[_ Old Earth _] Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red Sea

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Suppose this was an allegory God used to teach a lesson.

So...........now Abraham is not real?

So you think that God can't give us an allegory or a parable concerning real people? Among other things, that would require that Paul's testimony be wrong. You seriously think so? Now...........I've heard everything...

 

[Cygnus]

maybe he did

In your mind he had to.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Barbarian observes:
Suppose this was an allegory God used to teach a lesson.



So you think that God can't give us an allegory or a parable concerning real people? Among other things, that would require that Paul's testimony be wrong. You seriously think so? Now...........I've heard everything...

It seems to me that, today, more and more, people are reading the bible and if what they read seems hard to believe they make some sort of excuse as to why bible didn't mean what it said.

IF it doesn't fit with today's "Bill Nye" mantra or David Suzuki's opinion or Al Gores view of the future, then it's the Bible that is wrong.

This was predicted, was it not? That man would turn away from the truth and seek it's own explanations for what God has done and will do?

Man is so wise and so knowledgeable that his observations cannot be wrong. The men and women of this age are educated and knowledgeable and so wise that they could not possibly be in error.

So, armchair scientists and people who sit in a chair and watch tv documentaries, Netflix presentations and internet video's which shout the great "truth" of men..... turn away from the Biblical truth. Shun the word of God. Or explain away the scripture in order for it to mesh with this earthly view.

How blind are we folks?
How insulting are we, to our creator?
How perfectly have we been deceived by Satan? He has convinced us that the words of God could not possibly be true.
What was Satan's first lie....."Is that what the scripture said?"

Genesis 3King James Version (KJV)

3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?


2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:


3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

The first lie and deception, to humans, from the great deceiver was to question what God had said. He is still doing that today.

I am building my house on the ROCK of God's word. Others are building on the sand foundation of what Satan wants them to believe.

 

[Barbarian]

It seems to me that, today, more and more, people are reading the bible and if what they read seems hard to believe they make some sort of excuse as to why bible didn't mean what it said.

I notice that people who say this are always the people who try to add their own ideas to the Bible to make it fit their ideas. In fact, it's a complaint against people who point out that the Bible doesn't say what they claim it does.

IF it doesn't fit with the modern doctrine of creationism, then it's wrong. This was predicted, was it not? That man would turn away from the truth and seek it's own explanations for what God has done and will do?

Creationists are so wise and so knowledgeable that their observations cannot be wrong. The men and women of YE creationism are knowledgeable and so wise that they could not possibly be in error.

So, armchair scientists and people who sit in a chair and watch tv documentaries, Netflix presentations and internet video's which shout the great "truth" of men..... turn away from the Biblical truth, and embrace creationism. Shun the word of God. Or explain away the scripture in order for it to mesh with this earthly view.

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:


3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

The Serpent, it turns out, was the first Biblical literalist. He was the first to twist what God said about death, to mean a physical death. We know that can't be the case, since God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on for many years thereafter. Surely that was clear to Adam and his descendants, but the Serpent is still pitching that same argument today.

The first lie and deception, to humans, from the great deceiver was to question what God had said. He is still doing that today.

Yep. And he has still lots of people fooled.

I am building my house on the ROCK of God's word.

It appears you've built it on your word. Satan wants you to believe it isn't the way God said. Don't buy that story.

 

[Cygnus]

It seems to me that, today, more and more, people are reading the bible and if what they read seems hard to believe they make some sort of excuse as to why bible didn't mean what it said.

IF it doesn't fit with today's "Bill Nye" mantra or David Suzuki's opinion or Al Gores view of the future, then it's the Bible that is wrong.

The amazing thing is all these science guys say special creation or noah's flood didn't happen....BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST SCIENCE....but they can accept the resurrection of Jesus on day 3 where the same science guys say day 3 resurrection is scientifically impossible.

Go figure.

 

[Cygnus]

The Serpent, it turns out, was the first Biblical literalist. He was the first to twist what God said about death, to mean a physical death. We know that can't be the case, since God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on for many years thereafter. Surely that was clear to Adam and his descendants, but the Serpent is still pitching that same argument today.

My bible tells of an animal dieing in their place that day.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Serpent, it turns out, was the first Biblical literalist. He was the first to twist what God said about death, to mean a physical death. We know that can't be the case, since God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on for many years thereafter. Surely that was clear to Adam and his descendants, but the Serpent is still pitching that same argument today.

My bible tells of an animal dieing in their place that day.

Well, let's take a look and see what it says:

Genesis 3:21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

That's it. Nothing at all in the real Bible about an animal dying in their place. Another addition to scripture to make it fit the new creationist doctrine. This is why people don't think it's right. You have to keep making changes in the Bible to get it to fit.

Morever, it would still have God saying something untrue, if you want to make that death a physical one. God says Adam will die the day he eats from that tree. If it meant "physically die", then it would happen as God said, and Adam would have died physically that day.

But he did not. So we know it's not a physical death. Again, the only way your new ideas can work is by altering what the Bible says.

 

[Barbarian]

The amazing thing is all these science guys say special creation or noah's flood didn't happen....BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST SCIENCE....

More specifically because neither scripture nor evidence is consistent with your new interpretation.

but they can accept the resurrection of Jesus on day 3 where the same science guys say day 3 resurrection is scientifically impossible.

But science does not deny miracles. Since the text clearly shows that the resurrection was meant to be literally true, and science can't rule out miracles, we can safely believe it, just as we cannot logically believe in a world flood or poofing animals into existence by magic, since neither the text nor the evidence says so.

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian observes:
The Serpent, it turns out, was the first Biblical literalist. He was the first to twist what God said about death, to mean a physical death. We know that can't be the case, since God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on for many years thereafter. Surely that was clear to Adam and his descendants, but the Serpent is still pitching that same argument today.



Well, let's take a look and see what it says:

Genesis 3:21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

That's it. Nothing at all in the real Bible about an animal dying in their place. Another addition to scripture to make it fit the new creationist doctrine. This is why people don't think it's right. You have to keep making changes in the Bible to get it to fit.

Morever, it would still have God saying something untrue, if you want to make that death a physical one. God says Adam will die the day he eats from that tree. If it meant "physically die", then it would happen as God said, and Adam would have died physically that day.

But he did not. So we know it's not a physical death. Again, the only way your new ideas can work is by altering what the Bible says.

OK, skin an animal and let me know how it makes out.

 

[Cygnus]

Since the text clearly shows that the resurrection was meant to be literally true, and science can't rule out miracles, we can safely believe it, just as we cannot logically believe in a world flood or poofing animals into existence by magic, since neither the text nor the evidence says so.

The text in scripture in several places shows special creation and a world wide flood to be literally true.

You have already been presented with these verses numerous times....you then filter them through evolutionism...then deny them....then change the context of what the inspired writers told us and forced it into an old earth evo scenario.

 

[Barbarian]

The text in scripture in several places shows special creation and a world wide flood to be literally true.

I know you believe that those things happened, but scripture doesn't say that they did.

You have already been presented with these verses numerous times. You then add your own ideas to His word.

 

[Barbarian]

My bible tells of an animal dieing in their place that day.

Barbarian observes:
Well, let's take a look and see what it says:

Genesis 3:21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

That's it. Nothing at all in the real Bible about an animal dying in their place. Another addition to scripture to make it fit the new creationist doctrine. This is why people don't think it's right. You have to keep making changes in the Bible to get it to fit.

OK, skin an animal and let me know how it makes out.

I have. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you added "dying in their place that day" to scripture.

Morever, it would still have God saying something untrue, if you want to make that death a physical one. God says Adam will die the day he eats from that tree. If it meant "physically die", then it would happen as God said, and Adam would have died physically that day.

But he did not. So we know it's not a physical death. Again, the only way your new ideas can work is by altering what the Bible says.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Barbarian observes:
The Serpent, it turns out, was the first Biblical literalist. He was the first to twist what God said about death, to mean a physical death. We know that can't be the case, since God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on for many years thereafter. Surely that was clear to Adam and his descendants, but the Serpent is still pitching that same argument today.



Well, let's take a look and see what it says:

Genesis 3:21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

That's it. Nothing at all in the real Bible about an animal dying in their place. Another addition to scripture to make it fit the new creationist doctrine. This is why people don't think it's right. You have to keep making changes in the Bible to get it to fit.

Morever, it would still have God saying something untrue, if you want to make that death a physical one. God says Adam will die the day he eats from that tree. If it meant "physically die", then it would happen as God said, and Adam would have died physically that day.

But he did not. So we know it's not a physical death. Again, the only way your new ideas can work is by altering what the Bible says.

How foolish....

Of course the animal died in order for the shame of Adam and Eve to be covered.

Can you not see the parallelism of this? Adam and Eve sinned. In order for their sin to be covered something had to die, be sacrificed, blood was shed. The animals would have been pure perfect animals as this was so early in the creation of life.

Therefore a pure, innocent being died and it's life sacrificed it's blood spilled in order to cover the sin of man.....

Elementary. Foreshadowing the coming of the Christ to cover sin forever.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Barbarian observes:
Well, let's take a look and see what it says:

Genesis 3:21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

That's it. Nothing at all in the real Bible about an animal dying in their place. Another addition to scripture to make it fit the new creationist doctrine. This is why people don't think it's right. You have to keep making changes in the Bible to get it to fit.



I have. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you added "dying in their place that day" to scripture.

Morever, it would still have God saying something untrue, if you want to make that death a physical one. God says Adam will die the day he eats from that tree. If it meant "physically die", then it would happen as God said, and Adam would have died physically that day.

But he did not. So we know it's not a physical death. Again, the only way your new ideas can work is by altering what the Bible says.

My goodness..........I truly believe that if you stole from someone you could convince yourself that it was not a sin, not wrong, not theft but you just borrowed it forever.. and borrowing is not a crime.

My word...... I have never encountered someone who so desperately needs to have the bible twisted in order to explain away the facts and fit the scriptures to the "wisdom of men"...

 

[Barbarian]

My goodness..........I truly believe that if you stole from someone you could convince yourself that it was not a sin, not wrong, not theft but you just borrowed it forever..

If I did, that, I'd be thinking like a creationist. God says "you shall not steal"; if I was like a creationist, I could just add "but you can borrow it forever." As I told you, it's a bad idea to add to God's word. Once you start, who knows where you'll end?

Instead of twisting His word to fit the new doctrine of creationism, it's better to just take it as it is.

 

[Barbarian]

How foolish....

Of course the animal died in order for the shame of Adam and Eve to be covered.

Adam and Eve sinned. In order for their sin to be covered something had to die, be sacrificed, blood was shed.

But their sin wasn't covered. It remained, until Christ came to do that for us. If that is what happened, then God did not tell the truth when He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Don't add things to scripture.

 

[Edward]

How foolish....

Of course the animal died in order for the shame of Adam and Eve to be covered.

Can you not see the parallelism of this? Adam and Eve sinned. In order for their sin to be covered something had to die, be sacrificed, blood was shed. The animals would have been pure perfect animals as this was so early in the creation of life.

Therefore a pure, innocent being died and it's life sacrificed it's blood spilled in order to cover the sin of man.....

Elementary. Foreshadowing the coming of the Christ to cover sin forever.

That's the way I read it. Type & shadow of a sin covering.

It is true that Scripture doesn't say the animal died, but it's pretty obvious that it had to.

...and the Adam didn't die that day thing has been brought up before. I personally presume that it probably meant spiritual death...

 

[jasonc]

That's the way I read it. Type & shadow of a sin covering.

It is true that Scripture doesn't say the animal died, but it's pretty obvious that it had to.

...and the Adam didn't die that day thing has been brought up before. I personally presume that it probably meant spiritual death...

The hebrew tense is literally ,in dying you shall die.

 

[Barbarian]

The hebrew tense is literally ,in dying you shall die.

Yes, but in that day he died, as God said. Not many years later.

 

[turnorburn]

So...........now Abraham is not real? The father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, who became Israel? All not real? All a parable?

Now...........I've heard everything...

So, at what point does the parable end? Or is Joseph a parable too. Then the story of Moses, the exodus... just where does parable end and reality begin?

Maybe the whole OT is a big parable........How would we know?

We'll never stop hearing from the spirit of unbelief until Jesus returns and that option won't exist...