around 600 ad a man named muhammed created a book called the quran.
a few hundred years later the followers of this new religion called islam went on a holy crusade out of arabia to spread their religion.
in one key battle they were met by the ruling government army and were out numbered at least by 3 to 1. they could of easily lost and if god would of made sure of this most likely thier religion would of stayed an insagnificant religion of just arabia.
Some proofs for the irrelevancy of the god of the Bible:
1) Slavery was not condemned by him, so it took more than 1800 years to abolish it.
2) Science has disproved many Bible statements.
3) In general, the Bible followers have produced no peace in this world.
4) No unity exists in those who claim to follow the Bible.
5) No prophecy in the Bible is truthful, on the contrary, most of them are false.
it is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
Paul also contradicted the Law.
"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? [that is, to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead]. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach....",
Paul mutilated Deut. 30:12-14
"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it? But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it".
The latter is only saying that his (Moses) commandments are easy to obtain. They are not far off but as close as one's heart or mouth. Deut. says nothing about "faith."
It refers to seeking "it" and doing "it," not seeking "him" or doing "him."
It does not even imply Christ or Jesus, let alone mention him.
Deut. is referring to Penitence and is not about believing on or bringing down Jesus from heaven or up from the dead.
Deut. is saying that God wills us to repent of sin and that you may know when you have sinned. You have only to look at his law which is very close by.
the jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.
members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.
thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.
Jonathan Drake I currently doubt that Paul wrote the second letter to the church of Thessalonica, because it contradicts the first one, and as the priest Raymond Brown has noticed, the author tried to copy just exactly the same structure of the first letter.
in chapter 4 of luke it says jesus went into the wilderness and he ate nothing but fasted forty days and forty nights..
now i dont know about any of you but i once got on a 5 day liquid diet and only lasted 2 days.
i was so hungry that even when i fell asleep i started dreaming a hot brunette was handing me a couple of slices of pizza.
I have the answer: It did not happen. It was a tale that Luke took from a story teller, and the author of Matthew used too. Otherwise the earth would be flat:
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.... (Matthew 4:8)
before i get the "no it was not, because god does not exist and this is a writing of man", i am directing this discussion to those that either still believe, or need as many tools as possible to talk to a family member still in.. the purpose of my posting is to discuss what i believe to be a mistake on this book or, in the other hand, be corrected if i am not getting the entire picture.. in the book, chapter 19 "god's wisdon in a sacred secret", paragraph 10, it reads.... 10 second, the law thoroughly demonstrated mankinds need for a ransom.
a perfect law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully.
compare this with hebrews 7:11-12. jesus a priest like melchizedek11now if perfection was through the levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of aaron?
It was perfect for those men who wanted to have legal sex with more than one woman, but not necessary loving all of them:
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other....(Deuteronomy 21:15)
it is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
i found the following video not unbiased and with an agenda behind it.
however, i am mainly interested in the argument presented against "the law of superposition".
this law or principle is is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy which states that: .
i found the following video not unbiased and with an agenda behind it.
however, i am mainly interested in the argument presented against "the law of superposition".
this law or principle is is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy which states that: .
i found the following video not unbiased and with an agenda behind it.
however, i am mainly interested in the argument presented against "the law of superposition".
this law or principle is is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy which states that: .
i found the following video not unbiased and with an agenda behind it.
however, i am mainly interested in the argument presented against "the law of superposition".
this law or principle is is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy which states that: .
I found the following video not unbiased and with an agenda behind it. However, I am mainly interested in the argument presented against "The Law of superposition". This Law or Principle is is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy which states that:
Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.
However, the video uses particularly examples so as to invalidate this principle used for dating fossils. So my question is if you know of some reference which addresses this creationist argument?
