Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote: Just because you make it into a contradiction does not mean what you are implying is correct.

ME!! Are you under the impression that I wrote the Bible???? That I put the contradictions into the Bible? Like it or not, the contradictions are there. Look 'em up.

The bible was written by 53 men over a span of about 2500 years and they did not know each other,they lived at different times,in most cases.

So what? Are you saying the Bible is therefore untrustworthy because of this fact? Because that's what you seem to be implying. In any case, it's an old, but good point you bring up. If the Bible can be wrong in at least one place it can certainly be wrong in many others, even very crucial places. There's... no... way... of... being... sure.

And they don't change the truth of God's word at all.

Well then something's amiss because

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.

and

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.

can't both be some kind of God's true word. One or both have to be a mistake or a lie.

What you've overlooked though is how the books of the bible all fit together kind of like a jigsaw puzzle and when put all together gives us a better picture than if we only had one book,etc. Put it all together and study it and you get better understanding and it is a miracle that these books were written by 53 men over a span of about 2500 years,not living at the same time and places and not knowing each other yet they all go together like a jigsaw puzzle.

And if you were familiar with the construction of the Bible you'd be aware that one of the primary considerations for the inclusion of various writings was their confirmation of one another. Those that were found to be unfit---often because they failed to support the theology demanded at the time---were scrapped. As subsequent Biblical scholarship grew, changes in the scripture were made here and there to fit the current needs of the church. Just look at all the various interpertations given to the Hebrew ra in Isaiah 45:7 They range from "evil"(KJV) to "doom"(CEB) to "hard times" (NIRV).

Ya got your pick. Which is the correct God's Word?

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:So direct contradictions are ok, they are both true or it does not matter if neither is true, it is still the word of god.

No one says that the events Didn't happen.

Including me.

But two contradictory stories about an actual event might both be wrong, but they cannot both be right.

Correct? I mean, no way to disagree with that.

So, it is in black and white that the bible says things thst are not true.

What now?

Not an ab-story, not from you. No dog-ate-homework..

So what do you do?

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Just because you make it into a contradiction does not mean what you are implying is correct.

ME!! Are you under the impression that I wrote the Bible???? That I put the contradictions into the Bible? Like it or not, the contradictions are there. Look 'em up.

The bible was written by 53 men over a span of about 2500 years and they did not know each other,they lived at different times,in most cases.

So what? Are you saying the Bible is therefore untrustworthy because of this fact? Because that's what you seem to be implying. In any case, it's an old, but good point you bring up. If the Bible can be wrong in at least one place it can certainly be wrong in many others, even very crucial places. There's... no... way... of... being... sure.

I disagree because you don't know they are contradictions,you are assuming they are. But even if they are they do not change the truth of God's word,like you think. How do you know Samuel did not just correct himself as more info became available in the next book he wrote? The truth doesn't change.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Just because you make it into a contradiction does not mean what you are implying is correct.

ME!! Are you under the impression that I wrote the Bible???? That I put the contradictions into the Bible? Like it or not, the contradictions are there. Look 'em up.

The bible was written by 53 men over a span of about 2500 years and they did not know each other,they lived at different times,in most cases.

So what? Are you saying the Bible is therefore untrustworthy because of this fact? Because that's what you seem to be implying. In any case, it's an old, but good point you bring up. If the Bible can be wrong in at least one place it can certainly be wrong in many others, even very crucial places. There's... no... way... of... being... sure.

I disagree because you don't know they are contradictions,you are assuming they are.

I give up.

have a good day.

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Just because you make it into a contradiction does not mean what you are implying is correct.

ME!! Are you under the impression that I wrote the Bible???? That I put the contradictions into the Bible? Like it or not, the contradictions are there. Look 'em up.

The bible was written by 53 men over a span of about 2500 years and they did not know each other,they lived at different times,in most cases.

So what? Are you saying the Bible is therefore untrustworthy because of this fact? Because that's what you seem to be implying. In any case, it's an old, but good point you bring up. If the Bible can be wrong in at least one place it can certainly be wrong in many others, even very crucial places. There's... no... way... of... being... sure.

I disagree because you don't know they are contradictions,you are assuming they are.

I give up.

have a good day.

Best to quit b4 he makes you crazy.

The comparison has been made between the differences of age 8 or 18 of the king. The Bigger point is that he was a king for that amount of time and whether or not he was a Godly or ungodly one. The age doesn't change the Fact of his Being a king. And it Could be that in the process of translating from one language to another - a number was miswritten. If a person decides to disregard the entire Bible for That reason -- that's his choice. But there are much Bigger 'fish to fry' than

The comparison was in view of the flood's having happened. Or whether or not a world-wide flood Did, actually happen. There's Not another description Of the flood in another section of Scripture to be comparing various aspects of it with.

And, no, I Don't have an answer for 'apparent contradictions' because there Are reasons and most probably in the process of translating. I Don't have a problem placing my faith In God's Word. Because there Is the Fact that God's Word Does change people for the Better. God's Word Is alive and powerful -- it's Convicting -- and God's Word gives us guidelines for living -- some folk don't Like guidelines. Some would rather lives their lives Without 'god' to be responsible To.

I'm Not going to concern myself with whether or not there were 4 thousand or 400 thousand troops marching against a city. The Fact is that there was a war taking place.

crochet1949 wrote:The comparison has been made between the differences of age 8 or 18 of the king. The Bigger point is that he was a king for that amount of time and whether or not he was a Godly or ungodly one. The age doesn't change the Fact of his Being a king. And it Could be that in the process of translating from one language to another - a number was miswritten. If a person decides to disregard the entire Bible for That reason -- that's his choice. But there are much Bigger 'fish to fry' than

The comparison was in view of the flood's having happened. Or whether or not a world-wide flood Did, actually happen. There's Not another description Of the flood in another section of Scripture to be comparing various aspects of it with.

And, no, I Don't have an answer for 'apparent contradictions' because there Are reasons and most probably in the process of translating. I Don't have a problem placing my faith In God's Word. Because there Is the Fact that God's Word Does change people for the Better. God's Word Is alive and powerful -- it's Convicting -- and God's Word gives us guidelines for living -- some folk don't Like guidelines. Some would rather lives their lives Without 'god' to be responsible To.

I'm Not going to concern myself with whether or not there were 4 thousand or 400 thousand troops marching against a city. The Fact is that there was a war taking place.

A reasonable approach, whivh recognizes that the bible is neither precise / accurate, nor infallinle.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:The comparison has been made between the differences of age 8 or 18 of the king. The Bigger point is that he was a king for that amount of time and whether or not he was a Godly or ungodly one. The age doesn't change the Fact of his Being a king. And it Could be that in the process of translating from one language to another - a number was miswritten. If a person decides to disregard the entire Bible for That reason -- that's his choice. But there are much Bigger 'fish to fry' than

The comparison was in view of the flood's having happened. Or whether or not a world-wide flood Did, actually happen. There's Not another description Of the flood in another section of Scripture to be comparing various aspects of it with.

And, no, I Don't have an answer for 'apparent contradictions' because there Are reasons and most probably in the process of translating. I Don't have a problem placing my faith In God's Word. Because there Is the Fact that God's Word Does change people for the Better. God's Word Is alive and powerful -- it's Convicting -- and God's Word gives us guidelines for living -- some folk don't Like guidelines. Some would rather lives their lives Without 'god' to be responsible To.

I'm Not going to concern myself with whether or not there were 4 thousand or 400 thousand troops marching against a city. The Fact is that there was a war taking place.

A reasonable approach, whivh recognizes that the bible is neither precise / accurate, nor infallinle.

You just proved my point -- we take the same book and 'see' it totally different. I prefer My approach -- it's being God's Word -- not man's words -- God has given us His Word for His reason. His plan for Our salvation / heaven or hell. You've chosen to ignore and I've chosen to Accept.

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:The comparison has been made between the differences of age 8 or 18 of the king. The Bigger point is that he was a king for that amount of time and whether or not he was a Godly or ungodly one. The age doesn't change the Fact of his Being a king. And it Could be that in the process of translating from one language to another - a number was miswritten. If a person decides to disregard the entire Bible for That reason -- that's his choice. But there are much Bigger 'fish to fry' than

The comparison was in view of the flood's having happened. Or whether or not a world-wide flood Did, actually happen. There's Not another description Of the flood in another section of Scripture to be comparing various aspects of it with.

And, no, I Don't have an answer for 'apparent contradictions' because there Are reasons and most probably in the process of translating. I Don't have a problem placing my faith In God's Word. Because there Is the Fact that God's Word Does change people for the Better. God's Word Is alive and powerful -- it's Convicting -- and God's Word gives us guidelines for living -- some folk don't Like guidelines. Some would rather lives their lives Without 'god' to be responsible To.

I'm Not going to concern myself with whether or not there were 4 thousand or 400 thousand troops marching against a city. The Fact is that there was a war taking place.

A reasonable approach, whivh recognizes that the bible is neither precise / accurate, nor infallinle.

You just proved my point -- we take the same book and 'see' it totally different. I prefer My approach -- it's being God's Word -- not man's words -- God has given us His Word for His reason. His plan for Our salvation / heaven or hell. You've chosen to ignore and I've chosen to Accept.

Ok, suture self. You choose to think two different numbers are the same, and that is god's word.

I dont believe that is an example of using common sense.

"John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that who so ever believeth in Him, will not perish but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 Jesus Christ is saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me."

The cross is the "intermediate" between man and God

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:The comparison has been made between the differences of age 8 or 18 of the king. The Bigger point is that he was a king for that amount of time and whether or not he was a Godly or ungodly one. The age doesn't change the Fact of his Being a king. And it Could be that in the process of translating from one language to another - a number was miswritten. If a person decides to disregard the entire Bible for That reason -- that's his choice. But there are much Bigger 'fish to fry' than

The comparison was in view of the flood's having happened. Or whether or not a world-wide flood Did, actually happen. There's Not another description Of the flood in another section of Scripture to be comparing various aspects of it with.

And, no, I Don't have an answer for 'apparent contradictions' because there Are reasons and most probably in the process of translating. I Don't have a problem placing my faith In God's Word. Because there Is the Fact that God's Word Does change people for the Better. God's Word Is alive and powerful -- it's Convicting -- and God's Word gives us guidelines for living -- some folk don't Like guidelines. Some would rather lives their lives Without 'god' to be responsible To.

I'm Not going to concern myself with whether or not there were 4 thousand or 400 thousand troops marching against a city. The Fact is that there was a war taking place.

A reasonable approach, whivh recognizes that the bible is neither precise / accurate, nor infallinle.

You just proved my point -- we take the same book and 'see' it totally different. I prefer My approach -- it's being God's Word -- not man's words -- God has given us His Word for His reason. His plan for Our salvation / heaven or hell. You've chosen to ignore and I've chosen to Accept.

Ok, suture self. You choose to think two different numbers are the same, and that is god's word.

I dont believe that is an example of using common sense.

You might know about science and have good knowledge of it,but you lack proper bible teaching. The bible is a vast book covering many things and it cannot fully be understood without the Holy Spirit. The bible does'nt make sense to people who have not been born again,it is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Audacity wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:
Will start out with -- 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

So,was God's Word correct when it said

2KI 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

OR was it correct when it said

2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Was it correct when it said

Ezra 2:15
The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

OR was it correct when it said

Nehemiah 7:20
The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.


Was it correct when it said

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.


OR was it correct when it said

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.


Was it correct when it said

1 Machabees 4:28
Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen.

OR was it correct when it said

2 Machabees 11:2
Lysias ... Gathered together fourscore thousand men, and all the horsemen, and came against the Jews.

Just to let you know that I've been 'Google' ing, too. About the contradictions -- there's an article that lists 101 of them with explanations For. Found a few of 'yours'. You should look it up , too. Read the part about the explanations Of.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:The comparison has been made between the differences of age 8 or 18 of the king. The Bigger point is that he was a king for that amount of time and whether or not he was a Godly or ungodly one. The age doesn't change the Fact of his Being a king. And it Could be that in the process of translating from one language to another - a number was miswritten. If a person decides to disregard the entire Bible for That reason -- that's his choice. But there are much Bigger 'fish to fry' than

The comparison was in view of the flood's having happened. Or whether or not a world-wide flood Did, actually happen. There's Not another description Of the flood in another section of Scripture to be comparing various aspects of it with.

And, no, I Don't have an answer for 'apparent contradictions' because there Are reasons and most probably in the process of translating. I Don't have a problem placing my faith In God's Word. Because there Is the Fact that God's Word Does change people for the Better. God's Word Is alive and powerful -- it's Convicting -- and God's Word gives us guidelines for living -- some folk don't Like guidelines. Some would rather lives their lives Without 'god' to be responsible To.

I'm Not going to concern myself with whether or not there were 4 thousand or 400 thousand troops marching against a city. The Fact is that there was a war taking place.

A reasonable approach, whivh recognizes that the bible is neither precise / accurate, nor infallinle.

You just proved my point -- we take the same book and 'see' it totally different. I prefer My approach -- it's being God's Word -- not man's words -- God has given us His Word for His reason. His plan for Our salvation / heaven or hell. You've chosen to ignore and I've chosen to Accept.

Ok, suture self. You choose to think two different numbers are the same, and that is god's word.

I dont believe that is an example of using common sense.

You might know about science and have good knowledge of it,but you lack proper bible teaching. The bible is a vast book covering many things and it cannot fully be understood without the Holy Spirit. The bible does'nt make sense to people who have not been born again,it is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Ok! Two good points. You accept that I know (far far) more about science than you. Hard to miss that, but still, there is is. You do accept it as being so.

Second point is far more important.

You are clearly stating that you are infallible. You have the "Holy spirit" to guide you, and you unerringly read the book right. You cannot be wrong.

One last little thing.

Speaking of foolishness-

You understand the bible to say that there was a world wide flood.

But even you, deep inside there somewhere, cannot but notice that you must come up with the stupidest dog-ate-my-homework excuses and
"explanations" for the polar ice.

You know? Seriously? Does it seem like it might mean something that you are reduced to such nonsense to defend your precious idea? In science, btw, people say "dont marry your theory". It applies outside science.

There are, of course, many more ways to make mincemeat of your gapepry.
It would be sort of funny to see you try to stand up and do a thesis defense on gappery. You'd be utterly shredded. But never mind that.

There are many more things I could bring up as being one hundred percent
incompatible with "gap", but no point to it when you are still pretending that
ice gets "stuck down".

It is really kind of a pity, for you. If you actually had studied earth history,
it would bring so much more credit to you and your wonderful god. Its not too late, you know.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

A reasonable approach, whivh recognizes that the bible is neither precise / accurate, nor infallinle.

You just proved my point -- we take the same book and 'see' it totally different. I prefer My approach -- it's being God's Word -- not man's words -- God has given us His Word for His reason. His plan for Our salvation / heaven or hell. You've chosen to ignore and I've chosen to Accept.

Ok, suture self. You choose to think two different numbers are the same, and that is god's word.

I dont believe that is an example of using common sense.

You might know about science and have good knowledge of it,but you lack proper bible teaching. The bible is a vast book covering many things and it cannot fully be understood without the Holy Spirit. The bible does'nt make sense to people who have not been born again,it is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Ok! Two good points. You accept that I know (far far) more about science than you. Hard to miss that, but still, there is is. You do accept it as being so.

Second point is far more important.

You are clearly stating that you are infallible. You have the "Holy spirit" to guide you, and you unerringly read the book right. You cannot be wrong.

One last little thing.

Speaking of foolishness-

You understand the bible to say that there was a world wide flood.

But even you, deep inside there somewhere, cannot but notice that you must come up with the stupidest dog-ate-my-homework excuses and
"explanations" for the polar ice.

You know? Seriously? Does it seem like it might mean something that you are reduced to such nonsense to defend your precious idea? In science, btw, people say "dont marry your theory". It applies outside science.

There are, of course, many more ways to make mincemeat of your gapepry.
It would be sort of funny to see you try to stand up and do a thesis defense on gappery. You'd be utterly shredded. But never mind that.

There are many more things I could bring up as being one hundred percent
incompatible with "gap", but no point to it when you are still pretending that
ice gets "stuck down".

It is really kind of a pity, for you. If you actually had studied earth history,
it would bring so much more credit to you and your wonderful god. Its not too late, you know.

Thank you so much for those words of ............

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

A reasonable approach, whivh recognizes that the bible is neither precise / accurate, nor infallinle.

You just proved my point -- we take the same book and 'see' it totally different. I prefer My approach -- it's being God's Word -- not man's words -- God has given us His Word for His reason. His plan for Our salvation / heaven or hell. You've chosen to ignore and I've chosen to Accept.

Ok, suture self. You choose to think two different numbers are the same, and that is god's word.

I dont believe that is an example of using common sense.

You might know about science and have good knowledge of it,but you lack proper bible teaching. The bible is a vast book covering many things and it cannot fully be understood without the Holy Spirit. The bible does'nt make sense to people who have not been born again,it is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Ok! Two good points. You accept that I know (far far) more about science than you. Hard to miss that, but still, there is is. You do accept it as being so.

Second point is far more important.

You are clearly stating that you are infallible. You have the "Holy spirit" to guide you, and you unerringly read the book right. You cannot be wrong.

One last little thing.

Speaking of foolishness-

You understand the bible to say that there was a world wide flood.

But even you, deep inside there somewhere, cannot but notice that you must come up with the stupidest dog-ate-my-homework excuses and
"explanations" for the polar ice.

You know? Seriously? Does it seem like it might mean something that you are reduced to such nonsense to defend your precious idea? In science, btw, people say "dont marry your theory". It applies outside science.

There are, of course, many more ways to make mincemeat of your gapepry.
It would be sort of funny to see you try to stand up and do a thesis defense on gappery. You'd be utterly shredded. But never mind that.

There are many more things I could bring up as being one hundred percent
incompatible with "gap", but no point to it when you are still pretending that
ice gets "stuck down".

It is really kind of a pity, for you. If you actually had studied earth history,
it would bring so much more credit to you and your wonderful god. Its not too late, you know.

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood. Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water. You have no evidence life evolves and only have normal reproduction and adaptation for your evidence and from this,you believe life evolves. I would love to get up in front of a crowd and put the Gap Theory up against the ToE because once the evidence is laid out that shows a former world indeed did perish and you can only preach life evolves with no evidence to back it up "A Lost World" will be more believable.

What you overlook is that you interpret the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective when you don't have evidence life evolves,but the same evidence proves a former world totally different that this world perished. It was evidence for the Gap Theory before evolution was a scientific theory,long before evolution. In 1818 William Buckland who was a Christian clergyman and dinosaur hunter,but he became Oxford's very first Geology professor amd he taught the Gap Theory because he realized the evidence he was finding confirmed this interpretation over other interpretations.By examining the fossilized gut of dinosaurs he came to learn that dinosaurs ate other dinosaurs and so he knew the former world was a dangerous place to live. Alot of people don't know it but a young Charles Darwin actually went out with William Buckland on fossil excavations and Darwin mentions Buckland in " The origin of species" . This is why Darwin knew there were no fossils showing transition and they all show fully formed creatures yet insisted they would be found if his theory was true.We are still waiting.


You've got to get this idea out of your head that people will just believe you without evidence.

And I have studied earth history and I'm not a YEC.

Attention Please
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuSNImp_SKA