betsy

Thanks Charles.

But of course, I'm human - a creation. Israel isn't God either. It's a nation or a people - merely His creation. The impression you get from me, or any of His creation, will only be a very small fraction of what He actually, is. If we don't even have the capacity to understand how He thinks, nor have any real understanding of His ways.......basing your impression on us and within the same context as you'd claimed to understand what Trump stands for, you can't really say you "know what He stands for." He gave us some understanding of Him thru the Bible. The fact that so many non-believers who cite the Old Testament see Him as a, "maniacal murderer," is evidence for that despite having the Scriptures! They based their judgement on the Scriptures that obviously they didn't fully understand.

Corrections. It doesn't apply to Christianity. The Christian God does not give so-called "contradictory" commands. Refer to the other thread that deals with that particular issue. Out of curiousity about other religions - what you said is interesting - please give an example of contradictory commands coming from other religions' gods.

They all refer to the "common" ancestor "so far down the line of evolution." It's so far, far, far down. Translation: I think. Maybe. Could be. I'm merely guessing. This macroevolution - and this huge obsession linking, or tying, man to beasts...and transitioning from one beasts to another...... makes me think of mythological creatures. I think macroevolution was inspired by Greek mythological creatures. Centaur, Echidna, Satyr, Gorgon, Minotaur, to name but a few. There's so many of these hybrid creaures, of varying combinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hybrid_creatures_in_mythology

Okay, I get what you mean. However.....believing in Trump and in God are not comparable. I don't see the comparison at all with the Star Trek analogy of finding Apollo - which is just another Greek god among many, and not the big boss among the Greek gods either. Besides, how do they know they found the Apollo, and not just a wannabe or, the wrong Apollo? It's a poor comparison to knowing that the One and only true God exists. Anyway....what do you really know about Trump? What does he stands for? You'd really have to sift through all the stories about him in the media, and that still wouldn't reveal much about what, and who he really is. You don't know him in private. You haven't spoken and exchange views with him. He may've said or done something that is abhorrent to you, but he could've just made a mistake (like everyone else).....and you can't say that's what he "stands for," unless you know the man. When I say "know".....I don't mean relying on media reports, and interviews of him (because he can embellish or withhold). You have to know him intimately - not necessarily in a sexual way and pillow talks. Furthermore, no matter what they say about a leopard not changing its spots - people sometimes do change. Therefore, you can't really judge a man from his past, unless he's doing the very same thing - the same motivation - in the present. But let's get back to your idea of what He stands for. So...... even if you do know that the God of the Bible exists for a fact - knowing that you're at His mercy - you wouldn't believe in Him because of what you think, He "stands" for? How did you get to that "understanding," anyway? Do you know for a fact that you understand what He stands for? Are you certain that what you think you know about Him, is accurate? I find it hard to believe that anyone would know.........since we don't have the capacity to understand His thoughts and His ways. If you believe the God of the Bible actually exists, you must also believe that there is eternal damnation. If your Creator says, "Believe in Me, or I'll throw you into the lake of fire for eternity." Rebelliously responding, "I don't want to, and you can't make me...." seems comical. The visuals of an ant, defiantly standing in the way of an elephant, bellowing "Get out of my way or I'll squish you" comes to mind. And you hear this teeny-weeny ant, saying in a teeny-weeny voice, "No way! I don't believe in you! " And that's the last from him! I mean, really. More like the comparison to a guilty, stubborn, prideful youngster who refuses to say sorry, and defies his parents even if it means being grounded for 1 month (which must be like eternity to a youth)! It's nothing more but pride.

You know....that's exactly what's expected from some atheists! Even if God performs a miracle and appears, some atheists would still find reason why he wouldn't believe. I forgot how William Lane Craig and Hitchens (I think) had debated, and that came about.

So....you see now why Christians can say...... ......if evolution is a fact.................we can own evolution!

Oh, I know I mentioned the snake in Genesis too, sometime ago, somewhere - how it also seems to tie up with the claim that snakes used to have limbs! http://www.nature.com/news/four-legged-fossil-snake-is-a-world-first-1.18050 Why on earth would the snake decide to lose its limbs when it makes it easier to grasp food? You can't hold your prey ......is that a good thing? https://phys.org/news/2015-11-mystery-snakes-lost-legs-reptile.html#jCp Now, why would you want to lose your legs? Is that for the better? Would that be "moving forward?" Funny thing, science only discovers the alleged "evolution" of snakes (and really, what happened to snakes wouldn't be considered a positive thing for the specie)....... .................what's been known for thousands of years ago - the Bible had already implied that the serpent (snake) used to have limbs, or legs, or whatever they used to have. Genesis 3 reveals that the snake didn't used to crawl on its belly! Talk again about science, catching up to the past! Genesis 3 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. So, according to Genesis 3, the snake had lost its legs, arms, or its limbs, or whatever they call them! Now, the snake crawls and slithers, and can't grab and hold its prey - it eats at ground level - eating dust along with it! The snake's losing of its limbs is a step backward! However you look at it, only a fool will think it's for the advancement of the specie. The snake had lost its limbs not because of evolution. It's because, God cursed them! Science discovered and found snake fossils with limbs (before they lost them)......evolutionists use this scientific evidence against themselves! This evidence supports Genesis 3!

I look forward to your future questions. Hopefully, my replies would actually be addressed, and discussed........ ........not to be simply met with deflection, and ignored, like as if no point was presented at all. While I understand how a skeptic or an outright non-believer would want more "convincing," ( I surely hope performing miracles is not the kind of convincing expected from me, nor the actual appearance by God, required)....... .............while I don't mind questions at all, I, on the other hand, am going to need a lot more substance coming from anyone whose questions are tinged with mockery and ridicule - to at least be able to address the particular point that have been presented. That's only expected - a basic requirement to have a healthy discussion between adults, especially when one decides to venture in a section such as Philosophy/Theology. In other words, if you come to me with a challenge - particularly, a mocking challenge - back it up. Be prepared to discuss! If one cannot make any refutation, or give any reasonable (rational) rebuttal......or even try..... at least, admit to it. Before you leave, I hope you read my post above, and below about Genesis (which can be related to evolution - seen from an evolutionist's pov). (note: some of the points I gave above about Genesis (evolution angle), has been quite a "revelation" to me, too.....as I tried to respond to an atheist in the other forum).

That depends. It's not all "up to interpretations." Interpretations will have to be consistent, and not in any way contradict anything in the Scriptures, otherwise it's false interpretation. In-depth study of the Bible is actually necessary to help you discern true from false interpretations. I recommend a KJV Bible-Study Bible. The one I have also includes explanation about customs of the time that's reflected on particular verses. Furthermore, some statements in the Bible that appeared to be figures of speech, turned out that they can be taken literally (after having been reaffirmed by science). It all boils down to your true purpose why you read the Bible. Btw, out of curiousity......why did you read the Bible? What were you hoping to gain?

What happened to post numbering? Why was it taken away? It's very practical and convenient to have the posts numbered, for citing. Who'd want to spend time scrolling down, looking for the particular post being cited? And who wants to repeat what they'd already answered to - especially if the answer isn't so simple?

I'm not trying to convince you, Taxme. Since you took the trouble to ask, I'm just answering your questions...... and pointing out some things that are actually in-lined with evolution (if you're looking at it from an evolutionist' point of view). Take it, or leave it.

Huh. Imagine that. After being observed and analyzed.....science had reaffirmed some of the statements in a Book that was "generated by men".....verbally passed, and finally written thousands of years ago!

Atheists allegedly rely on science (or, that's what they want to say) - so I try to meet them at their comfort zone. I try to show that science lend support for the Bible.......and science have not factually disproven anything from the Bible. While debating in another forum about the difference between man and animals (Genesis), the atheist (quite incoherent, and obviously stabbing in the dark), wondered why God hadn't spoken man into existence the same way He did animals. Of course, I had to review Genesis 1. Reading Genesis again, gave me other arguments to point out. Genesis 1 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. Moving creatures that has life, came to life in the water. Does that strikes a chord with Darwinists? 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. If you look at it from an evolution point of view - that one, too. Don't they say that creatures transitioned from water to land? "....every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind," Why is creation of birds included in those two sentences from the two verses, "and every winged fowl!" Doesn't evolution say, from fish to birds? 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. Unlike the creation of other creatures, God got actively involved in the creation of man. He formed him from dust and breathed life into him (Genesis 2 for details). "....male and female created he them." Take note that it's only with man that God designated genders of male and female. He didn't designate any genders for His other creation. We know that some creatures are "asexual." 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. Don't we have dominion? All we have to do is look at our pets, the zoo, the farm......animals even rely on us to protect and save them from extinction!

It's amazing how some folks would quibble over something like this, and yet does not consider that it's the same Book that gives the same truth. Some truths have been recently proven, and reaffirmed by science. And....it's amazing how some folks can easily swallow macroevolution when it's riddled with so many holes - it doesn't even have any evidence to stand on. Whatever tickles their fancy I suppose......

No contradictions. Genesis 1 provides the chronological listing of creation....whereas Genesis 2 is a recap. Just read the first few verses in Genesis 2, in which the recap is stated: Genesis 2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. 4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, Then Moses went into detail about the garden of Eden, and the creation of Adam and Eve, all the way from verses 7 thru 24! This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages,3 and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form. And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19) https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/

Where does it say in the Bible that Noah went hunting for them? Genesis 6 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. Actually, those questions have been dealt with in the other topic, "These So-Called "Contradictions." I'll repost my answer: I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND." That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis. What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?" We don't know exactly. The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species). Maybe, "kind" refers to genus. The Polar Bear belongs to the genus Ursus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursus_(genus) Furthermore.... Where does it say in the Bible that the animals were full-grown? The Biblical cubit in our own standard of measurement is estimated to be 18 inches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit Based on that measurement, that would make the ark 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1413

Not everything is taken literally. But, sometimes, what we think of as a figure of speech....eventually......turns out as something that can be taken literally. Like the stretching universe as an example! 11 times, the heavens has been described as being "stretched" by various authors from various timelines - within the appropriate context of describing the heavens. >>>>>Fast forward to the 20th century>>>>>>> Lo and behold, science discovers that the universe is stretching! This is a serious topic. Whether it's meant to be humor or not...... I'm just baffled why you said he hit it on the nail.

Scroll up and read. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so.

So you're saying, you believe in the Bible: even the contradictory ones.....just in case? Anyway....in what way did he "hit the nail on the head?" Because, imv, his very statement proved that he lacked study and understanding of what he'd read - thus, he thinks there are contradictory statements. How can one say he believes in something he thinks is not reliable? Believing is not enough - especially "mock belief." According to Jesus, he'd have to not only accept Him as the Lord and Saviour, but Flanders would also have to repent. That means being sorry for his sins, which includes, a change in his way of thinking - a change in lifestyle, if necessary. All that is made possible when one accepts Jesus Christ, because the indwelling of Christ in His disciple becomes reflected in His disciple. "Just in case"...... what? In case the Bible is true.......where does that leaves him with his mock belief? He thinks Christ/God can be fooled?

Who can forget this James Bond? He's my fave Bond.