Results 21 - 40 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205407 | ||
Dear neilW, Try googling Dr. Kent Hovind - he has a dinosaur park in Florida (some controversy there, but he is a Christian, probably under attack). Kent Hovind is a biologist and anatomist who has put together about 36 hours of video seminars on debunking an old earth and evolution. He targets the science of these theoriess and shows the fallacy and errors in the evidence for an old earth while presenting scientific explanations for a young earth while he uses the Bible as a guide. Very interesting stuff indeed. I urge anyone who reads this post to check out what he is saying, never heard anything like it. He does not hold the popular well known young earth theories that abound, he has his own. Some of what he says is off about the Bible, but not much of it is off, only a little. Dr. Kent Hovind has his own theory about the creation and God which he says is based off scripture and scientific evidence. I do not agree with everything I heard him say either because he believes the angels were created at the same time as earth, discounting Job who describes them as crying out and singing at the creation of earth and the universe. I think he makes some valid holes in an Old Earth view. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
22 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205408 | ||
continuation, Tamara 1) The moon used to be closer to the earth and if this happened millions and millions of years ago the tide would have been so high that the life the scientist say existed then could not have survived because the tidal pull of the moon would have been too great. The rate at which the moon is moving only supports about 6,000 to 8,000 years of movement from the earth starting at place at which the moon would not have been pulled to the earth. 2) If the earth is millions of years old the pressure of the oil against the surface of the earth would have cracked the earths crust by now and spread over the top of the earth. 3) The current Big Bang theory cannot be true because there are galaxies, moons and planets that are spinning in the wrong direction for that theory to be true, the Big Bang states that everything spun out with centrifugal force in one direction, but it has been proved that celestial bodies are spinning the wrong way, this finding goes against some of the laws of thermodynamics. 4) It was possible for creatures and man to live to very long ages, if not indefinitely, and to grow to huge heights as men and animals have been found to be in great dimensions in skeletal remains by virtue of a huge earth wide hyper-baric chamber which would filter out the harmful rays of the sun and prevent aging altogether. 5) Contrary to scientific speculation coal which is from dead plants formed not due to millions and millions of years but due to the flood damaging and killing the vast amount of plants and trees that were huge which populated every end of the earth. 6) There were no caveman ancestors of men, if anyone were to live for two hundred or more years their face bones would grow just as has been found in cromagnun and neanderthal because everyone's face bones grow at a very slow rate outwards. 7) The ice age is possible to have occurred shortly after the flood and not millions and millions of years ago, the arrow heads that were found in the ice may have come from tribes of humans following herds of animals and they might have made their weapons in a hurry as they moved from site to site rather than that they were primitive people who had not evolved. 8) There is no such thing as prehistoric life, only pre-flood life, everything was bigger due to the hyper-baric chamber that had not fallen to earth before the flood took place. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
23 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205409 | ||
continuation 2, Tamara 9) If the universe is millions and millions of years old then there should be a whole lot more supernova rings to support that theory but there aren't. 10) There were reports from scientists, missionaries and village people in the last century of dinosaur like creatures in and along the Amazon river which is largely uncharted in terms of wildlife and is 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. 11) The danger of evolution to society is the genocide of millions of people for racial and ethnic cleansing. 12) Radioactive carbon dating is not accurate because the carbon breaks down every 5, 730 years and then again in the next 5, 730 years and on and on turning back into regular nitrogen and the scientist measure the carbon in the air assuming that there is the same amount inside living beings without having ever measured it in living beings to be able to compare that to what should be found in ancient samples of things that once lived. 13) Paralax trigonometry is only able to measure things that are 100 light years away and scientists are only speculating that the stars and galaxies are billions and billions of light years away. They can't even figure out if light is a particle, a photon, or a wave and not having defined for sure what light is can't accurately measure it. Studies have shown that light can be stopped and that the speed of light has decreased over the last 150 years measuring it against the atomic clock and it is not constant as has been purported. The black hole theory states that light can be pulled in by gravity a theory that has not been proved. Therefore light cannot be an indication of the age of the universe. 14) A human footprint was found on top of a trilobite making the theory that these creatures existed millions of years before man obsolete. 15) Core samples of ice rings at Artica were found down to 10,000 feet supposedly representing annual rings, but a plane crashed there in 1935 and was found under the ice at 260 feet and there were many hundreds of rings formed in 48 years making ice dating obsolete. 16) Tree ring dating is not accurate because trees can form up to two rings a year and the oldest tree on earth is only 4,300 years old, which corresponds with the age of the flood. 17) 85 percent of the earth contains only three areas which have the geological strata of the supposed millions of years ages and the evidence does not support from geology that the earth is millions of years old based on so little evidence not supported by the rest of the earth which supposedly changed over and over all at the same time. Scroll down past the stuff to buy to the free download http://www.biblebelievers.com/hovind/ Seminar notebook http://www.mininova.org/tor/761982 Movie download http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3494191/Creation down dash Seminar down dash up dash down dash Kent down dash Hovind down dash DivX Official Dr. Hovin Site Seminar Series 17 hours of downloads http://freehovind.com/download Dinosaur Adventure Land http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/aboutDAL.php Agape, Tamara |
||||||
24 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205412 | ||
continuation, Tamara I like his theory that the reason there is a fossil record of less complex found in rock strata the very bottem of the strata and complex animals at the top of the last strata, that scientists call the Mesosoic age and so on, is becuase when the flood came the fastest forms of life ran up hill and up mountain and the simpler forms of life were left down at the bottom at the time of the flood... Like I said, interesting stuff there, makes you think about the scientific possibilities for a young earth based on science and the Bible. Hey, we always said that the Bible did't contratdict science didn't we! Hahahahahah Love all of you muchly, hat lady! Hahahahahah |
||||||
25 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205413 | ||
continuation, Tamara I like his theory that the reason there is a fossil record of less complex found in rock strata the very bottem of the strata and complex animals at the top of the last strata, that scientists call the Mesosoic age and so on, is becuase when the flood came the fastest forms of life ran up hill and up mountain and the simpler forms of life were left down at the bottom at the time of the flood... Like I said, interesting stuff there, makes you think about the scientific possibilities for a young earth based on science and the Bible. Hey, we always said that the Bible did't contratdict science didn't we! Hahahahahah Love all of you muchly, hat lady! Hahahahahah |
||||||
26 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205572 | ||
Dear Jim, Hi there guy! We have to accept first what scripture said, scratch our proverbial heads a bit and then try to make sense of what the words meant to them when it was wriiten to them, not what it means to us reading it now. Fact - Jesus said Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days and three nights, that makes that part fact, right? Fact - Jesus said He too would be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, that makes that part fact, right? Okay now turn to Mark 15:42-47 - Jesus was buried the day before Sabbath could begin, the Sabbath begins on Saturday, so Jesus was buried on Friday. Look down at Mark 16:1-6 - Mary and the women came on the first day of the week to anoint Jesus and get told, He is risen that morning of the first day of the week. That is Jesus in the tomb before the sun went down - Now, see John 18:28 - The Jews wanted to hurry up and get Jesus crucified before sundown so they could eat the Passover with clean hands. So Jesus was crucified before the sun went down on Friday and got up sometime early Sunday morining that is a fact. But you have to look at the fact of that time frame of from Friday evening to Sunday morning and realize Jesus could not be mistaken about it being three days and three nights no matter how it looks. So the question is never did He get crucifed on Thursday (did not say you said that), He did not the text shows He did not. The only possible question there could be is what did Jesus mean by three days and three nights? It has to be exact, but it also has to fit the real time frame of being somehow not three full days, right? It is exact and it does fit the time frame. Here is why... The New Testament is written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Whatever the Aramaic word for day that Jesus used Mathew knew what He meant by the word day. Mathew chose a word, the Greek word Hemera, number 2250 in the Strong's - it's actualy translated as literally - the time space between light and dark, or the whole twenty four hours, figuratively a period of time as any part of a day. So if you look at that very real definition there is no reason why we can't understand what Jesus was really saying in light of what really happened. What Jesus actually was saying was accurate when you factor in that what He meant was figuratively a period, not twenty four hour periods. This issue is about a figure of speech, it has to do with the use of the word Hemera as being it's last listed meaning - a figurative period. You are wondering what in the heck I am saying by now aren't you because it does not seem to add up yet does it? Here is what we now have to turn to to understand how Jews calculated time in Jesus day. This is fact, not speculation, not conjecture, the Jews did count any part of a day as constituting the whole day, this is an historical fact. When we go back to the beginning, Moses uses the word Yowm in Genesis to describe a day. The definition of Yowm number 3117 is - the warm hours, from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next, or figuratively a space of time. When Moses used the word he meant night and day a twenty four hour day, but the word can mean a figurative space of time as any part of that day as well. Let's look at Mathew 17:23 and they will kill Him and He will be raised on the third day." Again Jesus uses the word Hemera as that any part of each of the three days constitutes a day unto itself and therfore it is correct that He rose on the third day whether they were three twenty four periods or parts of days. Mark 4:35 the word Hemera is used to describe part of a day - On that day, when evening came, etc. That the word Hemera can mean part of a day and not the whole day is not an idiom as John Gill purports but is a correct translation of the word Hemera as used by Jesus to mean part of a day as being one day. It is not about what scripture can intrepret that three days and three nights means 24 hours, 2 minutes, and 72 hours. It is about that Jesus meant part of one day as counting for a full day according to the Greek meaning of the word Hemera. Hope this helped, Tamara |
||||||
27 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205632 | ||
Dear JIM, I hear you loud and clear, but then what is your account for the time? Are you saying this was a Thursday crucifixion? Help me to understand please what you mean and not what I think.. God Bless, Tam |
||||||
28 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205639 | ||
Dear Cheri, You spelled everything real good Cheri as to how things work! Could you explain more according to this that you have written about the actual timing of this thing? Need help understanding. I realize you might be at work, get back when you can Cheri... God Bles, Tam |
||||||
29 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205643 | ||
Dear Cheri, I agree the substance of the thing is the most important part above the consideration of timing here or trying to understand what Jesus said and what it meant. Here is a question about that timing and explanation you got there... If any part of a day constitutes a day, then why could it not be that; He was crucified Friday morning before the Saturday Sabbath begins, dies before sundown and is buried before 7 at night. He is in the grave by 7 on Friday night when the Sabbath begins counting as day one. He lays in the grave all Saturday and this counts as day two. He lays in the grave through 7 on Saturday night which counts as the beginning of day three and therefore this counts as one whole day. He gets up sometime before Mary arrives still in day three. In this way because any part of a day constitutes a whole day He indeed stays in the grave three days and three nights because any part of a day counts as one twenty four hour period? I don't know what you think of this and please like others in here that mean no harm, but don't understand why I always seem to say something different than what is presented to me, please don't take this as disputing your point or arguing or disagreeing. I am only trying to understand you, but also to see what the Bible actually meant to say... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
30 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205681 | ||
Dear Jim, Thank you for your kind remarks I look forward to learning from everyone here. I will think about your take on things... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
31 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205833 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Thank you... You said; Claiming to be a Baptist is like claiming to be an American. There are as many denominations among the Baptists as there are subcultures within America. There are Southern Baptists, Cooperative Baptists, Free will Baptists, Anabaptists, Independent Baptists, American Baptists, and on and on. Yes claiming to be a Baptist is like claiming to be an American, but my question was about the specific question of why some Baptist churches whatever their practical bent may be, use creeds and confessions. After all the Roman Catholics aslo do this, but where theirs may go beyond Sola Scrtiptura as the traditions of men, my questions centers around why some Baptists use the traditions of men as the creeds and confessions are... Taking into consideration that they may be based on Sola Scriptura. And in light of that it would not really matter what kind of Baptist I claim to be, but why other Baptist denominations use confessions and creeds... Could someone elaborate for me why some Baptist churches are not inculcated with the various protestant confessions of faith and some are? What would you say about a Baptist church that is not inculcated with these confessions, but goes by Sola Scriptura alone? Thanks for the help quvmoh, Tamara |
||||||
32 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205882 | ||
Dear hopalong, Good answer! But tradition is traditon and not Sola Scriptura! So then why in the world would any of us go around submitting to any traditions even if they are Protestant, like the Westminster confessions and the Baptist Creeds my friend?! The question stands; why do certain Baptist churches go around following the traditons of men, even if those are Protestant creeds and confessions if we are adhering to Sola Scriptura? Do you see the problem yet? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
33 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205887 | ||
Dear hopalong, Creeds and Confessions no matter how well grounded in scriptures are still the traditions of men! I will see AA Hodge, thank you.. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
34 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205889 | ||
Thanks hopalong | ||||||
35 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205896 | ||
Dear BradK, Thank you Thank you Thank you! Yes! I want to learn more! I am thirsty! Thankyou This is what I needed to know about creeds and where it all fits in. Thanks for being patient... God bless, Tamara |
||||||
36 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205906 | ||
Dear BradK, Thanks again! God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
37 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205907 | ||
Dear BraK, Thanks yes it does... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
38 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205908 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Yes I have always agreed with this and still do... I was taught Sola Scriptura in church without ever knowing or hearing the term! I do believe that inconsistent theologies come about because the exegesis was never done properly - 1)the intent of the author to his audience and what he wrote as it had to have been understood has been tossed aside in favor or how modern society functions in order to make it "relevant to today". 2)the structure of the grammar and the meaning of the words and phrases are restricted to their English transliterations and the true thrust of all these is missed because the Greek and Hebrew were not looked at. 3)the type of Biblical literature being looked at is not read with for what it is; prose, narrative, history, epistle, etc., and then it has not been studied in light of what kind of features and literary devices that those types of literarture contains. 4)problem areas in the Bible which happen when what was being practiced as normal and known as common in the first century have no comparable equivalent in the twenty-first century because the things described in the Bible no longer occur and which appear to have no practical application for today (II Timothy 3:16 - all scripture is profitable) have not been examined properly to determine what the essence of the teaching is that should be applied today (made relevant to today) without changing, destroying, transforming or otherwise distorting the original intent and meaning of the text. 5)a pre-existent theology from today or through out the ages has been imprinted on one's understanding of the meaning of the Bible's theology from the first century changing how the author intended the text to be understood and used. I agree whole heartedly of Sola Scriptura, which is the literal intrepretation of the Bible, however, there is no such thing as just leaving the interpretation standing there - it has to be applied in order to be effective now, and in every time, and the application has to be from the literal interpretation of the Bible and be able to address what life is like today because the Bible is always relevant. What I have been saying all day long is that there has to be an effort made to take first century applications that could only have applied to first century settings and make them be applicable to today by taking their essence without losing the original intent and "making it relevant to today". But I am not talking about liberation theology or the Jesus movement as I despise these two things; the one is theolgoy from the bottem up - taking the problems of society and making a stunted theology out of finding a solution to today's problems by looking at and twisting only parts of the Bible, and the other is to distort the person of Christ and to "remake the Bible and make it relevant to today" by giving it an iterpretation the author never intended. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
39 | This is a prophecy right?? | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 204896 | ||
Dear LightVskira, You are welcome to particiapte here as long as you follow the guidelines of this site, I say this in love with respect. One of the guidelines of this site is that you will adhere to Sola Scriptura. This means that you will stick to a literal intrepretation of the Bible and not symbolize things and intrepret things in the Bible as symbols of things they are not. Your verse Jeremiah 3:8,9 is talking about the Servant the Branch, which was a term used in the Old Testament to refer to the Messiah by the Jews. Then you have the stone, which the Lord said He would engrave an incription on it, which the Bible never tells us what that was and we do not know what it is from studying the Bible to this day. In your original question you state that you have a box with precious 7 stones in it that have eyes of light. I am going to ask you point blank; what is the significance of these precious stones to you? Are you speculating and drawing a parellel between these 7 precious stones with eyes of light to the 1 stone in Jeremiah with seven eyes on it? This is not in keeping with the agreement you signed in particapting here. The Bible does not teach that people are to have a box of 7 stones with eyes of light as a kind of precious reminder or as a relic or an icon because Jeremiah had 1 stone with 7 eyes of some kind that we are unable to discern what kind of eyes those were that God was going to inscribe something we don't know about on it. Which box where you referring to that has water to heal people? Which book, which verse? You believe you are from the tribe of Judah. No one today has proof which tribe of the Jews he is from if he claims to be a true Jew. The records of who was a true Jew and what tribe a true Jew was from perished in the fire that destroyed the temple at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and there is no longer any record other than the Bible of who was a Jew and what tribe they were from. The last record in the Bible that we have of who belonged to what tribe is that of Paul who was of the tribe of Benjamin. That is the last record that exists to this day. No one can truthfully make the claim that they actually belong to the real tribe of Judah anymore. Why have you made this claim? Those who believe in Jesus who is of the tribe of Judah cannot now claim that they belong to the tribe of Judah, or what some like to say is the Lost Tribe of Judah. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
40 | This is a prophecy right?? | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 204897 | ||
continuation We here at the forum are very familiar with those who call themselves Black Hebrews and make claims not supported by the Bible that they are from the tribe of Judah. I am not saying this is who and what you are, I am not pointing a finger at you and saying this is why you make the claim that you do. I am new here, there are others here who have been here for a long time and they are watching and reading everything that comes through this forum and are very carefull about not tolerating any breaking of the guidelines for good reason. You have made a claim that is pure speculation on your part that is not in keeping with Sola Scriptura, the literal interpretation of the Bible. And you have talked about a practice of having a box with precious stones with eyes in them as if perhaps this somehow relates to Jeremiah 3:8,9.] You also made a comment about not wanting to associated with those who have lived sheltered lives. There is not such thing as anyone on earth who has not sinned, been harmed by sin, suffered pain and loss and death, no one is untouched no matter if they were in the Bible their whole lives, they are not sheltered from life. I myself am a poor uneducated woman who has suffered for various reason for 39 years. That is not a badge you wear because you are unsheltered, no one is sheltered. You talk about not wanting to talk to Bible thumpers. Anyone who believes that the Bible is without errors, see II Peter 1:19-21, belives that everything it says is true. Here is something for you; Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who probably had an olive complexion and he was from the tribe of Judah by genetics, not beliefs. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin and the mob of Jews from various tribes and died and rose from the dead on the third day. He died for all men, He said to and Paul said so; John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up will draw all men to Myself. Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. Jesus died for all men, not just the tribe of Judah, he told Paul to go preach to the Gentiles and offer them salvation. The Gentiles were not Jews of any tribe and Jesus said He was dying for them as well as for the Jews. I would suggest that you study the Bible closely to see what it says and attempt no to interpret it as symbols and instructions to live according to symbols and tribes and stones with eyes. Doing those things is treading into pagan idol worship. I have given you the gospel here, I think you should think about whether or not you have accepted the gospel that Jesus really preahced and taught and that the apostles really preached and taught. God's day to you, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [14] >> |