Man does not speak for God nor can man "harness" his powers. Anything that occurs through God is of his own will. You must be watching too much Benny Hinn...

What mankind does or does not do has nothing to do with God's original vision for Eden. God does not control man like a puppetmaster.

This is just silly. Are you purposely trying to derail the conversation? The Bible says man was created in God's image. If you take that to be a literal statement, then that is your business. No one can say what God looks like or what gender (if any) he is. I use the term "he" for God because it is a traditional reference among human culture. If you want to call him "she" or "it", be my guest. Save the images of giant testicles for the bathroom stall though, we are trying to have an adult discussion here.

KT- I may have misunderstood your first post. Now I'm thinking we're on the same side of this discussion.

edit: I just re-re-read your posts. My mistake. Sorry. :)

To support your theory, a day is not a fixed unit in time, it varies depending on your location in the solar system, galaxy, or universe.

To someone at the rim of the milky way counting days as the time it takes their star to orbit the center of the galaxy, a day would be measured in 10s of billions of years, and would be a perfectly correct measurement.

Also, doesn't the original hebrew really say "the earth was created in six periods of time". Translators picked the term "day" as a good approximation of "period of time".

All religions think they are the one TRUE religion, which makes me think that NONE of them are.

Correct.

Each "day" is not limited to any specific length of time.
We are talking about time indefinite, here.

Time we cannot describe or even understand.


KT

not true
no trees with fruit before stars were created

no world wide flood ever over topped the mountians

no high place to see the four corners of the world or all the nations at once

no stoping the sun in the sky so the battle can be won

and more then a few false Prophecies

lets take Prophecies in Isaiah

# God told Isaiah to tell Ahaz, the King of Judah, not to be concerned about Rezin (the king of Syria) or Pekah (the king of Israel). But according to 2 Chr.28:5-6 "God delivered him [Ahaz] into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter." 7:3-7

# The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. 7:14

# These verses falsely predict that Babylon will never again be inhabited. 13:19-20

# Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. 13:21-22

# This verse prophesies that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. Yet Damascus has never been completely destroyed and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. 17:1

# The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5

Assuming God is everywhere and in everything - maybe the Evolution according to Darwin is God´s creation too. Good ol´Charles merely happened to stumble on the work of God. Maybe God figured 'survival of the fittest / natural selection' to be an appropriate function on this planet.

Come to think of it - science in a broader perspective may just be God´s creations (us) back tracking and discovering His work.

Go figure..

I'm not going to debate every issue in the thread, but I do enjoy reading what is being posted.

I will say that, all the supposed contradictions can be explained in a reasonable matter.

PM's are always welcome ;)


KT

Except you never explained to me in a reasonable manner why the bible says that rabbits chew their cud...

Mike

I didn't know I was supposed to. Haha:D


KT

+ 10¹¹³... ;)

Good post!!


KT

I asked you this question in a thread months back and the answer you provided was not "reasonable".

There are many contradictions and errors in the bible. I was simply picking one of them.

Mike

Sorry?


KT

You made the statement in a thread a while back that the bible was scientifically accurate. I brought up the verse that mentions rabbits chewing their cud (they don't) and you were not able to reconcile that obvious scientific error in a reasonable manner.

Minor point, but a point nonetheless.

Mike

Interesting thread. More civil than usual.. I am not Catholic, nor to pretend to begin to understand Catholic dogma. But the last thing I read on the subject is that the Catholic Church does not take a position on the validity of evolution as proposed by Darwin and built on since. In the big picture God created every living thing - and if God used that process to get us where we are today - so be it.

The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4,_6; De 14:7) It should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses.

Even in the 18th century, English poet William Cowper, who had at length observed his domestic rabbits, commented that they “chewed the cud all day till evening.” Linnaeus, famed naturalist of the same century, believed that rabbits chewed the cud. But it remained for others to supply more scientific data. Frenchman Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90 percent of their daily intake. Concerning the hare, Ivan T._Sanderson in a recent publication remarks: “One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.”—Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114


KT

I believe threats of eternal damnation and prayers for divine assistence and intervention is, and has been throughout time, the fundamental core of many theologys- Christianity foremost.

The principle core of Christianity is that man sinned through the apple of knowledge, was thrown out of paradise, and man must spend a lifetime regaining that paradise.
If Eden was Gods creation and gift to mankind, then by that definition destroying nature is destroying God.

Sorry, the reference was cheeky, but was made to dispute the false premise that "humans" are any different from "animals".
-We share the bones/blood/hair/muscles and all other physical elements that comprise mammals: Ever hear of a pig heart transplant because of genetic compatability?
-We share the common actions of other animals: Maternal instinct, hierarchial competition, tool usage, verbal and unspoken language, and even(gasp) higher concepts such as mourning of the dead.
-If one put an upright chimpanzee and an exceptionally hirsuite retarded midget side-by-side, there would be little to identify as "unique", except perhaps a larger prefrontal cortex and brainstem connection point.

God is God, an ill-defined concept of an intellegent sentient being beyond reproach or comprehension, and any man who speaks for "it" is a liar.

And again, this is not "chewing their cud". A rabbit is not a ruminant. The bible is simply wrong.

Mike

I'll go on to say that any Christian that chooses their mate through a sexual selective process, or is involved in the educational selection process(school grading system), or any other selective process involving criteria is, in fact, participating in Darwinism.