Results 1 - 20 of 80
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: greentwiga Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141169 | ||
Radioactive dating is highly accurate. I am a scientist and a fundamentalist Christian who has worked as a missionary. I have also worked in the radioactive dating field, and know no scientists that admit any major flaws. Scientists do argue over purity and original concentrations, but have methods to answer the problems. We might just as well argue that all stars are no farther away than 6,000 lightyears away. Even if we prove the radioactive problem, we still suffer the star problem. Some reputable Christians, instead argue that God created an earth and starry heavens about 6,000 years ago with an apparent ancient history of about 15 billion years. I just accept the facts of the Bible and the facts of science. I am willing to argue about interpretations of the Bible and interpretations of science, but I base it on solid arguments. Show me why carbon dating, tree ring dating, ice core dating, seafloor dating, and lakebed dating, along with stalactite dating are all wrong with strong scientific facts and arguments. As it is, when I attempt to witness to scientists, we have to get past them rejecting the message because they lump me with the Creation research people. Scientists find their work very unscientific. The bones are there, they are ancient by all our tests. Lets deal with them honestly. Greentwiga |
||||||
2 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141179 | ||
Thanks. This is a more honest attempt to answer the questions I raised. It is a different Biblical theory than the theory of God creating an earth with apparant age, but it also attempts to answer the questions. Both are better than just throwing out scientific facts. Thanks again. Greentwiga |
||||||
3 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141184 | ||
Let's not confuse things, please. It is one thing to take a measurement, such as the amount of c14 in the atmosphere currently, the amount in the various rings of a tree I just chopped down, and the amount in oil just pumped out of the ground. (none) It is another to debate the meaning of those measurements. The facts, the repeatable experiments can be tested. The meaning, whether you are convinced the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth is 6,000 or 5 billion years old is the debate on the interpretation. I clearly stated That I love to debate these interpretations or theories of science. Similarly, I believe in each and every word in the Bible. I will compare wild beasts to beasts of the field (Gen 1-3) and debate the meaning or interpretation of the terms. I will even accept two competing interpretations as equally likely. I will not accept one institutes interpretation of the Word just because they believe it, especially if other equally vaild interpretations also fit each and every word of scripture. The roadblock is not Creation as expressed in the Bible, but the very bad science some Christians use. Your last sentance is the one I wholeheartedly agree with. Science has even proven various facets of it. Greentwiga |
||||||
4 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141189 | ||
My point. We can't just attack one thing, carbon 14 dating and think the problem goes away. Let's focus on our strength, the Bible, debate the meaning of the word, and preach salvation. I just plead that we do not use bad science and make ourselves look like fools. Greentwiga |
||||||
5 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141197 | ||
My original objection had been to the misstatements about the facts of science. The age of the earth is based on interpretations of the facts. There may be strong support from a variety of lines of reasoning, but that just means the theory is strongly supported. Science is also useful to Christians. c14 dating, based on 4,000 year old bristlecone pines has done much to support the stories in Genesis. It is a great tool, but just a tool. We can't throw it out because it is inconvenient. The Bible is inspired. That does not mean my or your interpretation is inspired. Based on accepting each and every word, we can consider various interpretations. Based on accepting the facts, the data of science, scientists constantly debate their theories. After Einstein's theory of reletivity was accepted, the only one out to prove Einstein wrong was Einstein. The latest theories say he was right to say he was wrong. I would have made a fool of myself to weigh in on the debate. I therefore stick to the Bible rather than trying to look like a fool. greentwiga |
||||||
6 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141199 | ||
"It is said that no valid evolutionary scientist believes man evolved from a non-human life form. Yet evolution of man from an ooze of muck and mire is still in our textbooks, is still taught in our schools and colleges, still presented to the public as a viable answer to creation of man." Where do you get this???? Have you suddenly declared 99.99 percent of evolutionary scientists invalid? I know many and do not know any that disagree with the idea man evolved from a non-human life form. I do not say they are right, just that they all believe it with a very few exceptions. Your first paragraph is an interesting statement. I have no problems with it. The second and thord paragraphs are also very valid. The first sentance of the last paragraph has repetition of doubtful information. It is statements like that that I object to. Greentwiga |
||||||
7 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141200 | ||
There is a huge difference between unproven and unsupported. You make the theory sound unsupported. Notice also that the Bible only indicates it was about 6,000 years since Adam. What if the man in Genesis 1 was different from the man in Genesis two. If so, we can't say how old the earth was. This is just an example of how we might be relying too heavily on one interpretation. Do we also suppress other interpretations, just like we accuse the scientists of doing? Greentwiga |
||||||
8 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141243 | ||
Bad Bible interpretation has been corrected by Science. Bad Science has been corrected and now fits the Bible. Greentwiga |
||||||
9 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141244 | ||
Thanks for the clarification. | ||||||
10 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141605 | ||
Try this site: http://www.ebible.org/ Notice that it uses the Am Std 1901 and updates the readability. The Hebrew version that uses the real Hebrew names looks intriguing. Greentwiga |
||||||
11 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141612 | ||
I use a similar set of tools. Since my knowledge of hebrew is not much different than yours, I enjoy that sight that gives me young's literal translation. That is as close as I can come to the Hebrew. I do use the strong's exhaustive Concordance and the NIV exhaustive Concordance because I like to check on the original. Since I just found out about the youngs literal a month ago, I am delighted to add this new tool to my toolbox. Greentwiga |
||||||
12 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141622 | ||
I do not own a copy of a young's literal Bible. I go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ They have copies of almot every translation available. May you always be a Berean Greentwiga |
||||||
13 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141678 | ||
Thanks, looks great. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles look wonderful also. Greentwiga |
||||||
14 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141679 | ||
A couple of possibilities are http://www.auburn.edu/allenkc/rylt/rylt.html This gives a revised youngs but more modern language and http://www.e-sword.net/ You can download the Young's literal and another literal translation. ebay has a literal translation of the bible (young) on bid for 3 days more at 15 dollars. (5 bids already), type literal bible. Greentwiga |
||||||
15 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141858 | ||
What info besides what I had already put would you like to see? For years, I used the Nasb study Bible. It got me through Bible school and Mission work. Later, I switched (for some forgotten reason) to NIV and enjoyed it. Though it is not as word for word as NASB, with a concordance, I have done great Bible Studies. I was following information of Greek teachers when I said the old ASB was more literal than the NASB. I am willing to be wrong, though. Have you looked at Young's literal? It was written in the 1800, so the language is old, but it still seems to follow the Hebrew and Greek better than either the old ASB or the NASB. I have stumbled across a couple of other literals, but haven't looked at them. Though I personally would not use the Living Bible, I see why some do. The point is that people are without excuse to read the Bible, just as you said. One site I saw had the KJV and the NASB, both with the Strong's numbers for each word next to the word. At the rate I have been studying the book of Genesis, I seem to need that. Intense studying of the Hebrew has led me to some unique insights on some of the stories. One just has to believe each and every word and try to put them together so every word makes sense. greentwiga |
||||||
16 | Where did the Book of Mormons come from? | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141958 | ||
I don't remember how much of the original was left. I can't remember if it was Dr. Martin or another researcher on cults that did the research on handwriting. What was fascinating was meeting a Dr. Spaulding and working with him and hearing the family story directly. Some Joseph Smith just wrote directly, as need arose. I would imagine that Dr. Spaulding and Joseph Smith would have both quoted from the King James. Thanks for reminding me about Dr. Martin's Book, it has been so long since I read it. Greentwiga |
||||||
17 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141962 | ||
Wow! I was in Kenya Africa, working with Hindus and Muslims for only three years. Like you, I tend to avoid the commentaries and search for myself. A good study Bible with cross references is essential to me. I am using the NIV, but it is getting worn out. Know a good way to get it rebound in leather? I once had a NASB rebound by a monk. I am thinking about returning to the NASB. The updated version sounds great. I have strongs and the NIV exhaustive concordances. Otherwise, I am a voracious reader of the ancient cultures. This keeps my interpretations fitting the Bible and ancient societies. (eg. Gen 6 - sons of God marrying daughters of men.) I am just getting into some internet Bible resources, especially ones that look up phrases instead of just words. I used to own a greek english interlinear, but it was left in Kenya. | ||||||
18 | Where did the Book of Mormons come from? | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141989 | ||
This must have been the source of what I heard: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/spaulding.htm Nevertheless, some have continued to promote the Spaulding theory (e.g., see Holley). In 1977, graphologists claimed to have detected similarities between the handwriting of Spaulding and of one of the scribes who transcribed some of the Book of Mormon from Joseph Smith's dictation. After considerable media attention and further scrutiny, anti-Mormon spokespersons acknowledged that they had been too hasty. The handwriting evidence did not support a connection between Solomon Spaulding and Joseph Smith. The Question was, did they change their mind because of heavy pressure from the Mormons, to be politically correct, or because they had made a real mistake? The site also says: Hurlbut set out in the ensuing months to refute Joseph Smith´s claims for the origins of the Book of Mormon. He interviewed members of Spaulding´s family, who swore that there were precise similarities between Spaulding´s work and the Book of Mormon. If the family members swore then that there were the similarities, they would have passed the information down. If you hear the story from a dear trusted family member and a different one from the newspaper, which would you believe? I would believe the parent or grandparent. I don't think that contacting the family member would add anything. If you still want, email me. Greentwiga |
||||||
19 | Where did the Book of Mormons come from? | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 142047 | ||
I was quoting my friend and what I had heard about 1977. I had not quoted this site. I just found it when you challenged me. Thanks for updating my facts. I thought the infor was correct, but it had been changed (the handwriting) after I heard it. Since then, I have more focused on eastern religions to witness to them, and haven't kept up to date on Mormons. Greentwiga |
||||||
20 | "Seers" and how they saw | OT general | greentwiga | 145523 | ||
OK, I was just following the first persons terminology, not necessarily an official Office as such. My focus was on the words Chozen and Ra'ah, both meaning seer. Nabi means prophet, from to speak. There was also a category chalam, for the dreamer and his dreams. Though the outside world of Old Testament times is not inspired, it can help give us a flavor for how people saw things. Of course, the Old Testament Seer did not function the same as the other "seers" of other religions. Since there were good prophets and evil prophets (like of Baal) and good dreamers and evil dreamers, good seers and evil seers, the world and the Bible had some reason for lumping those people into similar categories. Where the Bible is silent, I do not mind looking at other sources for a flavor idea. Still, I do not want to argue about a point that I was not trying to make such as offices. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |