Matthew 24: 34 Commentary

LET THOSE WHO HAVE EYES & LET THOSE WHO HAVE EARS, BE AWARE!
Do not let soft and smooth words from those against the Word of God lull you to sleep. Let not their complicated talk deceive you. Beware:

Psalm 55:21 The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.

Psalm 12:2 Everyone lies to his neighbor; their flattering lips speak with deception.

They fully intend to topple God from his lofty place; they take delight in lies. With their mouths they bless, but in their hearts they curse.

Look at it this way ” all scriptures-meaning both the old and new testament” are inspired of God profitable for…(you know the continuation). But when people quotes not from the canonized scriptures but from apocryphas &/or Pseudepigrapha
beware…some sinister spirit is at work! Those believers who went before us took care with inspiration from God to bind the Book for our benefit…when these double tongue deceivers put down some canonized book such as that of Matthew then quotes from uncanonized books ..beware!

THEY ACCUSE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM AS A GENOCIDAL GOD-and are not afraid to speak BLASPHEMOUS WORDS AGAINST THE “I AM!”…they say the God the Father of Jesus is merciful while the old testament God is cruel, this my brothers is meant to confuse you. The God of Israel is a merciful God-that is repeated in the Psalms and other old testament scriptures many times!

After they succeed to convince you that the God of the old testament is cruel. They will also turn to the The New Testament & select scripture that “seems” to signfy that God is cruel and destroy your faith totally on the scriptures. Here are probable scriptures which they might quote:

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Matthew 22:7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Luke 19:14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

Luke 20:16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”

LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERYONE A LIAR! Do not think that I speak on my own on these things. These men that believes so much on their intellects and worldly wisdom are nothing but PIOUS FRAUDS! In here to wreck your faith on God and His Perfect Word! Let us bear in mind what St. Paul said:

Exodus 33:19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Romans 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

SO LET US NOT BE ENTICED by these men-mere men- fragile men, for we know that soon every men time will be up-ours and theirs! So let us not think that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of Moses, the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ-our God and Father is a HARD ONE!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/20/2011 01:01 am

robert:

all i can say is… WOW… I AM LITERALLY SPEECHLESS. FOR ONCE. the cow just jumped over the moon.

that was like way way way way way out there in left field… i am not even going to comment… WOW!!! (LOL)

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 23:46 pm

Hi Charles

Ref: # 133

Greetings to you. Although I had signed off this thread I happen to still read the variety of comments which I find interesting. However what hit me forcibly was your take on Yahweh as the god of Israel only. So, I had to pause, take stock and consider if I should take this up or not. You may reason, why not? Well, while I absolutely agree with many of your points made, I wondered if you were not trying to feed the meat of the message when milk of the word would be better received. However, I will cast my net to sea.

One only has to read the Old Testament to observe that Yahweh is ruthless, savage and bloodthirsty. He delights in war, as the Lord of Hosts, head of the armies of heaven and is jealous and vindictive while his followers are violent and intolerant.

Yahweh and the God of the universe are far different. Ancient text and inscription discoveries show that the archaic Hebrew religion knew a highest god “El” Elyon (the sign, is in transliterations used for Hebrew letter “aleph and for the letter ayin). who had 70 sons. One of his sons was Yahweh, who had a consort Asherah ie a goddess. Her name is mentioned some 40 times in the Old testament but it is always translated as “grove” or “tree.”

This is because her symbol is a tree or an upright wooden pole. So when the OT states that it is forbidden to plant a tree at the altar of Yahweh, it really means it is forbidden to place a symbol of “Asherah” there (Deut. 16:21 - and what sense would it otherwise have to forbid planting a tree there?)

The true creator god, the prime creator, was therefore not Yahweh, but “El” Elyon. He obviously created a number of secondary gods as his “sons” of which Yahweh is one (and of course, also the “daughter” Asherah). Yahweh is therefore not the prime creator he wants us to believe that he would be, even though he has also produced certain creations. Let’s examine Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. In Hebrew, the sentence is Bere’shit bara’ Elohim et ha shamayim ve-et ha arets.

According to cabalistic sources, the word bere’shit means not only “beginning”, but also “the first one”, the “original one”, the first entity that was, the highest God. This translation fits grammatically: “The first one created the gods (together) with the heavens (cosmic worlds) and with the Earth. the translation, therefore, refers to a prime creator, who first created “gods” and cosmic worlds, of which is the earth.

According to Gen 2, Yahweh is one of these gods, one of the Elohim (since the Bible calls him “Yahweh Elohim” in the Hebrew text, and not simply “Yahweh”).

Jesus calls the real God, the true prime creator “father” who is unrestrictedly good. The Gnostics, identified this imperfect demiurg- “god” with the god of the Old testament, who they also called Yaldabaoth, who wants to keep humans in a state of ignorance in a material world and who punishes their attempts to achieve knowledge and insight (to “eat from the tree of knowledge”).

The demiurg is a lesser god who wants to be the only one.

The text “The Apokrphon of john (or The Secret Boook of John) states:

“He is impious in his madness, she who dwells in him. For he said. “I am God and no other god exists except me”, since he is ignorant of the place from which his strength had come” (Cf. Ex 20:23 and Deut.5:7).

I believe this to be the explanation of all the abominable cruelties, which after all are literally described in the Old Testament. A similar view was expressed by Marcion (approx. 85-160), the first theologian who made a distinction
between the god of Love in the New Testament and an evil god of the Old Testament.

Those who read the Bible in an objective and unprejudiced way without blinders that fade out certain passages, should become deeply indignant about the abominable cruelties described therein.

The “lord” guides his people to the “promised land” but that land isn’t free. People already live there in various towns. Therefore the “lord” commands his people to mercilessly slaughter all of them. In nearly all cases not even a child, a woman or an old man is spared, but they should all be completely killed, so that his people can live in:

“great and goodly cities, which thou buildest not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full.” (Deut 6:10-11).

With this, a vertiable holocaust begins!

In one city after the other they murder and slaughter until no one is left. The only exception is in a few cases that they kidnap virgins. For what? It would certainly be naive to claim that it would not be for sexual “services”.

When moses by order of Yahweh could say as follows, he strongly disqualifies himself and his commissioner:

“And Moses was wroth with the officers if the host….which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, ‘Have ye saved all the women alive?….Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.’”

That rather looks like a mass human sacrifice for the “lord”….

When Yahweh rages as follows he demonstrates his fake divinity:

“And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate. …And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”
(Lev 26:21-29)

The macho behavior began already before the exodus from Egypt. Yahweh sent Moses several times to the Pharaoh to request letting the Hebrews free.

The Pharaoh repeatedly declared that he would do that, but Yahweh the each time hardened his heart so that he, after all, refused:
“…for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him” (Ex 10:1).
Yahweh insisted in showing his muscles and have all the ten plagues come over Egypt before he would let the Pharaoh allow the Hebrews to go. At last he went through Egypt and killed all innocent first-born! (Ex 11:5, 12:12, 12:29, 13:15)

For what did he want to demonstrate all this cruelty? In a similar way he hardened the hearts of the Hivites (living in the “promised Land”) so that they should not try to make piece with the Hebrews but meet them in battle so that they would be mercilessly destroyed (Josh 11:19.20).

Everyone should die!

In love and light.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 23:25 pm

Well, Scott, Angel has stayed very civil throughout all this. It is Tiuche the only one who has been bastardly idiotic all the time. You, and, now, Eduardo have misbehaved on occasion, but so have I at times.

I can take all the fair punches very easily because truth is on my side. Insults, on the other hand, can make me respond in kind at times. And stupidity… well, I think I am going to ignore that from now on.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 18:19 pm

Eduardo and Angel,

It seems to me that at some point you must both consider just when Matthew 7:6 applies to your nobel efforts.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 18:02 pm

Eduardo: See how manipulative Charles is? And you gave him your email address? And look he is now accusing you of charges that does not describe you but his own bad character! He is false to agreement and his heart as dark and mysterious full of snares and schemes and deceits. Do not think you can convince him if he is not even afraid of speaking blasphemy against the Holy bible and the God of Abraham!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 17:43 pm

Eduardo, I am surprised at your dishonesty and lies. Sophist? Manipulative? Incoherent? Your unwarranted accusations expose you as an insecure, uneducated, and rude drudge.

So all your uncivil talk is because, in your words, I find Matt. 24:34 reliable and some other verse less so? Eduardo, not many things in the Bible are reliable simply because the people who wrote them lived before the scientific age. You may not understand this logic, but it makes perfect sense to educated people.

But if you believe the Bible is unerring and then you start dismissing the verses you don’t like, what does that make you? It makes you insincere and a false believer. It makes you a liar and a hyprocrite. Your faith is false.

Jesus made a mistake when he said the world would end during his generation. If you don’t understand this, then it’s a mental thing and I can’t help you there. But if you insist that Jesus is God, then you’re only making it worse because that would be saying that God made the mistake.

It doesn’t seem you have control of your senses.

I will return to civility when and if you do.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 17:24 pm

Charles, Charles, you are a perfect sophist. Don’t manipulate my words and don’t manipulate the Bible either. You are not being coherent. You believe Jesus made a huge mistake because you found reliable Matthew 24:34. At the same time you didn’t find reliable 1 Peter 2:22 (“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”).

For you Jesus is not God but He is not a liar or a madman either, despite of many verses where Jesus claims for His divinity (about this topic I strongly recommend this reading http://y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1_x.php?gclid=CLbI24jWs6wCFYtT7Aod-2v-CQ.

You like to sit on the fence, stay in a comfort zone.

But I invite you to get off the fence and open your eyes to the wonderful message from the Gospel.

Jesus didn’t make any mistake (”guile found in his mouth”). You know that because fortunately you see Jesus as a behavior model for you.

Understand: if Jesus made a huge mistake, compromising His entire mission (just to use your own words), He definetely is not either reliable or a behavior model for anyone. So, let’s seal Jesus by the correct mode.

I am sure you can do it, like I am sure God wouldn’t allow almost a half of all the humanity be deceived by false doctrines. It wouldn’t make any sense (God is not autist) and, of course, it would be monstrous either. So, Charles, get rid of your sophistry and don’t be afraid to be happy.

Explore Jesus. He is much better than you imagine or can imagine.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 15:35 pm

Dear Eduardo, it seems you want me to repeat what I already told you. Jesus made mistakes, right? This verse unfortunately constitutes a huge error because the kingdom of God was Jesus’ entire mission. Yet he managed to impart many words of wisdom before he was so brutally tortured and murdered.

The alternatives you created for Jesus have no basis either in fact or in understanding how I think (if that’s what you’re trying to do). Suppose I tell you that you’re (1) a goose herder from Mongolia, (2) a Martian with pointed toes, or (3) the ghost of Muhammad … No, you’re none of those, of course, and, likewise, Jesus deserves none of those offensive labels you hanged on him. He was a wise man who taught us how to behave with one another but erred on the doctrine of how to unite with God on a glorious day that will happen two thousand years ago!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 11:48 am

Dear Charles, if you admire Jesus wisdom and feel yourself inspired by Him, of course you have to accept His words, unless you are a good “pharisee”.

I see three alternatives for your surprising position on P. 139:

1. Jesus is a liar;
2. Jesus is a madman;
3. Jesus is a creation from liar authors of the New Testament.

I deny the first and the second hypothesis because I don’t believe you feel yourself inspired either by a liar or by a madman.

Hence, I can see only the third hypothesis to analyse. You say that the Bible is not a reliable document; that imposters put words in Jesus mouth. In sum, Jesus words would be only a fiction created by imaginative authors several decades or even centuries after His death. So, I wonder where did you find the Jesus whose wisdom inspires you. In Josephus? In the scrolls from the Dead Sea?

Charles, let me know: the Jesus that inpires you was crucified? Is He real? For sure? How do you know that? Do you believe in His miracles? I think YOU are not understanding the scriptures. Remember Matthew 5:37 and take care with Revelation 3:15-16. Be coherent. If Jesus inspires you, believe in His words regardless who and when the gospels were written. Just do it! YES is YES and NO is NO. Do not be warm, be hot, my friend!

For your breakfast, I suggest bread, but, listen: bread of the life, please.

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 06:56 am

Errata corrige in my latest post. In the 3rd para. “you post 133″ should read “your post 137″. Sorry.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 01:51 am

Hi Eduardo. Welcome back.

I am afraid you overstepped your boundaries in post 137. Why do I have to accept the words of Jesus when we have established that he made mistakes (this verse is a particular example)? I admire his wisdom. I feel inspired by him. But for you to decide for me which words I should accept, well, my friend, you are WAY overstepping your boundaries! What are you going to decide for me next? What to have for breakfast?

Unfortunately Jesus was but a carpenter and probably didn’t know how to write. Oh how I wish he had written his own gospel so I would have known what he REALLY said and not having to get his words second-hand from people who contradicted one another.

Also, about your post 133, I have to say you’re not understanding the scriptures. You need to take note of who’s saying what. And when! For example you quoted 1 Peter 2:22: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”. This is not Jesus speaking. Nor is Peter speaking. It is an imposter speaking. This book was written by someone with a sophisticated command of the Greek language (certainly no Hewbrew fisherman!) And it was written about two centuries after both Jesus and Peter had died. Lol!

Just another example of how unreliable the Bible is!

This verse says it all: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Well, that generation passed two thousand years ago and the prophecy went unfulfilled.

Another example!

You are insulting God when you claim that such an unreliable document could have been his word!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/19/2011 01:49 am

Thumbs up for post#137 of Eduardo for Charles!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/18/2011 20:05 pm

Hi, Charles, I’m back.

You wrote on P. 133: “I worship the God of Jesus”.

First: if you do that, you have to accept the words of Jesus, specially in two fundamentals subjects: when He talks about God (the Creator) and when He talks about the future of the humanity (His creatures).

1) About the first topic (God), what did Jesus say?

If you, Charles, actually “read the Bible VERY CAREFULLY” and “KNOW what the Bible says” and “know what Jesus says” (P. 133), you must read in the same way John 7:16: “Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me”.

The same with John 8:57-59: “Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by”.

Now see Exodus 3:14: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”.

The same with John 10:30: “I and my Father are one”.

The same with John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”.

And finally the same with 1 Peter 2:22: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”.

Ok, Charles, and now? The God of Jesus that you worship is Jesus himself, as He declared several times, who did no sin, neither was guile found is His mouth, as we actually expect from someone that is fully human and fully God, as it is expressed by St. John, St. Thomas and St. Paul (just to cite the New Testament).

If you deny these verses above, you are denying all the Bible or at least what is the most essential from the Bible, whereas Jesus said His Doctrine comes from God. And He is absolutely right: if there is a God, how to take into consideration that there is no communication between the Creator and His creeatures? And then, how to consider that the Bible is not the most reliable instrument of communication between the Creator and His creatures? Do you know some other instrument better than the Bible for this function, for this bridge? If not, you must accept the Bible and the perfection of Jesus, also because God certainly doesn’t communicate Himself through lies; if not, you are denying your own words: “I worship the God of Jesus”.

If you still resist, what about Jesus? Is He a reliable source of communication between the Creator and His creatures or not? You have to decide this question, this gap, this “black hole” in your mind, definitely, because your God cannot be autist.

2) About the second topic (creatures and its future), we all know what Jesus said (His second coming, the end of the age, the final judgment etc.), but let’s focus the verse object of the debates in here (Matthew 24:34: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”).

If Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6), He, obviously, could not make mistakes. So, let’s be coherent. If Matthews 24:34 is an example that Jesus failed, then we are denying Jesus as our Lord and, in fact, the whole Bible, as I sustained before. The expression “This generation” can mean, perfectly, “The jewish nation”. IS IT AN ABSURD?! There is a big controversy about the respective translation (Greek is complicated), but if we, humans, poor mortals, can give to any accused, before our human and falible law, the benefit of the doubt, why do you, Charles, insist on denying this benefit to Jesus?

By Eduardo (wrote 30 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/18/2011 18:21 pm

Re: #135

Regarding “denying the words of Jesus”; I knew that’t what you would say, but I’m not.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/17/2011 14:10 pm

Re post 134. Regarding our “two universes” - agreed. Regarding the prophecy is a future policy - disagree because you’re denying the words of Jesus.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/17/2011 09:40 am

Re: #133

“Jesus recognizes a God who is our father. He does not recognize Yahweh. Yahweh is the god of Israel ONLY. He is not the God of Christians.”

Our two universes just became EXPONENTIALLY different! At least your explanation makes it a little more understandable why you spend so much time on this site.

Regarding the above prophecy; it is not a failed prophecy because it is still a future prophecy. I would attempt to offer an explanation but I know it would be futile with you. Our ‘world views’ (universes) are diametrically opposed. I see apes as brute beasts; you see them as relatives. To me, there is no middle ground.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/17/2011 04:54 am

Hey Scott, I have a feeling you and I will go “at it” again sometime, but for now I agree to disagree on all these extra-verse issues we embarked upon. Just one question on this verse, though: you said it’s not a failed propecy, but you never explained why. How is a prophecy that does NOT happen NOT a failed prophecy!? Curious!

About who or what God really is, it is very simple. You worship the god of the Jews. A local god. I worship the God of EVERYBODY. I worship the God of Jesus.

See, Scott, I read the Bible VERY CAREFULLY. I KNOW what the Bible says. I know what Jesus says. Jesus recognizes a God who is our father. He does not recognize Yahweh. Yahweh is the god of Israel ONLY. He is not the God of Christians. Read the Bible carefully.

Jesus made some mistakes, but he was a very, VERY wise man.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 23:54 pm

Re: #130

We’ll just have to agree to disagree because our two universes are as different as anything can be. But one thing I would really like to know is just who is this omniscient, benevolent “God” who “cares about everybody” that you believe in if not the God of the Bible? How did you become acquainted with him? What’s his name? What are his credentials? What has he ever done for YOU personally?

I realize these questions have nothing to do with this thread topic but it would be really good to hear what you have to say about this because it is increasingly perplexing to me (and perhaps not a few others) just why you spend any time on this website. Surely you have the right to do so but just what kind of satisfaction do you get out of it? How does your time here benefit the purposes of your “God”?

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 12:47 pm

TO CONFUSE AND TO HARASS THOSE THAT ARE FOR GOD & RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE WORKED OF DARKNESS!

The God who revealed Himself in history is the True God for if there were other gods more powerful as Yahweh where are they? Why did these other gods not reveal themselves throughout history?

What Charles is doing by maligning the name of Yahweh is an old deed which had been going on throughout history. Satan & his dupes had throughout history maligned God by accusing Him as a good for nothing creator and leader, that is why they rebelled. While GOD called them DEVILS these created beings also called their Creator “DEVIL”. An example of this can be deemed from the old dialect among the Filipino Visayan where they termed the word devil as ‘YAWAH’ which obviously is the named of God. And they call the devil as “HODEO” which meant someone with a horn looking like JUDAS but the truth was HODEO OR JUDEO means A Jew! Mistress which means beloved in English, they termed mistress as KERIDA or a wild woman who had a relationship with a married man. In their subtlety they had change good words into words that had bad meanings to confuse people. This is what Charles is doing here.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 12:34 pm

re post 129

Scott, who’s “distorted”?

You said that the “God who has revealed himself in history is holy, gracious and good.” I assume you are talking about Yahweh, the one who massacred innocent first-borns and whole nations. Isn’t it way distorted to call that “gracious and good”?

And what a distortion it is to try to believe that the Christ-following scientists and laymen would not agree with me about evolution! Practically all the people I know I know are Christ-following scientists and laymen and they have all compromised with the realities of evolution.

And when was the last time you heard God walking? Or the world standing still? Or the prophets parting the water or walking on it or turning it into wine? What do you think are the chances for someone in the scientific age to write fake accounts and have them declared as the “Word of God”?

And aren’t you distorting Matthew 24:34 when you insist it is not a failed prophecy? What’s your explanation that two thousand years after the end of the world there are seven billion people on it?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 10:35 am

Re: #124

Charles, your god is no god at all but is apparently one of your own making. The God who has revealed himself in history is holy, gracious and good. Why you refuse to see this is beyond me. He alone is the creator and sustainer of LIFE. He alone has provided the means of forgiveness of sins. He alone promises abundant, everlasting life and joy. What is it in this equation that you have so much trouble with that you are compelled to say that; “Yahweh.., does not give a damn about [me]”?

And how about this statement:

“Jumping on to what you said about God proving his existence, have you ever wondered why we don’t have miracles any more? Have you ever wondered why God doesn’t walk with people any more? Have you ever wondered why prophets who warn us about the end of the world (unfortunately even Jesus did that, as in this very verse) are not taken seriously any more? It is because we have entered the world of science… well, many of us did. You’re one of the last holdouts, Scott.”

First of all, I’m hardly one of the last holdouts. Apparently, you have your head in the sand regarding Christ-following scientists and layman far more than I do regarding evolution. But your other statements border on preposterous! Do you REALLY think that miracles don’t happen anymore? Do you REALLY think that God doesn’t “walk” with anyone anymore? And regarding prophets of doom; just when were they EVER popular? For someone who has such a seemingly good understanding of the created order, you have developed a VERY distorted understanding of the Creator Himself. To me, this is very sad. What was it that hardened your heart to the God of your youth? You say;

“I believe in a God who cares about EVERYBODY”

And just who IS this “God” who cares about everybody if not the God of the Bible? How did you find him? What’s his name? What are his credentials? What has he ever done for YOU personally?

And while I’m at it, Matthew 24:34 is only a “failed prophecy” in the minds of the unbeliever such as yourself. You are so skeptical and full of doubt that it seems you CAN’T believe anymore; and if you can’t believe, you will never come to the knowledge (settled science) of the One true God.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 05:05 am

Re: #120

I have no problem with your FACTS. I am an Old Earth creationist. Where I have a problem is with your “leap of faith” conclusion:

“Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.”

IMHO, this statement is pure conjecture and is akin to a religious leap of faith.

In respect to the “theory” vs “law” handle of evolution, I have no problem with the generic scientific term of “theory” being applied to settled science. I just don’t agree that the science is settled. If the TOE is correct, verifiable transitional forms should’ve been coming out of the woodwork long ago. Even now, the “discoveries” are paltry at best. The only reason they get so much attention is because “something” suggests a link to a higher life form but the link itself remains UNverifiable. Without the “leap” factor, the science does not presently stand on its own. To me, it still requires too much faith!

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 04:00 am

Angel

I had actually signed off here on the subject of evolution but I’ll gladly discuss this in detail on a more appropriate thread that lends itself to the subject. However, I returned briefly ’cause I noted your citations relative to your, “and as stated by many renowned scientists life comes from man,” and find no issues with the various quotes ’cause they are simple basic biology.

In looking at your original quote as identified here by inverted commas, I thought you were looking at the bigger picture in terms of the origin of life on earth wherein no scientist to date can provide a factual answer to the question as they are working on it. Of course, that’s different from the Creationists, when like the grasshopper they suffer gaps in their understanding of events, summon their “God of the Gaps” to fill the void. Enough said.

Peace.

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 03:36 am

robert louis:

as you yourself stated “i am also thick skinned” and i to love a good debate; were two sides of a coin can flash what is seen or unseen by both parties. i to would like to apologize if i have offended you in any way; or to everyone else here. I DO TRULY APOLOGIZE.

and yes robert, i do include you all in my prayers and ask our lord jesus christ to be a lantern of light to our feet; as to guide us to the truth of the word.

and i did very much enjoy debating and reading everyone comments. so busy with school and life. it took me over 9 hours to write post 125. wish i could of commented so much more.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 02:28 am

god bless.

you miss every point stated. in fact you turn around only to declare”i am rubber and your glue.” you discuss many things as if you and all the scholar theories of supposed righteousness, are of truth. but did i not state that your assumption of what i was stating to be untrue. so i will clarify once more. as i, myself, stated in post 104 “i do see your side as a carnal man seeking for all truths set before me in every verse. yet i am also a spiritual man; a deep calling unto the deep; for my flesh is my worse enemy. always conflicting and debating. the greatest battle ever fought goes unseen; within and without.” i am plainly speaking of myself here as being carnal as well as being spiritual.

maybe this will help “i do see your side, FOR I, as a carnal man, seeking for all truths set before me in every verse. yet, i am also a spiritual man; a deep calling unto the deep; for my flesh is my worse enemy. always conflicting and debating. the greatest battle ever fought goes unseen; within and without. i hope this clears it up.

as for your proof of scholars stating life comes from the male. here are a few.

“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception; life springing forth from the male.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

To accept the fact that after fertilization, (life source, male) has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” The “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began with the male sperm at conception.

Dr. Richard V. Jaynes:
“To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”.

Professor Eugene Diamond:
“…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty of life conception.”

Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester:
By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception…Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

D.J. Moran, M.D., J.D. Gorby, M.D., and T.W. Hilgers, M.E., “Abortion in the Supreme Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life.”, Sheed and Ward, 1974
“Individual human life begins at conception and is a progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it. There is no authority in medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept. It is not a “theory,” as Justice Blackmun wished to easily pass it off.”

like i said we can play this merry go round game all day of he said, they said, we said; but until we stop playing with all these so called man theories which will always contradict god. we will in no sense grow spiritually but shall grow worldly.

now i am not denying science nor am i denying religion. for in reality they go hand in hand. as albert einstein stated “”Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

Professor Donald Mackay offers a healthy perspective on scientific involvement with religion:
”Obviously a surface meaning of many passages could be tested, for example, against archaeological discoveries, and the meaning of others can be enriched by scientific and historical knowledge. But I want to suggest that the primary function of scientific enquiry in such fields is neither to verify nor to add to the inspired picture, but to help us in eliminating improper ways of reading it. To pursue the metaphor, I think the scientific data God gives us can sometimes serve as his way of warning us when we are standing too close to the picture, at the wrong angle, or with the wrong expectations, to be able to see the inspired pattern he means it to convey to us.”

now look what galileo stated about his theory of the earth being the center of the universe and was corrected by copernicus; “[In] St. Augustine we read: ‘If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.’ ”

“This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us.”

and as for the list i provided are but a few that evolutionist have been wrong on. as well as to show how inaccurate their theories are. here are some more if you think i am limited to only a few examples.

bombardier beetles:
a statement made by dr. lee spetner: (jewish scholar)
“randomness is an essential feature of ndt (neo-darwinian theory.) there is no known physical or chemical mechanism to generate heritable variations that will improve adaptivity or increase the complexity of living organisms. the neo-darwinians theory, had to choose randomness to produce the variations they needed. in this way they hoped that, through the direction afforded by natural selection, they could describe an evolutionary process thatcould account for a natural origin and development of life. the neo-darwinians have rejected nonrandomness as the major feature of variation.”

here is another quote by an evolutionist named “mark isaak.” notice what he states.
“do bombardier beetles look designed? yes, they look like they were designed by evolution. their feature, behaviours, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. yet nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.”

did you know that many science professors never state that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on assumptions. and also there are no scientific experiments to prove the molecules to man scenario. the molecules to man is not scientifically testable or experimentally verifiable or reproducible or able to be authenticated in any way. an assumption is basically something taken taken for granted and supposed to be true.

an evolutionist named, g. a. kerkut, gave a list of 7 assumptions. these are the basic ideas an evolutionist “takes for granted” or “supposes” to be true. yet evolutionists skip 1-6 and quote and consider only the 7th assumption.

ASSUMPTIONS:
1. non-living things gave rise to living material. i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
2. spontaneous generation occurred only once
3. viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related
4. protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms)
5. various invertebrate phyla are interrelated
6. invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates

and now the famous number 7 assumption:
7. within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

so basically assumption #7 states as followed:
“vertebrate fish became water and land creatures, hence the term “amphibia.” then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then only certain amphibia’s that did evolve became reptiles. then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then only certain reptiles evolved into birds. then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then only certain birds that evolved became mammals. then those that didn’t evolve either stayed the same or adapted as millions and millions of years passed. then we come to the one mammal “ape.” who supposedly became man after millions and millions of years.

so basically we were all apes until adam came forth. the first human. then eve came along as a the first woman. so by natural selection adam and eve came forth and denied all previous internal instincts and so begins mankind. so then i guess all the other monkeys/apes that charles believes are our cousins; by relation only. meaning since they are presumed to come from many different primates evolved millions of years throughout evolution. yet each primate stems from one true primate according to evolution. so then this is were god steps in and thus begins true humanity on earth. so that way all scientists theories can fit perfectly in structure as to everyone being already evolve except for those poor unfortunate ones that just never evolved by natural selection. how sad it must of been for every evolved man/woman to see their own ancestors still as a primate. i wonder why they never asked any to move in with them so they could care for them.

for the theory of evolution all comes down to one belief system. which states as follows “life came from a non-living substance and formed a single cell. not one here or one there; but in one specific spot in the whole world. supposedly this one single spot is located within africa. evolutionists believe that this non-living thing gave life to a single cell which in turn learned to reproduce itself before it died. and this first single cell gave life to the entire plant and animal kingdoms throughout the world.” now all this is accepted among evolutionists.

ever heard of “law of biogenesis.” this a law proven by the biological sciences. which states that “life comes from life. anything that is alive came from something that was alive. ever heard of dr. henry morris or dr. gary parker? they worked at the institute of creation research. they wrote a book entitled “what is creation science.” you should read it. did you know that for nearly 160 years or some of the most brilliant scientists in the world have attempted to convert non-living chemicals into some from of reproducible life. all failed. no one has ever succeeded even today.

well then i guess according to you and charles 1 corinthians 15:38-41 is all wrong:

1 corinthians 15:38-41
38. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

wow so then god was right. and he is infallible and so his word can be trusted. so then the other verses are true due to the fact that the method to view stars and the moon and the sun was by eye. yet it is written in the bible how different each one is to each other. for each star does differ among themselves greatly.

not only that however; scientists through the use of phase-electron microscopes, scientists have discovered that there are consistent differences in cellular substance in various kinds of animals. in other words when the evidence is studied microscopically, the living things of the evolutionary tree do not appear to be related to each other at all in any way.

take for instance an evolutionist by the name of, dr. leon long, from the department of geological sciences at the university of texas. who stated “among the first organisms were lowly bacteria and blue-green algae. they are about as simple as a self-sufficient cell can, be which is none too simple, considering that a bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1 million reactions per second! cells of bacteria and blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of dna, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and internal membranes.” explain this to me then.

also scientists don’t really discuss the evolution of cell membrane. due to the fact of its complexity. a membrane permits specific concentrations of certain chemicals and solutions into and out of the cell. if these chemicals are even off just even 1/100% ; the cell dies. that is compared to 1 teaspoon of ocean water removed from its own entire source; the ocean. now with all that ocean water and to just remove 1 teaspoon of ocean water; the ocean would die. and as the dating process of using the salt level from the ocean; the salt is diminishing so much that one cannot date how old the ocean is. for an accurate reading the ocean’s salt level must remain stable but marine biologists have declared this dating process inaccurate. due to the fact of all the run off of the melted ice and mixing of the salt water and unsalted water. as it circulates throughout the world.

you also speak of mass energy as being always present. just as every evolutionist believes. as well as matter being eternal. thus claiming that this energy was always present before the “big bang theory.” which is a “state of equilibrium.” simply put; equilibrium is a state in which everything is equal and non-reactive. like a car that sits on a driveway. until the key is turned and thus causing the engine to cause the gasoline to explode; thus giving power to the car.

well science tells us that when matter is somewhere for a long enough time say for instance billions and billions of years ago; it eventually stops doing anything, all the possible reactions would have already occurred, and would of just sat there as the car in the drive way, sitting. nothing else. this is the second part of the law thermodynamics that physicists call zeroeth entropy. so before this supposedly “big bang theory” all matter and energy, if eternal, would be in a neutral equilibrium. it will not move till something starts the process for your supposedly “big band theory.”

so my question is, if everything was in neutral before the “big bang”, what made the “big boom?” what caused the neutral equilibrium to move into motion, to create this supposedly “big boom?” for as stated by evolutionists “life came from the big bang along with all creation in the universe and on earth.”

so from a small speck came the entire different species of life, every specimen of plants and animals, every planet, every star, every moon, everything as we know and see. and through this chaotic explosion came order, design, and function.

now you say science is correct in all its man-made theories yet they do not point to a god who created all. instead it finds what one wants to perceive as faults in god’s holy living word and call what they discovered or perceive as a truth; “true science.”

what is stated here is only a speck of sand showing why evolutionists are wrong. there is so much more. and i have studied a diverse rangs of academics so that way i may understand both sides of the coin.

and yes i know as you stated to me before in your posts “BIG DEAL, SO HAVE I.” truth will never disagree with truth. so why do we differ? or are you going to tell me again as stated in your lovely posts “MY GOD IS THE HORN POINTED DEVIL.”

science is not made to prove the bible, but the bible is so that science can understand its faults and limitations.

may prayer lord is that we realize you are above all. may we come to you as the apostles and all those who were your faithful servants; in faith and trusting you. always putting off ourselves so that we may see and hear you.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 02:15 am

Re 113: Scott, when Copernicus published his discovery that our planet is just one of many revolving around a star it didn’t take educated people too long a time to realize he was right. But the educated people were few. Many people taught their children not to believe such a satan and died convinced that Earth was still the center of the universe.

Then came Darwin and the evolution theory, which is now fact. But, again, it was only an educated minority that accepted his very detailed and well proved findings. The majority refused to let go of their reliance on outmoded documents such as the Bible. You are going to die convinced of a fallacy similar to the ones who refused Copernicus.

Jumping on to what you said about God proving his existence, have you ever wondered why we don’t have miracles any more? Have you ever wondered why God doesn’t walk with people any more? Have you ever wondered why prophets who warn us about the end of the world (unfortunately even Jesus did that, as in this very verse) are not taken seriously any more? It is because we have entered the world of science… well, many of us did. You’re one of the last holdouts, Scott.

No, Scott, God has never proved himself. This is a matter of faith, and I can’t prove it to you that God (a REAL, UNIVERSAL GOD) does exist. You can go on believing in Yahweh, who does not give a damn about you unless you’re a Jew. And the Muslims can go on believing in a god that can only be seen through Muhammad. And people in other parts of the world can believe their own local gods. I believe in a God who is much bigger than one nation or all of Arabia. I believe in a God who cares about EVERYBODY.

And why do you refer to the “brute ape”, Scott? Isn’t the ape as much a creation of God as you and I? Humble your heart, Scott, for you and I are part of the intelligent ape family, and there is no shame in that.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2011 00:13 am

Greetings Angel

Let me begin by saying that if I have offended you with my tongue in cheek satirical comment of your god having two horns, then I express my unreserved apology for that. I meant no harm.

Charles correctly highlighted in post 109 that the subject at hand is prophesy (Matt 24:34) and evolution will be better served on the creation stories of Genesis. So, interesting though the evolution topic is let me draw a line under it here by finally concluding my last take on the subject.

Since the rise of the natural sciences after the seventeenth century the world can no longer be seen as it once was. The great discovery that mathematical techniques could be applied to the physical world, whose elements could be quantitively measured and correlated in general law-like theorems, the “laws of nature”, has transformed our understanding of the world. From seeing a world inhabited by demons and spirits, who moved things in accordance with obscure whims of their own, we now see the physical world as governed by general, impersonal laws.

The view that human life has evolved by a long slow process from more primeval forms of life has caused a reassessment of our understanding of creation. And for all who stand in a biblical tradition, the old picture of the cosmos as centred on the earth, with waters above the arch of the sky and beneath the floating disc of the earth, has been totally abandoned.

This has naturally caused agonizing reappraisals of the nature and scope of religious beliefs, as such beliefs have had to be distinguished from those of the natural sciences, and particular doctrines about the nature of the universe have been given over to the tentative investigations of scientists, instead of the authoritative certainties of theologians. Undoubtedly, these problems are yet to be completely resolved, but it seems clear that the view of the universe we must now take is very different from the view of it taken by the promulgators of Christian faith at the time of its origin.

For some theologians, the consequence has been to say that Christian doctrines must make no claims about the empirical, sense-perceived world at all. So ideas of how the world began or how it will end, or what causes it to be as it is, are not seen as religious matters at all. They are best left to scientists. However, I think that is simply a defeatist renunciation of any claim to significant religious truth. If religion deals with questions of ultimate truth, meaning and value, it must take account of sound knowledge of facts about the universe, as well as personal experience.

In practice, religion deals primarily with much more personal questions of discovering meaning and value in life, and it does not require a correct scientific knowledge of the cosmos. Perhaps that is why it does not in the end matter if the Genesis account of creation is literally false. Even so, if the earth is a very small planet at the edge of a vast universe; if the sphere of nature is the realm of impersonal law; and if human beings are products of evolutionary mutation; then traditional theology, which thought in terms of a directly created Adam and Eve at the centre of God’s plans and in constant physical interaction with him, must be drastically amended.

Perhaps modern physics can open up a new and exciting scope of an emergent universe, moving towards the goal of self-directing consciousness. The threat of reductionist materialism is not so great as it may have once seemed. Science can be an ally of religion; but the form of that religion will have moved far beyond strict adherence to the pre-scientist beliefs of the world’s scriptures. If one is to assess modern religious belief correctly, the extent of this amendment must be taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not yet completed, nor even fully absorbed into the thought of many Christian churches as yet. There is an exciting future for religion; but only when it fully and consciously completes the transition to the post-scriptural age.

Thank you all for sharing your views and beliefs on this thread. I would like to think we have learnt from each other. I certainly have a deep love and respect for you all and sorry again if in my zeal I may have stepped on some toes. All of you will continue to be in my prayers, as I hope to be in yours.

Peace & Blessings

Robert

By Robert Louis (wrote 52 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 22:01 pm

Re 121: Tiuche, you stepped right into it: Just because you cannot find anybody’s fossils doesn’t mean they didn’t exist AND just because you Do find old fossils, it means they DID exist. These hominids existed, and we’re their descendants.

Now: documents vs non-documents. What’s a document? Basically anything that’s written is a document. Your schoolpaper is a document. Your grocery receipt is a document. The Quran and the Bible are documents. What Louis Leakey wrote when he discovered Lucy is a document.

What’s not a document. Digging a fossil is not a document. Witnessing a lunar eclipse is not a document. Knowing Jesus is not a document. Talking to your god is not a document.

Obviously having or not having a document is not a litmus test for determining what’s true and what’s not. I have no idea why you brought it up.

I don’t think you expect an answer for all your questions about prophets and Darwin and God’s name and my God versus your god and so on, either. I don’t know what might have driven all that.

So, in the end, I really don’t know what we’re debating here other than that you’re trying to find excuses for not believing you’re monkey kind!

Oh, this my God versus yours thing… Mine doesn’t lie. Mine doesn’t tell me the world was supposed to end two thousand years ago.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 21:22 pm

Charles; You asked where are the fossils of Adam & Eve?

I am also asking you: Where are the fossils of your ancestors two thousand years ago?Who were their names? Just because you cannot find there fossils or you do not know their name, does it mean they did not exist!

But remember what historian says: No documents no history…does your ancestors just two thousand years ago had documents to show they did really exist? None I think! Yet we have the documents to prove where all humans came from, who were the first man and woman, what were the first cities…but i doubt if you be convinced! We cannot convince you nor can you convince us…so we wait for time will tell who is true! If you are right that there is no god or that the god you say you believe in created you from the monkey kind that is fine with us! Your god does not have a name! Your god does not have a manual for your kind! Your god might be so busy that he had left you to search desperately for His Truths.Your donot talk to your god nor does your god talk to you!

While our God have a name! he talked to us and we pray to him. We have his instruction manual. he had told us who were our first parent, the first cities and have told us what he plan for our future!

So Charles did your god tell you that Charles Darwin should be your mentor for Charles Darwin was his prophet? how could Charles Darwin be your mentor for he was a TORMENTED EVOLUTIONIST while you are a believer in a god? Does your god make prophets out of atheists? Where are the prophets of your god or his priests? Please answer those questions!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3265 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/15/2011 17:27 pm