Christians

[jots]

Thank you Brugz! And right back at ya!

[zeg]

  jots said:

Funny how many of you put me into the catagory of a lunatic because I supposedly took the one scripture above as proof that God wrote the entire Bible. Did you just stop reading right there and not even notice the two supporting paragraphs of evidence within the Bible I provided to document my belief?

I didn't see any actual examples of the "pinpoint" accuracy you claim, just sweeping claims that it's there somehow. That's not true, or at least, no one has ever actually shown me a convincing example of this. Can you give us one?

  jots said:

So many of you here are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt, of belief in the big bang theory, evolution, etc. because of so-called scientific proofs. You have absolute solid facts therefore it has to be true. Yet you have absolute, solid, verifiable, documented proofs and facts of the Bibles authenticity yet you dismiss it as pure garbage. Talk about your hypocrites!

This could not be farther from the truth. I would not be the least bit surprised to find that we have major flaws in our understanding of the big bang, for example. However, it's the best working explanation of the early universe that we have, because it does the best job of tying together all our observations. And again, I don't know of anything verifiable from the Bible with respect to that. Again, I'm curious about what specific examples you have in mind.

  jots said:

In the final analysis, both of us could be wrong but only one of us could be right. If I am wrong, I have lost nothing.

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. You've only lost nothing if you haven't acted against your self-interest in the name of your belief. I don't know about your personal beliefs, but there certainly are faiths that do just this (Christian Scientists rejecting medical treatment, snake-handling Pentacostals, to name a couple of extreme examples).

  jots said:

Sorry post was so long, you can start revving your engines now and get ready to run over me again.

Not trying to run you over, just trying to fill up the hard drives over on Erik's servers...

[senorchipotle]

  jots said:

Personaly, I didn't need such proof when I came to Christ, I accepted Him by faith. However, as I have grown in understanding of the Bible, the utterly astounding evidence throughout Scripture with its pinpoint accuracy, in all the areas mentioned above in quote, prooves to me that God has to be the author as stated. I didn't need that proof but it just strengthens my faith even more.

absolute, solid, verifiable contemporaneous proof that jesus existed outside the bible? where is this stuff? you stand to make lots of money.

  None said:

So many of you here are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt, of belief in the big bang theory, evolution, etc. because of so-called scientific proofs. You have absolute solid facts therefore it has to be true. Yet you have absolute, solid, verifiable, documented proofs and facts of the Bibles authenticity yet you dismiss it as pure garbage. Talk about your hypocrites!

no, we're not all ''convinced'' because of so called scientific proofs. we're convince because you can walk into a freaking natural history museum and look at the progression of fossils over the past 3 million years that brought man from an upright tree dweller to what we are today. i have my degree in animal science, i understand how evolution happens. there is no ''belief'' as it were. you live in texas. hell, come to dallas one weekend and we'll go to the natural history museum and i'll tell you all about the evolution of man. and then i'll go to church with you one weekend. and then we'll play golf. seriously.

[jots]

  None said:

you live in texas. hell, come to dallas one weekend and we'll go to the natural history museum and i'll tell you all about the evolution of man. and then i'll go to church with you one weekend. and then we'll play golf. seriously.

Hmmm, I don't know about the golf part. I see the Tx A&M; emblem on your greenside avatar and I'm a bigtime Longhorn fan. That might get more heat than these posts!

Just Kidding,,,, maybe It's gonna be a while untill I can golf. I'm coming off knee surgery, that's why I have so much time on my hands to play on this forum. Believe me though, I can't wait to get out of this house!

[Fozcycle]

Yes, I am a Christian. I am an Episcopalian, but ever since the Gays & Lesbians took over the management of The Protestant Episcopal Church of America, I have sustained from attending regularly and filling their coffers with my hard earned money. Yes, I am still a Christian, just one who is not participating in corporate worship at this time.

I do not hate persons who do not follow the teachings of the Bible, where a marriage is between a man & a woman, not gays & lesbians, I remember I was tought to" Hate the Sin, but Love the Sinner".......


But more importantly ....in this Forum.....I am a Golfer!.......that is all that is required for acceptance here......I will not be prejudicial based upon your sex, color or creed......I don't really care to know it....I just ask that you respect the game of Golf as well as those that choose to pursue it.

[jots]

Very Good Post Foz! That sums up my feelings on all counts as well.

I have no doubt that if all who have posted on this thread lived in the same community, the majority of us could go out and play a round of golf together and get along just fine.

In my place of employment we have all kinds of differing lifestyles and beliefs, and sometimes, well rarely, we have spirited discussions as we have here, but through the years we have remained very good friends and would do whatever neccessary to come to one anothers aid if needed.

I'm not a fruit inspector, and there's no Christian check at the front door of church either. I can criticise the sin but not the sinner, if I want to do that then I need look no further than myself.

[nike_golf]

  jots said:

Very Good Post Foz! That sums up my feelings on all counts as well.

This is true. I have stated numerous times anyone can believe what they want. The religion discussion somehow has been brought up at my workplace on occassion and it was eye-opening to hear what some of my co-workers and some good friends' thoughts were on what they believe. It didn't change what I thought of anyone who had differing thoughts as I.

So yeah, as long as a person acts and treats me in a fair, and civil way, I will definitely treat them the say way. Except for that Butch Harmon. I don't know if I care for him much................

[jots]

  None said:

I didn't see any actual examples of the "pinpoint" accuracy you claim, just sweeping claims that it's there somehow. That's not true, or at least, no one has ever actually shown me a convincing example of this. Can you give us one?

Here ya go Zeg. I don't really want to take the time looking up reference and posting it all on here, besides I am starting to get a little burned out with all this. I very seldom post on message boards anyway. So I will offer these resources if you want to check them out. I'm sure there are more, these are just two in my possesion that I don't have a problem reccommending.

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell "The Signature of God/The Handwriting of God" Grant R. Jefrey A simple search on the internet turned up these sites. I gave a brief look and both look reasonably good to me. I'm sure anyone who really wants to know for themselves could find more. http://www.newcreationstudies.org/NewCreation/proof.htm http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

[kfowler]

What internet sites are you guys using on a regular basis?

One of the main ones I use is Bible Gateway.com . One thing I really like about this site is you can switch easily from one version to the next. It also has decent commentary.

Another great site I recently found is ewordtoday . They have a plan to read the Bible in one year. The cool thing is you can do it chronologically from when events happened. For instance. It starts out with Genesis and then switches to Job since Job lived before Abraham. Then it switches back to Genesis. A cool way to read it.

[Phil McGleno]

  jots said:

besides I am starting to get a little burned out with all this. I very seldom post on message boards anyway.

No kidding. You came to a golf forum and 12 of your 12 posts are in this thread. Unreal.

As for the links:

  None said:

The Bible is accurate in dealing with external matters. It is accurate in its record of archeology and natural science.

Uh, right... so where are the dinosaurs? The early humans which were not built or shaped like we currently are? How about something as simple as Pangaea?

  None said:

The proof that the Bible is the word of God comes from its internal contents.

See above: "circular logic."

Seriously, this is what you come up with? Besides, nobody's even really debating that the people couldn't record things that happened during their time, but clearly they leave out massive parts and still others actually believe women were turned into pillars of salt, a guy nearly killed his son, a guy floated around on a boat while another survived in the belly of a whale... etc. And seriously, jots, do you even play golf or are you just here to spread the word or something?

[retexan599]

  Fozcycle said:

Yes, I am a Christian. I am an Episcopalian, but ever since the Gays & Lesbians took over the management of The Protestant Episcopal Church of America, I have sustained from attending regularly......

Presumably you mean

abstained and not sustained ...I am in the same boat, looking for something orthodox I can live with...

[jots]

  Phil McGlenno said:

No kidding. You came to a golf forum and 12 of your 12 posts are in this thread. Unreal.

Check my join date genious. If I would have "come here just to spread the word or something" I would have done it a month ago.

  None said:

Uh, right... so where are the dinosaurs?

How many times do you want me to repeat myself? I have already answered that. Can you answer this from the website link without making me laugh again?

"What is surprising is that human footprints are fossilized in the same rock stratum, with some of the human tracks fossilized as actually stepping into the dinosaur tracks." "According to evolutionary theory, dinosaurs died out 60 million years before man, with his distinctive footprint, walked on the face of the earth. But here is a fact, preserved in stone for anyone to see, proving that man and dinosaur lived at the same time."

[Brugz7]

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/gene...the-bible.html

If you do your research, you will see that the word "dinosaur" was not created until 1841. The King James Version of the Bible was created in 1611. This was 230 years before the word "dinosaur" was created, so you can't expect to find the word "dinosaur" in the Bible.

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars of the stream surround him. When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, and trap him or pierce his nose?" -- Job 40:15-24

To me, that definitely sounds like a dinosaur..

[senorchipotle]

  jots said:

"What is surprising is that human footprints are fossilized in the same rock stratum, with some of the human tracks fossilized as actually stepping into the dinosaur tracks."

have you ever seen a human foot that looks like that? cause i surely have not. these are not human footprints at all, nor of any humanoid creature, they are way too big and misshapen. even most ''creation scientists'' have abandoned this hypothesis. if you need more proof: The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not. For example: Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Hastings 1987; Kuban 1989). Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting. Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985). The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it (Schadewald 1986). this is a quintessential case of creationist willful ignorance and dishonesty.

[senorchipotle]

  Brugz7 said:

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars of the stream surround him. When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, and trap him or pierce his nose?" -- Job 40:15-24

mammoths lived until about 4,500 years ago. this is likely a description of such an animal. if you honestly think that man walked amongst dino's such as t. rex, spinosaurus and the other saurichians, and is not extinct, you are seriously in a state of denial.

there are close to 700 named species of dinosaurs. don't you think that if they were walking all over the place there'd be more than one paragraph about them?

[Shanks A Million]

  senorchipotle said:

mammoths lived until about 4,500 years ago. this is likely a description of such an animal. if you honestly think that man walked amongst dino's such as t. rex, spinosaurus and the other saurichians, and is not extinct, you are seriously in a state of denial.

Have you seen the very well preserved Mammoths that have been found in Siberia? They literally look like they lived yesterday. Truly amazing.

I think most of the Christians here are in denial. They actually believe the bible is the literal truth, and that it is somehow connected to God. It's not, it's a book that was written hundreds of years before, and after Jesus lived, and the only claim to the contrary comes from the writers of the book themselves. Again, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Shanks A Million]

  Fozcycle said:

Yes, I am a Christian. I am an Episcopalian, but ever since the Gays & Lesbians took over the management of The Protestant Episcopal Church of America, I have sustained from attending regularly and filling their coffers with my hard earned money. Yes, I am still a Christian, just one who is not participating in corporate worship at this time.

Glad to see bigotry and hatred is alive and well in those who supposedly follow the teachings of Jesus, who preached tolerance and acceptance.

[zeg]

  jots said:

Here ya go Zeg. I don't really want to take the time looking up reference and posting it all on here, besides I am starting to get a little burned out with all this. I very seldom post on message boards anyway. So I will offer these resources if you want to check them out. I'm sure there are more, these are just two in my possesion that I don't have a problem reccommending.

Thanks for the links. I've looked over the first one so far and have to say it's not terribly convincing. Senorchiptle already commented on the "dinosaur" bit. That one has been pretty completely discredited. I've seen similar articles before, and there's nothing in there that stands up to critical scrutiny. Just off-hand:

  None said:

Rocks are usually dated by the kinds of fossils found in them or in rock layers near them. The age of a fossil is determined by its complexity - simple fossils are assumed to be old, and complex fossils are assumed to be more recent. "The fossils speak of evolution because they have been made to speak of evolution" (p.96).

Dating rocks based on the fossils they contain may sometimes be done, but it's not used in the circular way that this reference claims. In many locations, geological strata show clear changes in the sorts of fossils as you start near the top (last layer put down) and dig deeper (back in time). Once you've established trends like this, they can be useful to date other rocks, but you've already established the trend.

  None said:

Mutation, the mechanism upon which evolution depends for one form to evolve into a higher form, is always harmful rather than helpful."... a truly beneficial mutation... has yet to be documented" (p.56).

Patently not true.

  None said:

Even a simple cell could not have been formed by the mechanics of random action in 30 billion years (p.62).

Not true.

  None said:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything in the universe is tending toward decay, or disorder. For instance, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, each year it takes the earth a small fraction of a second longer to make its annual revolution around the sun. The Second Law also applies to living systems. Because the Law forces all things toward decay or degeneration, it is impossible for there to be any long-term upgrading from lower life forms to more advanced forms. "We are warranted, then, in concluding that the evolutionary process . . . is completely precluded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics" (p.45).

This is a ridiculous, childish misunderstanding of thermodynamics. I'd be happy to explain what's wrong with it, but this is probably not the place for it.

Since starting this post, I had a look at the second link briefly, and it seemed to be concerned with establishing that various things described in the Bible have archaelogical evidence. That's fine, I don't doubt that the book has some grounding in truth. I don't even particularly doubt that Jesus and other figures existed. But that doesn't establish its divinity, and really, those posts don't come close to establishing it as accurate or even consistent with astronomical or prehistorical record observations and scientific knowledge.