YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'd sure love to hear the evolutionists answer that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
I believe He asked Job… "where were you when I formed the world or hung the stars?"
It is interesting how mere man wants to call themselves wise.
So some have charged.
I know it seems like foolishness to you… but I remember a quote of a famous person who said, “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"So I don’t mind the charge.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And the fact that the Bible has to rely on lying defensive verses demonstrates that it is not the "word of God". You should know that by now.So some have charged.
So I don’t mind the charge.
I think it is a matter of viewpoints. Jesus believed the TaNaKh to be true. I have found it to be very reliable as have so many others.
Reminds me of a very renown person who said of it, “ Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not sure if he did. He referred to stories in it, but that is not the same as believing it to be true. And Jesus used quite a few literary tools in his teachings.
Actually, he quoted it and referred to it as facts. I’m sure, as you mentioned, he also referred to the historical stories too.
Like the answers for the three culminating temptations; His house shall be called a house of prayer; Judas and so much more.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Did he? Give me your best example, because all of the ones that I am aware of looked as if they were merely literary tools.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes absolutely. They want to either make themselves equal to God or just say He's not there. Ah well.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
He also clarified a few things but not only did his opponents not believe him, they condemned him.
I just named three… not sure how you got confused on that one...
It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Deut. 8:3
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Deut 5:16
Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Deut 6:13
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where do you get that from? There are many Christians that want to know as much as possible. They want to know how the Earth was formed. they want to know how the universe began. Do you think that they are trying to make themselves equal to God? In fact one of the main scientists behind the Big Bang theory was a very very serious Christian.
Like I have said many many times. You do not have to claim that God was a liar to be a Christian. So why do that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is pretty weak sauce. That is not saying that the Tanakh is literally true at all. He is simply agreeing with verses from it. You need to do a lot better than that.
Yes… any excuse is a good excuse if you don’t want to believe (within the context of my signature). Reminds me of a father in the faith that said, “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” as quoted by Jesus who believed what Moses and the Prophets said.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, not any excuse. You did not support your claim at all. Using quotes from the Old Testament is not stating that it really happened. It may be merely recognizing some of the things that the Old Testament got right. You failed in your claim by using a black and white fallacy.
You can easily see the error of people rejecting the Bible just because of a few errors. It is a pity that you cannot see that you are doing the opposite of that. Both extremes are wrong.
If that makes you happy.Of course, you don’t find one statement of Jesus saying it wasn’t true and yet you find him quoting what was written. How you came to your conclusion about Jesus not believing the TaNaKh would be a story in and of itself, I’m sure!
You say that as if you have the skill and knowledge to evaluate any information provided.
These questions have been asked and answered many times. Are you claiming that they have not.
I'll repeat it so you and others can wave it away. Or claim the information was never presented I suppose. That seems to be a repeating theme.
1. The origin of genes is unknown at this time. That doesn't mean the answer isn't knowable or that it will not be found. It also doesn't mean that baseless rejection is valid or that personal beliefs become the default answer either. I find it difficult to believe, after all this time that you don't know this. It has been discussed many times where you were involved. It is more evidence that leads me to doubt sincerity or claims of respect for others.
2. Evolution is not the source of novel genes. It is the process of change in populations. The source of new genes is mutation and science has studied this phenomenon and many new genes that have arisen naturally. Mutations can also be created in the lab. This is not some daunting wall that has been erected by science deniers that will halt those accepting science in their tracks.
These are not gotcha questions. It is what I would expect from people that don't know that much about a science that makes them uncomfortable and they have been told by men that they should reject.
We know about lots of new genes and there origins. Lactase persistence genes, sickle cell anemia genes, amylase genes in dogs and wolves, the gene conferring the ice nucleating trait in nototheniod fish, and many more.
Long, Manyuan, Esther Betrán, Kevin Thornton, and Wen Wang. "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old." Nature Reviews Genetics 4, no. 11 (2003): 865-875.
Kaessmann, H. (2010). Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes. Genome research, 20(10), 1313-1326.
Francino, M. Pilar. "An adaptive radiation model for the origin of new gene functions." Nature genetics 37, no. 6 (2005): 573-578.
Wang, Wen, Haijing Yu, and Manyuan Long. "Duplication-degeneration as a mechanism of gene fission and the origin of new genes in Drosophila species." Nature genetics 36, no. 5 (2004): 523-527.
Zhang, Yong E., Patrick Landback, Maria Vibranovski, and Manyuan Long. "New genes expressed in human brains: implications for annotating evolving genomes." Bioessays 34, no. 11 (2012): 982-991.
Long, Manyuan, Michael Deutsch, Wen Wang, Esther Betrán, Frédéric G. Brunet, and Jianming Zhang. "Origin of new genes: evidence from experimental and computational analyses." Genetica 118 (2003): 171-182.
Gilbert, Walter, Sandro J. De Souza, and Manyuan Long. "Origin of genes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94, no. 15 (1997): 7698-7703.
This last one is on the origin of genes.
Solomon was wise. You don't think you provide wisdom to others?
I don't agree with the sentiment behind the interpretation of these words to mean we cannot learn about the world around us. I don't think people are too stupid to learn. Obviously we do. It is just that some of that knowledge makes certain groups uncomfortable regarding how they have been told to believe.
I believe and am very comfortable with what I learn.
There are so many dichotomies in this. The claim that atheists practice science to make themselves the equal of a being they don't believe in doesn't make sense. And not everyone that accepts science is an atheist. Many theists accept it too and not to make themselves the equal of God. I'm not even sure how knowing a natural process would result in a sense of power over the divine. It just sounds like a silly admonishment to make the people saying it feel better about themselves.
When I read your post, I get this sense of glee from your expression of an erroneous claim that you believe to be true. Like you hope that people really do feel this way. Why would you need that? Why would you want that? Is it your position that Christians should be thrilled about people doing something we consider wrong and with negative consequences as we see it? I don't. I'm shocked that anyone would express this sort of thing as something to feel good about.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I did not make your mistake. Why do you think that me realizing that the opposite of what you said is an error as well helps you?
Of course, you don’t find one statement of Jesus saying it wasn’t true and yet you find him quoting what was written. How you came to your conclusion about Jesus not believing the TaNaKh would be a story in and of itself, I’m sure!