the Humanity of Jesus

TimAllen

New Member
Any site that claims Dinosaurs (we're talking T-rexes and Brontasaurus's) existed at the same time as man is just silly.

To use YOUR Bible to support that argument is equally invalid. In order for YOUR version to work they co-existed with man in the Garden of Eden. Not everyone believes in YOUR Bible, People and civilizations that predate YOUR Bible, have an equally valid creation "story" that doesnt include the Garden of Eden.
  • There is proof of the existence of the dinosaurs
  • There is no proof of the existence of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve
  • You cant use the Bible as "proof" since your asking your "proof" to prove itself.
  • The Bible is not a history book. Just because the Bible did not mention Dinosaurs does not mean they did not exist. The Bible does not refer to a lot of things that do in fact exist.


SCIENTIFIC" Evidence of Adam & Eve's Existence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by DNA you inherited from your parents.

In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment. In other words, half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, outside the nucleus of each cell are thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Normally, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.

In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.2 They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “the mitochondrial Eve.”

From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.4 However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.

Likewise, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.5 Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6

When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 10,000 years.” Another erroneous approach began by assuming that Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years provided another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.8 This surprised evolutionists who believe that our common ancestor was an apelike creature that lived 31/2 million years ago.9

A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than had been estimated. Without assuming that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 5 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.10
Is there a “genetic Adam”? A man receives from his father a segment of DNA which lies on the Y chromosome; this makes him a male. Where did your father receive his segment? From his father. If we all descended from one man, all males should have the same Y chromosome segment—except for rare mutations.

A 1995 study of a worldwide sample of 38 men showed no changes in this segment of the Y chromosome that is always inherited from fathers. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived 500,000 years ago, each should carry about 19 mutations. Had he lived 150,000 years ago, 5.5 mutations would be expected.11 Because no changes were found, our common father probably lived only thousands of years ago. While Adam was father of all, our most recent common male ancestor was Noah.


Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents” are probably removed from us by only 200–300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.
 

TimAllen

New Member
I guess these are due to translation?
  • God didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? (Genesis 1:3-5)
  • God made Plants third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to for Photosynthesis (Genesis 1:14-19).
  • God made all animals were originally herbivores (Genesis 1:30). Lions Tigers, Mosquito's, Pirranhas all ate at the salad bar
  • The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they"cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof". But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud." (Leviticus 11:5-6)
  • The Bible states Bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13, 19)
  • The Bible claims the doesnt move "the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." (1 chronicles 16:30 , Job 38:4-6 , many others)
  • The Bible goes on a long rant about Ostriches being terrible parents to their eggs (Job 39:13-16) but in reality they are very attentive parents
  • The Sun rotates around the Earth (Psalm 19:4-6)
  • Ecclesiastes 1:5 was used as proof, against Galileo, that the Sun revolves around the Earth
  • Infamous Mustard Seed (Mathew 13:31-32)
  • Epilepsy is caused by the Devil (Mathew 17:15-18, Luke 3:9)
  • Deaf people are plagued by the Devil (Luke 11:14)
  • Dead seeds germinate (1 Corinthians 15:36)


1.God Created light....He did not however create the Sun and Moon specifically until the 4th day... So there was light on the first day..

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day


2. Says he created grass and herb yielding seed and Fruit trees that had the seed in it.... only thing he made were the seeds grass and fruit trees.. no way to water it yet and nobody to take care of it..

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

3. It only speeks of animals that :creepeth on the earth" did not say anything about fish.

4. Hare's do chew their cud.. he was speaking to Moses and Aaron telling them what they could and could not eat..Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination (chewing the cud), and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

5. Bible does not make a distinction between birds and bats, they both fly that all that mattered then.. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

6. Where has the earth moved to? Job 38: 4-6 God was asking Job where he was when God was creating everything, also asked him why he thinks he knows everything about it was he there? Says nothing about the earth not moving,

7. It does not say Ostrich's are bad parents it simply states that God did not give them the reasoning to know what harm they put their eggs in when burying them in the ground.. If you had added and read verse 17 it doesnt say they are bad parents.. \

39:13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
39:14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
39:15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
39:16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;
39:17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

8. Psalms 19:4-6 has nothing to do with that it is a Poem about God's handiwork.

9. Again Ecclesiastes 1:5 says nothing about the Sun revolving around the earth...IT SAYS The Sun comes up and the Sun goes Down.

1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


10. The Infamous mustard seed, this was a parable, Do you think the people he was talking to would have understood what a South African Orchid was?
He was referring to garden plants, which the Mustard seed is the Smallest and produces the largest plant. The subject of the parable is the kingdom of God and not the mustard seed. In this passage the Lord used both Semitic hyperbole and Hebraic parallelism to make his point.


11. Was making a reference as to the disease that the child had and rebuking the devil saying it was his(the devil's) fault, oh and by the way the devil does cause disease.. Nothing in Luke 3:9 says anything about epilepsy.

12. Uhhmm it says the dumb devil.. have you not realized that every disease or problem that Jesus healed he referred to as the devil... Oh it says dumb not deaf... the person could not speak says nothing about hearing!

11:14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

13. What are you talking about... Again this is a parable a using examples to make a point..Read everything before and after this is just part..

15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
15:39 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.
15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
15:41 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.
15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

Ok took me a minute but I have discredited everything you just Said.. Some of these verses you are quoting you cannot just use the single verse you need to read before and after and the middle to get the whole story.
 

TimAllen

New Member
You REALLY didnt help state your case :lmao:

What I was pointing out and of course you hihglighted 140,000 years, it also states i could be as recent as 3,000 years they don't know. Simply shows that Men and women all have a gene in common meaning we all either come from one man and one woman...Adam and Eve!
 

TimAllen

New Member
You most certainly did not read what was posted.

You (conveniently) missed :
  • "not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have descendants alive today", if they were other women alive when Mitochondrial Eve was alive, there were other lineages
  • "A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time — she was not. Had she been the only living female of her time, humanity would most likely have become extinct due to an extreme population bottleneck"
  • The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent
  • The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor
  • For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA
  • the entire last quote
Mitochondrial Eve refutes your point, it doesnt make it :lmao:

To be honest the argument over The Mitochondrial Eve and the Biblical Eve continues on, the only thing I can say is everything I read is Creationist saying it proves one thing and Evolutionist saying it is something else. The ywo sides will never agree. However it does show that there is a single matrilineal ancestor...As well as a single Paternal Ancestor.. Some people say the Mitochodrial Eve is close in age to the Biblical Eve as in the time they existed here on earth. What I do know is whatever the dating we know that it was not 144,000 years ago, and there is Biblical evidence to support that if you follow the chronological timeline in the Bible it shows that Adam and Eve would have been created about 6000 years ago.. it is only 2008 A.D. Jesus only died 2000 years ago..
 

TimAllen

New Member
You didnt discredit anything, you excused the translations. You wanted examples of the Bibles fallacy, you were shown several.

You then relied upon the Bible to prove itself true, that is an invalid argument to your case. You cant rely on your "Proof" to prove your "Proof" which is exactly what you did.

Refection is not the same as rumination, unless your an apologist and want to turn a blind eye to a "Fact" in the Bible. if it was the same it would be called rumination. Rabbits/Hares/Coneys do not have rumen, what they do is called cecal fermentation and reingestion, a specific type of fecal matter is passed and reingested. Your argument is weak, the Author of this particular passage figured since it look like they chew cud thats what rabbits were doing.

Why am I even argueing with you? You obviously do not believe in the Bible or in God. Well I have news for you, I will not be the one spending eternity in hell. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, that is all I need, I read it and I believe it. I pray that one day you open your eyes and heart and let Jesus in so He can show you what it is like to Believe. I honestly see the devil working in this forum everyday, trying to discredit the Bible Gods Word. Well I for one will not let the devil win! :duel: Bring it on the Bible is the only proof I need of how we all got here. If the Bible says its true then it is.
 
Last edited:

Marie

New Member
The Bible is not a history book. Just because the Bible did not mention Dinosaurs does not mean they did not exist. The Bible does not refer to a lot of things that do in fact exist.


I respectfully disagree, as I am finishing the last of the five books of History in it right now. It contans detailed geneologies of a lot of people that are never mentioned in the Bible anywhere else. I think there are a lot of Jews that would take offense to you discounting those five books as well.
Also The Quoran used to refer to the Bible as the book of truth till it was changed.

Theres absoultely no reason in the world to assume that the two didnt co- exsist. If fact it was rummored that TRex might not have been a meat eater even though his teeth were suited for it.
Also they found red blood cells in a TRex in bones that would have been gone if we were truely talking millions of years.

Its ok if we disagree, there is nothing I could ever say or provide you with that you would be perceptive to, your minds made up.
I have a life after this to look forward to, an anxiously wait on, sadly yours is running out and could be over in a flash, and you have nothing to look forward to.
I have a promise of a world far better than this one could ever image. You have a fear of the unknown, death at best, eternal punishment at worst.
I totally understand why talking about this stuff is so upseting to you.
It's not the messenger that you hate its the message.

The Good news isnt good news to you understand how badly you need it!

THE EVIDENCE

The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the 'millions of years' idea) is, to date, as follows:
  • The tissue was colored reddish brown, the color of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
  • Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
  • Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modern heme compounds.
  • To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats' immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.
Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation.
REFERENCES AND NOTES

  1. 1. M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, 'The Real Jurassic Park', Earth , June 1997 pp. 55-57.
 

TimAllen

New Member
Faith is a device of self-delusion, a slight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breath life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men.

Where did you get that quote from? Just curious.. I ahve faith in God. I am far from delusional, I actually can think, I am rational. SO whats my excuse, So you are saying God and his Word are lies? What was dreamed up about God....?

Anyway what you just said made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Show me where you got the quote! You are a trip, I sure am glad I have something more to look forward to than death, and eternal damnation. I'll be chillin in heaven with Jesus!
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Faith is a device of self-delusion, a slight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breath life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men.
If that' s the way YOU feel, that still doesn't make it the truth. It may be YOUR truth, but I don't believe it to be THE truth.

Have fun with that belief.
 

TimAllen

New Member
Its a Terry Goodkind quote, figured since you were going to underline a phrase i'd do it too

The phrase I underlined was my quote.. not someone elses quote.. so is that how you feel or what you think or are you using someone else words to state your position?
 

TimAllen

New Member
There are some parrallels to Goodkinds quote and how I feel (just not as derogatory). I feel the practice of "religion" was invented to help ancient mankind to answer the unknowns (where did i come from, what are the lights in the sky, why does it rain etc.).

The practice grew and evolved throughout the years, hence the variances of equally valid beliefs in the world (past and present), and the absorbtion of different faiths beliefs into "new" religious beliefs (that are still in existence in todays beliefs, including your own).


This coming from someone who posts scriptures from the Bible? :killingme

I quote scriptures from the Bible that verify and justify why I beleive the way I do. I believe in the Word of God. SO HOW IS THAT FUNNY TO YOU? I simply asked if you believe the way the person you quoted believes.

Isnt this what you said

Originally Posted by Nucklesack
Its a Terry Goodkind quote, figured since you were going to underline a phrase i'd do it too
Actually its the Terry Goodkind feels
 
Last edited:

TimAllen

New Member
Because you are "using someone else words to state your position"

Originally Posted by Nucklesack
There are some parrallels to Goodkinds quote and how I feel (just not as derogatory).

Without scriptures to quote my position would not change. I still believe in one God. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, so I am using God's Word's to tell you why I believe the way I do. So I am using God's Word's to state my position, that is what it is there for.
 

tommyjones

New Member
Originally Posted by Nucklesack
There are some parrallels to Goodkinds quote and how I feel (just not as derogatory).

Without scriptures to quote my position would not change. I still believe in one God. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, so I am using God's Word's to tell you why I believe the way I do. So I am using God's Word's to state my position, that is what it is there for.

you are using some other mans words about god, just like nuckle is.....


without scriptures, you wouldn't know how to feel, as all of your perception is based on the "truth" you have been fed. for instance, if the bible didnt say it was the inspried word of god, you certainly wouldn't believe it
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
actually, without scripture, there really wouldn't be a 'god' as you know it. I mean everything we 'know' about him or her is from that book, so if it didn't exist ....
Follow that line out - if you weren't told about Him, would He exist?

Well, do you know what car I drive? Does it exist?


Seems a flaw in your theory there.
 

libby

New Member
actually, without scripture, there really wouldn't be a 'god' as you know it. I mean everything we 'know' about him or her is from that book, so if it didn't exist ....

This is why, for my part, I believe in the Church. (In my case, the Catholic Church). Jesus Christ told His Apostles to build a "church". The invisible church of the Bible Christian does not exist without the Bible, as far as I can tell.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
actually, without scripture, there really wouldn't be a 'god' as you know it. I mean everything we 'know' about him or her is from that book, so if it didn't exist ....

Yes there would. If you destroyed every bible in existence and a thousand years went by where no one was allowed to preach God's word, God would still exist just the same. God was before we were created and God will always be. This holds true with arguments like if a tree fell in the forest and no one there to hear it, did it make a sound. Or if man wasn't even on this earth would earth really exist?

Tough concept for folks that can't get out of their paradigm of "God was created by man".
 

tommyjones

New Member
Yes there would. If you destroyed every bible in existence and a thousand years went by where no one was allowed to preach God's word, God would still exist just the same. God was before we were created and God will always be. This holds true with arguments like if a tree fell in the forest and no one there to hear it, did it make a sound. Or if man wasn't even on this earth would earth really exist?

Tough concept for folks that can't get out of their paradigm of "God was created by man".

and its apparent that you can't get out of the paradigm of "the bible was written by god"

if you could, you would see that since man wrote the book, it is mans view or impression of what he thinks god is, there for the construct is man-made.


it doesn't mean that there isn't a god, or that god hasn't always existed, it just means that religion was contructed by people, and religion is not representative of god necessarily
 
Top