We have church teachings and church doings.
Both are important. Doings may be the best evidence of the validity of the teachings.
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
We have church teachings and church doings.
Both are important. Doings may be the best evidence of the validity of the teachings.
marhig
Well-known member
Well, they have statues and images in the churches and God said have none, not even the likeness of anything in heaven or on earth, they call their ministers father and Jesus says call no man your father on earth you have one father in heaven, they call themselves reverend and right reverend, the only one to be reverenced should be God. Some of them worship Mary, we are told nowhere to worship Mary, they allow gay marriage, yet homosexuality is a sin before God. God says we should not build up our treasures on earth, yet many churches have priceless artifacts and millions in bank accounts, but God said no man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to one and despise the other you can't serve God and mammon (worldly wealth) for we will love one and hate the other.
Many get paid for doing God's work and treat it as a paid job. We are to give freely as we receive, we don't share the word of God for payment. Jesus was dressed like any other man and shared freely what God gave him and the father gave him the increase, yet many of these ministers wear flowing robes, going higher and higher within their churches with people bowing down the them and reverencing them. God's true servants are unprofitable servants, sent by Christ to do the will of God and bare witness to the truth and they take the humble seat and the low way.
Now before I get attacked here by anyone for judging, these things are written in the Bible, and I believe it. The way of Jesus is a hard way, and God's people suffer persecution for speaking the truth. Jesus said my yoke is easy and my burden is light, but that means that God strengthens us to overcome when we turn from sin and our hearts are cleansed and this gives us peace in our hearts as long as we live by his will and suffer for Christ's sake, and he didn't put the burdens that the Jewish leaders put on their people. Jesus' way is simple, he showed us how to live and taught us the truth, and we are to follow him and live it in a new and living way before God. God forgives ignorance, but if we know it's wrong and we still do it then as disobedient children we are in danger of being on the receiving end of the wrath of God. But only God knows each of our hearts and he will judge all of us.
marhig
Well-known member
That depends if the church teachings are true to the way of Christ. And you will know God's true people by their fruits.
marhig
Well-known member
By the way, welcome back
6days
New member
Theistic evolutionists feel justified in misrepresenting others to lend credibility to themselves. Augustine's advice regarding old earth beliefs... "Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man"[/b]Barbarian said:
Augustine, like the apostle Paul and the early church fathers argued against old earthers (stoics and Epicureans)
The behemoth of Job 40 matches a reasonable and figurative description of a hippo.
The leviathan of Job 41 matches a reasonable and figurative description of a crocodile.
The text indicates both are water creatures, not consistent with that land-based artist rendition.
The fossil record is evidence in God’s creation that the early chapters of Genesis are not literal history.
The leviathan of Job 41 matches a reasonable and figurative description of a crocodile.
The text indicates both are water creatures, not consistent with that land-based artist rendition.
The fossil record is evidence in God’s creation that the early chapters of Genesis are not literal history.
Lon
Well-known member
As long as an artist is trying to portray what is described, it is worth a look. It'd seem this artist was thinking of a mammal. I don't think the cedar-like tail fits.
We don't find human and dogs buried together very often either.
I know AIG isn't 'reputable' to many who posture over this debate, but this is a good article for just thinking outside the proverbial box that isn't really supposed to exist in science. Here is another from Yahoo Questions that is voted best answer.
6days
New member
We agree... (finally!)2003cobra said:
Artificial selection (like natural section) is a loss of genetic diversity. As Carl Sagan's ex said 'selection eliminates, it does not create. (She was an evomutionary biologist). The loss of genetic diversity may produce desirable traits for the breeder, but the organism has a loss of fitness compared to ancestral stock. Ask breeders.
Loss of fitness (even in humans) is consistent with a perfect creation that has been subjected to entropy, pain, suffering and death.
It does seem strange, doesn’t it?
Greg Jennings
New member
No we don't find humans buried with dogs all the time (though it happens). What we find are bones around settlements. Trash heaps from old times. And there are never Dino bones there. There are plenty of dogs. Plenty of pigs. Cats. Bears. Lesser apes. Fish. Crocs. Snakes. And on and on and on.
But no dinosaurs
You should look in more detail at the claim of a cedar-like tail.
I saw no translations that claim the tail is cedar-like. The translations say the beast stiffens or sways or bends his tail like a cedar.
From the NAS:
17 "He bends his tail like a cedar;
And the Hebrew for bends and tail:
The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2654 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
#px a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Chaphets TWOT - 712,713
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
khaw-fates' Verb
Definition
to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
(Qal)
of men 1a
to take pleasure in, delight in 1a
to delight, desire, be pleased to do
of God 1a
to delight in, have pleasure in 1a
to be pleased to do
to move, bend down
(Qal) to bend down
NAS Word Usage - Total: 73
delight 15, delighted 7, delights 8, desire 9, desired 3, desired* 1, desires 5, favors 1, have any pleasure 1, have...delight 2, have...pleasure 1, pleased 6, pleases 7, take pleasure 1, take...pleasure 2, wish 2, wished 1, wishes 1
NAS Verse Count
Genesis 1
Numbers 1
Deuteronomy 3
Judges 1
Ruth 1
1 Samuel 3
2 Samuel 4
1 Kings 1
2 Chronicles 1
Esther 5
Job 4
Psalms 17
Proverbs 2
Ecclesiastes 1
Solomon 3
Isaiah 11
Jeremiah 3
Ezekiel 3
Hosea 1
Jonah 1
Micah 1
Malachi 1
Total 69
The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2180 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
bnz from (02179) (in the original sense of flapping)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Zanab TWOT - 562a
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
zaw-nawb' Noun Masculine
Definition
tail, end, stump
NAS Word Usage - Total: 11
stubs 1, tail 9, tails 1
It could say “wags his stump,” and I have seen hippos do that.
My preferred translation, the NRSV:
It makes its tail stiff like a cedar
I have seen hippos do that too.
No evidence of dinosaurs here.
Greg Jennings
New member
A cedar-like tail I think refers to the brushy tail, that would blow in the wind or be waved to ward of flies much like the tip of a cedar branch. Also, I don't believe cedars that enormous, but I could be wrong about that
From your AiG article Lon:
"The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures. Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. And that is the case."
Why? If it was a global flood, then the land animals would be completely represented. They would be the ones to certainly drown. Not the marine creatures
Derf
Well-known member
That's nice, but even biology-online.org gives 2 definitions. (You can tell by looking at your post, because the first one starts with "(1)".) Here's the other one (notice the "(2)"): (2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.
Your contention was this:
So, maybe creationists hacked their website or something. And maybe they hacked your post, too, so that your definition started with "(1)". You gotta watch those sneaky creationists.
But what about the other source you noted? Well, is it true that The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.? Read the quote again, and you will see the answer: it's in the title of Darwin's book. Darwin's theory, which livescience says is "the theory of evolution by natural selection" was not about some changes in a species, but about how species that didn't exist came to exist.
Your post exposes the equivocations that EVOLUTIONISTS use to persuade people of falsehoods.
Those aren't contradictory. The first merely gives the scientific definition, and the second gives the consequences. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. Speciation is a consequence of that change. Evolution can happen without speciation.
It cites Darwin's theory, (and says so) which is not current evolutionary theory. Darwin merely noted natural selection produced descent with modification. Modern evolutionary theory adds Mendel's discovery.
Which is true. But the proper scientific definition is the one I gave you. Has been since the "modern synthesis following the re-discovery of Mendel's work.
Several of those euphemisms in the OT — I like the one in Genesis 24 when Abraham’s “thigh” was held in an oath.
Lon
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Just trying to keep it honest and real with the speculative nature of both counts. "Possibly" is important to our discussion where 'all might happen in our open scientific inquiry.'