The bible

[Satenza]

If they did that in the first place for all religions people wouldn't enterprate them differently and kill in the name of their religion.

[TheLastTemplar]

Actually the bible was put together by the early church.

 

 

 

Cam.org is saying that the revelation of Jesus Christ through John, was written in cerca 90 A.D. Though the early church did not include the Gnostic gospel because they are said to be heresy books.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about this. If the Christian religion is false, which aparently majority of ya'll think it is, then let it die down buy itself. Look back at history for this. During the height of the roman empire, Asia minor (modern day Turkey) believed in Artemis,or Diana. Now that religion is no more. Even if it is, it is a minority. Look back at the anciet Egyptians. They Believed in Horus, god of the sun. And many many others. Now that religion does not exist.

 

 

 

Well what about Hinduism or Judaism? They have been around for a long time. Well, some religions go out quicker than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just wait and see.

[TheLastTemplar]

Now when you read this topic, don't get the god in the bible confused, with a higher being. All the bible is, is the christian story of god. If the bible is wrong, there can still be a higher being, but with a different story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note, this is a thread about the bible: christians story of god. I don't want this to turn into yet another 20 pages of whether there is a god/higher being or not. If anyone posts something like that I will report it, as it is offtopic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I think the bible is flawed for a few reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the bible, the world is 6000 years old. Yet, it is PROVEN the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Fossils, examinations of the earths crust say that the world is billions of years old. Some people with a voice in their head is all the proof it is 6000 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is another point in which shows the world cannot be 6000 years old:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another point, is dinosaurs. The bible does in fact mention mythological beasts, whether it is talking about dinosaurs or not is irrelivent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A biblical day(when god created the earth) may have a different meaning, timewise, than our 24 hour system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wouldn't make sense if they had big days, as the bible includes sentences such as "he travelled for X days" If in fact, the days back then were big enough to account for the billions of years this earth has been around for, in this 'X days' he would have been dead in the first day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fossils are billions of 'today's years' old, but apparently the bible is 6000 years old. I explained above about the argument about different sized days cannot be true, so if you believe in the bible, you cannot believe in dinosaurs. Which have been proven, you might as well not believe in gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There have been many religions over the centuries. Each religion can be baught down to 2 reasons, one of which is morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion works great as a set of moral guidelines untill people start killing each other over whose god is better, or untill those guidelines become outdated. Christians aren't killing off vast numbers of any other religion at the moment (except Muslims, and that doesn't count because our motive is oil, not religious zeal, though you could make a case that the Middle Eastern conflict is a modern day crusade for the holy land). So is Christianity completely outdated?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Muslim rational for not eating pigs is that they are "Dirty" animals and it is not gods will for us to eat them. This may have made sense thousands or even hundreds of years ago, when pigs may have had bacteria in them that could cause certain diseases. This is not true today. The Christian rational for not having sex before marriage is that it is gods will for us to create families and not have sex before marriage. This may have made sense hundreds of years ago when sex before marriage created unwanted children and social decay. It is not true today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other reason is to explain what science and technology can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One example is the ancient egyptions. They did not have the science and technology to know how the sun rose and set, it appeared to them to move across the sky. So they invented a god that moved the sun across the sky. Today we know that is [cabbage], and the Earth revolves around the sun - which is why it appears to move across the sky. We know this because of the science and technology we have today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lets briefly compare a story of the bible, to a religious story we have today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The sun moving across the sky in ancient egypt, and jesus being the son of god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They both took true facts. There was really a man called jesus who claimed to be the son of god. And the sun does in fact appear to move across the sky. And then turned them into stories to explain what science and technology can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A god passes through 12 gates, fights a serpent and carries the sun across the sky, and A man called Jesus claimed to be the son of god and performed mericles. (sp)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My question: How is the Ancient Egyptions religion, which we all know is rubbish, any different to the stories in the bible? There are in fact still people today who believe in ancient religions, because of faith even though they are wrong, and that is all that christianity is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proven that the world is 4.5billion?

 

 

 

Where is the missing link?

 

 

 

Then sun shrinks everyday ,right?right. So if the world is 4.5billion yrs old. Wouldn't that mean the earth would be inside of the earth? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the layers in the earth? do not some evolutionist say that they are built up over a period of millions of years? And yet, Mt. saint helens made 5-6 layers in a matter of days?

[falco513]

Wouldn't that mean the earth would be inside of the earth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I fail to any logical reasoning behind this assumtion...

[jjrox32]

Actually the bible was put together by the early church.

 

 

 

Cam.org is saying that the revelation of Jesus Christ through John, was written in cerca 90 A.D. Though the early church did not include the Gnostic gospel because they are said to be heresy books.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about this. If the Christian religion is false, which aparently majority of ya'll think it is, then let it die down buy itself. Look back at history for this. During the height of the roman empire, Asia minor (modern day Turkey) believed in Artemis,or Diana. Now that religion is no more. Even if it is, it is a minority. Look back at the anciet Egyptians. They Believed in Horus, god of the sun. And many many others. Now that religion does not exist.

 

 

 

Well what about Hinduism or Judaism? They have been around for a long time. Well, some religions go out quicker than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just wait and see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll put money on that christianity will never die. Things like tha don't just "die out." It's one of the major religions in the world. If it's lasted for 2000+ years, and still going strong, when will it die out, the year 5000?

[Ragen]

 

 

cam.org link makes no sense. How does it make sense that the ENTIRE new testament was started in the 60's? How would we have records of things back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm 99% sure that they had a full Bible before the 60's. Just use common sense. That link doesn't actually provide any evidence that those dates are "good estimates"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen and read a bit of a bible over 100 years old. The only difference that I spotted was the use of language like 'thy'. I understood that the current Bible was a direct translation (or as close as possible) from the original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there are new versions that make the reading a bit easier on the eyes.... wait a minute. If you've read a Bible over 100 years old, how could the new testament have been finished in the 90's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think they mean that the current version was finished being re-translated in the 90's. I assume that people haven't been adding to it (if they have, they need shooting).

[Astralinre]

 

 

 

cam.org link makes no sense. How does it make sense that the ENTIRE new testament was started in the 60's? How would we have records of things back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm 99% sure that they had a full Bible before the 60's. Just use common sense. That link doesn't actually provide any evidence that those dates are "good estimates"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen and read a bit of a bible over 100 years old. The only difference that I spotted was the use of language like 'thy'. I understood that the current Bible was a direct translation (or as close as possible) from the original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there are new versions that make the reading a bit easier on the eyes.... wait a minute. If you've read a Bible over 100 years old, how could the new testament have been finished in the 90's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think they mean that the current version was finished being re-translated in the 90's. I assume that people haven't been adding to it (if they have, they need shooting).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the site says 90s, it is refering to 90 AD, not 1990.

[Ragen]

 

 

 

 

cam.org link makes no sense. How does it make sense that the ENTIRE new testament was started in the 60's? How would we have records of things back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm 99% sure that they had a full Bible before the 60's. Just use common sense. That link doesn't actually provide any evidence that those dates are "good estimates"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen and read a bit of a bible over 100 years old. The only difference that I spotted was the use of language like 'thy'. I understood that the current Bible was a direct translation (or as close as possible) from the original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there are new versions that make the reading a bit easier on the eyes.... wait a minute. If you've read a Bible over 100 years old, how could the new testament have been finished in the 90's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think they mean that the current version was finished being re-translated in the 90's. I assume that people haven't been adding to it (if they have, they need shooting).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the site says 90s, it is refering to 90 AD, not 1990.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: Ah. :lol:

[jjrox32]

 

 

 

 

cam.org link makes no sense. How does it make sense that the ENTIRE new testament was started in the 60's? How would we have records of things back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm 99% sure that they had a full Bible before the 60's. Just use common sense. That link doesn't actually provide any evidence that those dates are "good estimates"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen and read a bit of a bible over 100 years old. The only difference that I spotted was the use of language like 'thy'. I understood that the current Bible was a direct translation (or as close as possible) from the original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there are new versions that make the reading a bit easier on the eyes.... wait a minute. If you've read a Bible over 100 years old, how could the new testament have been finished in the 90's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think they mean that the current version was finished being re-translated in the 90's. I assume that people haven't been adding to it (if they have, they need shooting).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the site says 90s, it is refering to 90 AD, not 1990.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In that case, that link shouldn't be valued in this discussion, for the person who posted it said that the last book of the Bible was finished in 15 years ago...

[warri0r45]

Proven that the world is 4.5billion?

 

 

 

Where is the missing link?

 

 

 

Then sun shrinks everyday ,right?right. So if the world is 4.5billion yrs old. Wouldn't that mean the earth would be inside of the earth? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the layers in the earth? do not some evolutionist say that they are built up over a period of millions of years? And yet, Mt. saint helens made 5-6 layers in a matter of days?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This challenge stands for anyone.

[unknownmasterofnothing]

God does some pretty sadistic things in the bible.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

I'll put money on that christianity will never die.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll put money on the opposite. The truth of the trends shows more conservativism these days. Where scientific logic reigns, the stories of creationism are being questioned. Back in the day these stories were undeniable proof. The Fundamental story of creationism is loosing the fight to science. Ironically, the only group fighting are creationists; they're fighting to stay alive. Now having said that, Christianity may never completely die. The question is still open as to whether the universe was created and the basic morality of christianity, although often overlooked by fundamentalists, is very decent in my opinion.

[splatmster24]

According to the bible, the world is 6000 years old. Yet, it is PROVEN the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Fossils, examinations of the earths crust say that the world is billions of years old. Some people with a voice in their head is all the proof it is 6000 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

give some of the proof you speak of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is another point in which shows the world cannot be 6000 years old:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how do we know that light cant be distorted in vacuam, or black holes, we have even managed to stop light in a vacuam, why cant it be sped up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another point, is dinosaurs. The bible does in fact mention mythological beasts, whether it is talking about dinosaurs or not is irrelivent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmmmm, this is a toughie, but the way i see it, if humans lived longer before the flood(adam lived like 700 years) why couldnt reptiles live longer. all reptiles keep growing until they die, how do we know they couldnt have grown humongous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fossils are billions of 'today's years' old, but apparently the bible is 6000 years old. I explained above about the argument about different sized days cannot be true, so if you believe in the bible, you cannot believe in dinosaurs. Which have been proven, you might as well not believe in gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists dont want you to know this but, the current method of carbon dating (the main way we tell how old things are) is flawed, terribly.

 

 

 

my youth group went out to a house that had burned down about 50 years before, found 2 preserved pieces of wood, and sent them in to be dated, telling them that they wher most likely about 500 years old. the first was dated at, low and behold, 600 years. the second was dated at 1000 years. ok ok, so thats not to far off on the grand scale of things, but when we sent them back about a year later, we switched the bags, we put the piece dated at 1000 years in the 600 year bag, and vice versa. the results came back the same on the bags, the wood was different, but they still kept it the same, hmmmmm :-k . what they dont want you to know is, when they date something that doesnt turn out right in their timeframe, they just test it again, and agian, and agian, until it is where they want it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bit still, i guess im just rated as a religous zealot whos opinons dont count.

[warri0r45]

 

Proven that the world is 4.5billion?

 

 

 

Where is the missing link?

 

 

 

Then sun shrinks everyday ,right?right. So if the world is 4.5billion yrs old. Wouldn't that mean the earth would be inside of the earth? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the layers in the earth? do not some evolutionist say that they are built up over a period of millions of years? And yet, Mt. saint helens made 5-6 layers in a matter of days?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This challenge stands for anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is directed at you now, splat. Radiometric dating. Look it up, you can't possibly disregard it unless you disregard matematics and the theory of radioactive decay. You, my friend are being fed false information from creationists that accuses scientists of being unsure or fabricating evidence. Again, radiometric dating, look it up on a source that dosen't include a religous agenda.

[splatmster24]

 

 

Proven that the world is 4.5billion?

 

 

 

Where is the missing link?

 

 

 

Then sun shrinks everyday ,right?right. So if the world is 4.5billion yrs old. Wouldn't that mean the earth would be inside of the earth? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the layers in the earth? do not some evolutionist say that they are built up over a period of millions of years? And yet, Mt. saint helens made 5-6 layers in a matter of days?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This challenge stands for anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is directed at you now, splat. Radiometric dating. Look it up, you can't possibly disregard it unless you disregard matematics and the theory of radioactive decay. You, my friend are being fed false information from creationists that accuses scientists of being unsure or fabricating evidence. Again, radiometric dating, look it up on a source that dosen't include a religous agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok, i surrender to your brainpower, i give up this thread with 2 posts, but i still believe jesus is my savior. if only because i am entitled to my own opinion, so dont hate on me and i wont hate on you.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

Proven that the world is 4.5billion?

 

 

 

Where is the missing link?

 

 

 

Then sun shrinks everyday ,right?right. So if the world is 4.5billion yrs old. Wouldn't that mean the earth would be inside of the earth? :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the layers in the earth? do not some evolutionist say that they are built up over a period of millions of years? And yet, Mt. saint helens made 5-6 layers in a matter of days?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This challenge stands for anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is directed at you now, splat. Radiometric dating. Look it up, you can't possibly disregard it unless you disregard matematics and the theory of radioactive decay. You, my friend are being fed false information from creationists that accuses scientists of being unsure or fabricating evidence. Again, radiometric dating, look it up on a source that dosen't include a religous agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok, i surrender to your brainpower, i give up this thread with 2 posts, but i still believe jesus is my savior. if only because i am entitled to my own opinion, so dont hate on me and i wont hate on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, that was easy, but this isn't about winning or losing. This is about freeing people such as yourself from false information propogated by a minority of religous institutions that want nothing more than to prove thier own agenda by any means necessary, even if it means taking quotes out of context and bending science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record I am not against any organised religion. If you believe that Jesus is your lord and saviour, no worries mate. All I'm about is nullifying false science and misconceptions about the age of the earth and evolution. There are still many question which science is yet to answer, some which religion attempts to explain, which is totally OK with me. But when religios fundamentalists (the overwhelming minority) try to bend and warp science dishonestly to thier own means, it just dosen't sit right with me.

[BlueLancer]

Just to add to Warrior45's post, you can still be a christian and not take every word in the Bible literally. You say you still believe 'Jesus is your savior'. You can still believe that, and accept the proof radiometric dating gives us about the age of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think 'God' will be angry because 1 person didn't believe a piece of fiction? You can still believe in God and accept scientific facts about the world. Science is not a synonym for 'anti-religion'. Science explains how stuff works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists are not a bunch of antichrist's with an agenda to destroy religions. They only publish facts that can be observed by anyone to be true through empirical evidence and testing, but they do it for you so you don't have to test it yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, if you doubt it, you could always go to a laboratory and observe it yourself. They have no reason to release flawed facts when in today's world of fast communications and internet somebody could prove them wrong in a whim and their entire careers and reputations would be gone.

[Plectrum]

I never understood why atheist think they need to free Christians from Christianity. The opposite makes sense because Christians believe they are trying to save someones soul by witnessing to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's pretend for a second that the bible was complete rubbish. Why waste your breath trying to ruin someones ignorant bliss? It is doing no harm letting someone put faith into a higher being. Unless some how you were able to disprove the existence of a higher being, which isn't possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said. The bible is proven to be well documented. And a lot of the bible has been proven, Jesus for example. Jesus was a real person. Some people believe in Genesis God created heaven and earth. There is no way to disprove this so why try? You are wasting your breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for trying to test the credibility of the Bible. But the majority of the Bible is open for interpretation so saying that things like fossils disproves the entire thing, you are being very ignorant to literature.

[warri0r45]

I never understood why atheist think they need to free Christians from Christianity. The opposite makes sense because Christians believe they are trying to save someones soul by witnessing to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's pretend for a second that the bible was complete rubbish. Why waste your breath trying to ruin someones ignorant bliss? It is doing no harm letting someone put faith into a higher being. Unless some how you were able to disprove the existence of a higher being, which isn't possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said. The bible is proven to be well documented. And a lot of the bible has been proven, Jesus for example. Jesus was a real person. Some people believe in Genesis God created heaven and earth. There is no way to disprove this so why try? You are wasting your breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for trying to test the credibility of the Bible. But the majority of the Bible is open for interpretation so saying that things like fossils disproves the entire thing, you are being very ignorant to literature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd just like to say firstly that I, personally, never try to ween christians out of thier faith, thats bending them against thier will and is basically wrong (in my opinion anyway). The only reason I would attempt to disprove the literal meaning of genesis (i.e. evolution is wrong and the earth was created 6000 years ago) is because it goes against credible science. Those that try to prove thier position basically only do so by trying to disprove this credible science, which is done by bending the truth and using shock tactic propoganda. the people who do this, thankfully, are the minority of the Christian faith. So in response to your post, not all atheists feel the need to 'unconvert' Christians.

[Plectrum]

 

I never understood why atheist think they need to free Christians from Christianity. The opposite makes sense because Christians believe they are trying to save someones soul by witnessing to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's pretend for a second that the bible was complete rubbish. Why waste your breath trying to ruin someones ignorant bliss? It is doing no harm letting someone put faith into a higher being. Unless some how you were able to disprove the existence of a higher being, which isn't possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said. The bible is proven to be well documented. And a lot of the bible has been proven, Jesus for example. Jesus was a real person. Some people believe in Genesis God created heaven and earth. There is no way to disprove this so why try? You are wasting your breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for trying to test the credibility of the Bible. But the majority of the Bible is open for interpretation so saying that things like fossils disproves the entire thing, you are being very ignorant to literature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd just like to say firstly that I, personally, never try to ween christians out of thier faith, thats bending them against thier will and is basically wrong (in my opinion anyway). The only reason I would attempt to disprove the literal meaning of genesis (i.e. evolution is wrong and the earth was created 6000 years ago) is because it goes against credible science. Those that try to prove thier position basically only do so by trying to disprove this credible science, which is done by bending the truth and using shock tactic propoganda. the people who do this, thankfully, are the minority of the Christian faith. So in response to your post, not all atheists feel the need to 'unconvert' Christians.

It doesn't give the date God created the universe in Genesis. So taking the literal meaning of Genesis can't be disputed. Unless some how you were able to prove that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

[warri0r45]

 

 

I never understood why atheist think they need to free Christians from Christianity. The opposite makes sense because Christians believe they are trying to save someones soul by witnessing to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's pretend for a second that the bible was complete rubbish. Why waste your breath trying to ruin someones ignorant bliss? It is doing no harm letting someone put faith into a higher being. Unless some how you were able to disprove the existence of a higher being, which isn't possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said. The bible is proven to be well documented. And a lot of the bible has been proven, Jesus for example. Jesus was a real person. Some people believe in Genesis God created heaven and earth. There is no way to disprove this so why try? You are wasting your breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for trying to test the credibility of the Bible. But the majority of the Bible is open for interpretation so saying that things like fossils disproves the entire thing, you are being very ignorant to literature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd just like to say firstly that I, personally, never try to ween christians out of thier faith, thats bending them against thier will and is basically wrong (in my opinion anyway). The only reason I would attempt to disprove the literal meaning of genesis (i.e. evolution is wrong and the earth was created 6000 years ago) is because it goes against credible science. Those that try to prove thier position basically only do so by trying to disprove this credible science, which is done by bending the truth and using shock tactic propoganda. the people who do this, thankfully, are the minority of the Christian faith. So in response to your post, not all atheists feel the need to 'unconvert' Christians.

It doesn't give the date God created the universe in Genesis. So taking the literal meaning of Genesis can't be disputed. Unless some how you were able to prove that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, literary schollars added up all of the 'begats' and the years people lived right down to adam and eve and calculated the world is around 6000 or so years old; some others came up with 10,000 or so. So if you take the bible literally, the going theory is that the universe is 6000 or so years old. Secondly, there is plenty of evidense and sensibility in the evolutionary theory, I'll provide you some sources through PM if you'd like.

[Celt23]

 

 

I never understood why atheist think they need to free Christians from Christianity. The opposite makes sense because Christians believe they are trying to save someones soul by witnessing to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's pretend for a second that the bible was complete rubbish. Why waste your breath trying to ruin someones ignorant bliss? It is doing no harm letting someone put faith into a higher being. Unless some how you were able to disprove the existence of a higher being, which isn't possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said. The bible is proven to be well documented. And a lot of the bible has been proven, Jesus for example. Jesus was a real person. Some people believe in Genesis God created heaven and earth. There is no way to disprove this so why try? You are wasting your breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for trying to test the credibility of the Bible. But the majority of the Bible is open for interpretation so saying that things like fossils disproves the entire thing, you are being very ignorant to literature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd just like to say firstly that I, personally, never try to ween christians out of thier faith, thats bending them against thier will and is basically wrong (in my opinion anyway). The only reason I would attempt to disprove the literal meaning of genesis (i.e. evolution is wrong and the earth was created 6000 years ago) is because it goes against credible science. Those that try to prove thier position basically only do so by trying to disprove this credible science, which is done by bending the truth and using shock tactic propoganda. the people who do this, thankfully, are the minority of the Christian faith. So in response to your post, not all atheists feel the need to 'unconvert' Christians.

It doesn't give the date God created the universe in Genesis. So taking the literal meaning of Genesis can't be disputed. Unless some how you were able to prove that we all evolved from single cell organisms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So far evolution has passed every single expirement. I'd also like to see you prove that an invisible being created the infinitely gigantic universe and all the matter within it in a week.

[Rebdragon]

So far evolution has passed every single expirement. I'd also like to see you prove that an invisible being created the infinitely gigantic universe and all the matter within it in a week.

 

 

 

*Gnashing teeth* STOP FRIKKING BEING FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!! IT'S NOT LITERAL!!!!!!

[Celt23]

 

So far evolution has passed every single expirement. I'd also like to see you prove that an invisible being created the infinitely gigantic universe and all the matter within it in a week.

 

 

 

*Gnashing teeth* STOP FRIKKING BEING FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!! IT'S NOT LITERAL!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last I checked Christians take it as the word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you come up with an alternate creation story then?

[Rebdragon]

 

 

So far evolution has passed every single expirement. I'd also like to see you prove that an invisible being created the infinitely gigantic universe and all the matter within it in a week.

 

 

 

*Gnashing teeth* STOP FRIKKING BEING FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!! IT'S NOT LITERAL!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last I checked Christians take it as the word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you come up with an alternate creation story then?

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the creation story. That doesn't mean that all Christians think that it took God created the world in 168 hours; the creation story, if you really look at it scientifically, is just another way of saying how the Earth was created, a more poetic way. Whether it's the direct Word of God or not, I dunno.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the love of God everyone, stop thinking that Christians are all fundamentalists, or that to be a Christian you have to be a fundamentalist. It's kind of getting annoying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:wall: