Is this an idea of yours?
I've never heard of this before.
How could something that doesn't exist....
create itself?
How would you explain that?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Bible Study So, Is Science Wrong On This?
- Thread starter HeIsRisen2018
- Start date
I've never heard of this before.
How could something that doesn't exist....
create itself?
How would you explain that?
Hasn't God always been here since before time? How else would He have gotten here? Anyways, we're sort of getting off the subject though.
The above is from a temple in Cambodia built in about 1100 AD....Ta Phrom
The sketch is most probably NOT a dinosaur.
Do you believe dinosaurs lived in 1100AD?
And if not,,,HOW would the populace have known about them??
They didn't. It's a different animal.
Ta Prohm - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The article in Wikipedia suggests the picture is a rhino with a leafy background. Have you ever see a rhino or a leaf? This carving is not a rhino with leaves, unless it's very poorly done, which the quality of the other animal carvings refutes.
Apparently a stegosaurus did survived into 1100 AD, and someone carved its image into stone. Maybe this is a botched rhino, but you have only your outside prejudice to conclude that.
There's a large fish named the coelacanth. Many scientists said it had been extinct since the time of the dinosaurs (and that it was fish that was transitioning to walk on land). Then in the 20th century, it was found to be alive and well.
Luminous_Rose
CF Ambassador
The proof is the Biblical text. What other proof is there that is possibly needed? There are timelines that make sense from creation and onward. That seems to me to be sufficient.
I agree that God is Truth, there's no way around that one. If God is Truth then His words are Truth as well. Therefore, God is His word. That's how I'm seeing it.
Yes, this speaks about God and how He is one with his word. It seems plain and simple here to me. Yes, Jesus is also God, part of the trinity so if Jesus is also God, it's still God it's talking about and His word. Although, you have a good point, it does mention creating man in "our" image in Genesis as well.
I didn't see it as wrong to include a verse that related to what I had wrote about in my previous post. It fit into what I was saying, even though it wasn't Genesis.
There's no way to write down every single historical event, and many writings have been lost over the years. It's amazing how God's word has survived it all!
I believe that God spoke to the author of Genesis and included everything. I'm sure if there were more of great importance there then it would be included in the Bible. It seems like man has been able to write for a long time.
I didn't say you were any less, I am saying I simply don't understand the concept. I've never run into a Christian that didn't believe the Earth was young (6,000ish years old). It's foreign to me.
As you say God wrote the OT using human scribes. Genesis is written to impart the idea of a six day creation.
In the ten commandments there is the extraordinary sentence.
In six ways God made the heavens and the earth.
You are to work for six days and rest on the seventh.
If these plane statements are understood to mean something other than a six day creation, then scripture is being tested to make it say something else.
Agreed. It's never wrong to include supporting verses when discussing certain passages.
I was just wondering WHY you added that particular verse.
Thanks for explaining.
There are MANY Christians that don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.
There are Christians that believe in evolution.
It's all good...as long as we're Christian!
Are you saying that God dictated the Old Testament?
And you're saying that Genesis 1 is a history book?
Could you tell me the difference between the Old Testament
and the New Testament?
Is the New Testament a history book?
You're quoting Exodus 20:11
Do you think God needed to rest on the 7th day?
Or maybe they're not as plain as they seem to be......
Of course the Bible is a history book. Why would God tell us a pack of lies about how he created the world and why he was going to send Jesus.
I notice you don't try to answer the problem you have with genesis and exodus.
JohnDB
Member
The Bible is not a history book.
It is a book of theological truths that God wants us to understand that contains history.
Two completely different points of focus.
I have no problem with Genesis, Exodus, or any other book in the bible.
What I am saying is that the New Testament is history.
This is stated plainly by Luke in Luke 1:1-4
The O.T., OTOH, is not a history book, but a book God used to reveal Himself to us.
It has history included...for instance, the Wall at Jericho really did fall and this was discovered fairly recently, in the 20th century.
At the time of the O.T., the populations were worshiping more than one god. There was a god for everything.....
The Almighty God,,,the One that created the universe,,,,wanted to make it known that it was HE that was the One and true God. And so men were inspired to write down a lot of scripture to reveal that Do to the Hebrews and to us.
You could believe it's a history book if you want to,,,but it's not really correct.
Isn't technically speaking the Bible a history book when it comes to the library though? Or would that be considered reference?
If you're looking for the bible in the library,,,I believe there's a section for religion, and that's where it should be.
Otherwise, yes, reference would be good.
It would NOT be under history.
Adam was a real human, as was Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc etc on to Jesus and the apostles.
All recounted real events that happened in time.
That makes the Bible a history book.
Yes it is also a theological book. The two can be the same book.
History is nothing more than the feeling of what happened in the past.
Are the history books telling the story of the United States of America not history books because they do not cover the history of the African kingdoms in Central Africa or the rise of the mogol empire.
The OT tells a historical story of God's dealing with the Israelites and of how Jesus and some of the apostles spread the knowledge of Christianity.
In my opinion it is a history book, yes more than just.
I DID say that the N.T. is a history book.
Please explain the difference between the
OT and the NT if the old is not history and the new is?
I explained it before, but here it is again.
In his gospel, Luke tells us that he is writing history.
Luke 1:1-5
Remember that Luke also wrote Acts....
Acts is also history.
Luke is recounting actual events that really happened and
for which there were witnesses.
What do YOU think the difference is between the above and the O.T.??