What christians don't want to admit (page 5)

new hope and happiness

James Brown: i was joking " Athiesam is a NON PROPHET" organisation not non proffit.

This behavior surprised God; and he asked what was the cause of this his procedure; and why he, that before delighted in that conversation, did now fly from it, and avoid it. When he made no reply, as conscious to himself that he had transgressed the command of God, God said, "I had before determined about you both, how you might lead a happy life, without any affliction, and care, and vexation of soul; and that all things which might contribute to your enjoyment and pleasure should grow up by my providence, of their own accord, without your own labor and pains-taking; which state of labor and pains-taking would soon bring on old age, and death would not be at any remote distance: but now thou hast abused this my good-will, and hast disobeyed my commands; for thy silence is not the sign of thy virtue, but of thy evil conscience." However, Adam excused his sin, and entreated God not to be angry at him, and laid the blame of what was done upon his wife; and said that he was deceived by her, and thence became an offender; while she again accused the serpent. But God allotted him punishment, because he weakly submitted to the counsel of his wife; and said the ground should not henceforth yield its fruits of its own accord, but that when it should be harassed by their labor, it should bring forth some of its fruits, and refuse to bring forth others. He also made Eve liable to the inconveniency of breeding, and the sharp pains of bringing forth children; and this because she persuaded Adam with the same arguments wherewith the serpent had persuaded her, and had thereby brought him into a calamitous condition. He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them, that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him, that way. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place. (THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, book I)

From the above words of Josephus we may know that Pharisees of the first century believed that Adam was a literal person. So, Paul had to believe it, as shown in his letters.

opusdei1972

James Brown: "If there is scientific proof that Adam was not the first man,..."

The scientific proof is based on radiometric dating, dendrochronology (to calibrate radiocarbon technique) and ADN arguments. Modern men were here in this planet 50 000 years ago at least, and if you regard Neanderthals as men, they are much older.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1009371/Neanderthals-the-Latest-News-Year-In-Review-2004

But the Bible says Adam was created 6000 years ago. If there were men before Adam, Adam was not the father of all men. Also, the American man came to America more than 15000 years ago.

James Brown

opuside.

I take the dating of the earth with a grain of salt.

Just like religion.

It is not really science.

It can't be proven or falsified.

It is psuedo science.

It could be true.

It is like God there is no way to prove it.

If there is no God and the bible is not true.

There is not much reason not to believe it.

But still its only a theory.

Not a law.

It is like the theory of evolution.

Not the law of evlution.

gravity is a law not a theory.

It is demonstratable and falsifiable.

If the earth is old.

Then we are screwed.

So I cant and don't want to embrace that theory.

James Brown

James Brown: i was joking " Athiesam is a NON PROPHET" organisation not non proffit.

I thought you couldn't spell

or had one of those dumb/smart phones,

where you cant type because your finger is too big.

I see your point.

But if atheism is true they are phrophets.

They prophecy no happy ending.

Unless eternal nothingness and sleep makes you happy.

I prefer life.

which Is irrelevant to reality.

opusdei1972

Hi James Brown:

The Watchtower Society quoted the scientist R.H. Brown, who is/was an Adventist (may be he is dead) of the Adventist Andrews University , to defend the 6000 years of human creation. I was reading some articles published by R. H. Brown, and I found one in which he commented about the book entitled "THE AGE OF THE EARTH", whose author is G. Brent Dalrymple. Let us read what Brown said:

Dalrymple makes a good case for an age of about 4.5 billion years for the material of which the earth, moon, and meteorites are composed. He evidently believes that he has thoroughly discredited special creationism. His treatment in The Age of the Earth has made it much more difficult to plausibly explain radiometric data on the basis of a creation of the entire Solar System, or the physical matter in planet Earth, within the last few thousand years. In my opinion, the defense of such a position is a losing battle. (Origins 19(2):87-90 (1992).)

Note that Brown, an Adventist, had to admit that the defense of a 6 literal days of creation is "a losing battle". But, what was Brown's argument in favor to 6000 years of man existence?.....Brown said that the Flood changed the concentration of carbon-14 in carbon-12, because before the Flood there was much more carbon-12 on account of the great number of animals in the planet. Accordingly, Brown said that the carbon-14 technique could not give the right dates for fossils before the Flood. However, the global Flood did not happen, so Brown used a false assumption to discredit the radiocarbon dates.

Apognophos

James Brown, I'm sure you realize that not all ideas and theories are on equal footing; some have more evidence in their favor than others. The Bible's claims do not hold up and are clearly the work of ancient, ignorant men, whereas science continually tests and improves its own theories.

The age of the earth is largely based on simple rules such as the rate of radioactive decay and the growth of tree rings, and these methods of dating agree with each other on a certain age when more than one dating method can be used on a certain object. They verify each other, through totally different means of determining age.

So while it's technically true that these ages cannot be confirmed directly (we would need a time machine for that), there's more than enough evidence to accept that scientists can tell us the earth's age pretty accurately.

James Brown

Apognophos.

Yes I am a ware of all of that.

It doesn't look good for any of us.

The evidence for God has been muddied and put into doubt.

The alternative is not pleasant to me.

I am aware that I probalby just can't handle the truth.

James Brown

Gods evidence is circumstantial.

He has been silent for too long to not be culpable in the mystery of his existence.

I can only hope there is a happier ending than what much of the evidence points to.

While eternal sleep is not bad.

I prefer eternal life.

I have been retired 2 years.

And I do not get bored.

And at the same time I do not do that much.

sir82

James,

You need to do some more research.

gravity is a law not a theory.

Gravity is 100% absolutely positively a theory.

You seem to think "theory" means "unproven hypothesis" - that is a common misconception, but it is absolutely wrong.

Do some studying on what the word "theory" means - you may be surprised.

What christians don't want to admit

Share this