencies to get the date he wants? Leakey now accepts a date of about 2 million years.

The testing on Skull 1470 produced dates ranging from 290,000 years to 221 million years. Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe. You take your choice. Now you can understand why some have described the potassium-argon clock as being a clock without hands–without even a face.

It is interesting that radiometric dating laboratories require that all samples to be “dated” must be identified as to their location in the geological column! After all, the testers need to know what date the “finder” will accept. Approximately 8 out of 10 specimens (“dates”) are discarded by radiometric dating labs because they are well out of range of age they “ought to be” considering their location in the geological column. The geological strata date always has priority over any modern dating system. The testers have even asked, “What date do you think is reasonable?” Isn’t science grand? But none dare call it quackery.

I’m thrilled that Creationists don’t have to depend on such dubious, distorted, dishonest nonsense to know about our world. One does not have to believe in a young Earth to be a Christian but Christians should take the biblical position on everything. Origins of the Universe and the Earth are very important. We don’t need to trust in radiometric dating or even natural “clocks” to determine whether the Earth is young or old. The Bible is very clear on that issue.

Bible expositors tell us that the word “day” in Genesis can also mean a long period of time. They are right and they are wrong. The first meaning of “day” is the time between the rising and setting of the sun. The days in Mesopotamia were not named but numbered except for the 7th day, the Sabbath. The word for day is used 2355 times in the Old Testament and when used figuratively it always is defined by an associated term such as the day of judgment, the day of adversity, etc.

Whenever “evening” and “morning” are used in the Old Testament, they always refer to normal, 24-hour days; however critics triumphantly sneer that there could be no day and night without the sun! But day and night don’t depend on the sun but upon the existence of light. Gen. 1:3 reveals that God created the light. So there was light in addition to and preceding the creation of the sun. So, with light and the newly created Earth, there would be a “day” and a “night” as the Earth rotated. How could God have made it any clearer?

Hebrew scholars agree with creationists concerning the literal days of Genesis. Professor James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University, said in a personal letter, “So far as I know there is no Professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1 through 11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story; (c) Noah’s flood [not the movie Noah] was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.” So Hebrew experts stand with Creationists, not evolutionists!

Genesis 2:13 tells us that God “rested” on the seventh day after concluding His six days of creation. Now, did God “rest” a day or a billion years? And if it was a billion years, then how does that become a legitimate symbol for the Hebrews taking the seventh day as their Sabbath as God instructed them in Exodus 20:10-11? No sane person suggests that the Jews rested an “age” but a single day. If God rested an indeterminate age then maybe God is still resting; however, John 5:17 tells us that God is still working! Twisting the Bible like a pretzel is not wise or productive or safe.

Furthermore, Adam was created on the sixth day, and lived in the garden the remainder of that day, then he lived through the seventh day, and was driven out of the garden days or months later. Did he live through parts of three or more different geological ages? If so, he would have lived at least five hundred thousand years! Now they lived a long time in those days, but not that long!

But there are other reasons the days in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days. On the third day God created grass, herbs, and trees, and every student knows that plants discharge life-giving oxygen and absorb poisonous carbon dioxide. The oxygen discharged by the plants is used by animals and people who then throw off carbon dioxide that is used by the plants! Did that symbiotic relationship happen accidently?

However, if the days were really ages, the plants could not have lived without carbon dioxide since animals were not created until the fifth day. Furthermore, grass and trees (created on the third day) could not grow without the sun, and the sun did not shine until the fourth day. Did the world spin millions of years without sunlight? There is the additional problem of flowers that were created on day three having to wait long ages until insects were created so the flowers could be pollinated. If the day was an age, the flowers, grass, and trees could not have lived, so the days must have been literal 24-hour days.

In Mark 10:6, Jesus was discussing marriage and divorce with the Pharisees when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Here Christ makes it clear that men have been on the earth “from the beginning.” Since Christ declared that Adam was “from the beginning” it must mean that the Earth is about 6,000 years old since the Bible genealogies support that fact. It’s a matter of math. So Bible believers need nothing else to support a young Earth.

You can stand with the atheist/evolutionists if you want as they belch their kooky nonsense but I plan to continue standing with the One who made the Earth “in the beginning.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robert Reed - Gap Theory (Exposed) Sermon (~55 minutes long)
1/21/17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJcjm049so&t=0s

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> CHAPEL All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 13 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum