Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

The fact that NONE of the literalists can answer the "Zerubbabel Question" shows us just why parts of the Bible (like the genealogies) can't be taken literally.

AND! - THIS IS KEY! - I'm certainly not the first person to have noticed this. The ancients realized this. These "contradictions" have persisted in our Bibles NOT because everyone was "so stupid."

The ancient scribes understood these things at a deeper level and saw truths being expressed that the Fundamentalists will never grasp.

Why wasn't Matthew 27:9-10 ever "corrected?" Am I the very first guy on the planet to have noticed that "Jeremy the prophet" never spoke those words? Hardly!

It was never "corrected" because it's TRUE, Jason! Now, how can we work that out? You'll have to throw away your "Fundamentalist Literalism" and take the Bible on its own terms to discover that truth.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The fact that NONE of the literalists can answer the "Zerubbabel Question" shows us just why parts of the Bible (like the genealogies) can't be taken literally.

AND! - THIS IS KEY! - I'm certainly not the first person to have noticed this. The ancients realized this. These "contradictions" have persisted in our Bibles NOT because everyone was "so stupid."

The ancient scribes understood these things at a deeper level and saw truths being expressed that the Fundamentalists will never grasp.

Why wasn't Matthew 27:9-10 ever "corrected?" Am I the very first guy on the planet to have noticed that "Jeremy the prophet" never spoke those words? Hardly!

It was never "corrected" because it's TRUE, Jason! Now, how can we work that out? You'll have to throw away your "Fundamentalist Literalism" and take the Bible on its own terms to discover that truth.

[DAII]

[coadie]

) It is interesting that the writings of Moses (Old Testament law) constitute the Bible section that most frequently uses “day” with a cardinal number. Moses uses it in well over 100 verses, and every time, without exception, he uses it to refer to literal days. Never – not once – does he use it to refer to longer periods! Since the three verses we are studying were all in the writing of Moses, it would seem highly unlikely that all three of them refer to long periods of time, when such a usage is never found anywhere else in Moses' writings.

(2) Further, the same is true with all writings that have the nature of history, law, or doctrine. Always, without exception, references to “day” with a cardinal number refer to literal days, never to longer periods. (The one apparent New Testament exception is not really an exception, as we will note later.)

http://www.gdcoc.org/creation/day_with_cardinal.htm

Peter 3:8 — But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This passage is sometimes used to try to argue that the days of creation may be longer than a literal day. Please consider, however, the following points:

(a) The word “as” proves unquestionably that this is a figurative use. “One day” is plainly said to be “as” a thousand years. Shall we conclude that this proves “day” always means 1000 years in the Bible? Of course not!

is 6,000 years enough?

[DAII]

Jason, I don't a dog in this fight but when you resort to this ....

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)God created using the method and order given in Genesis 1
2)the first man was called Adam
3)there was no worldwide flood
4)the genologies in the Bible are not literal

It sounds like the guys that say this:

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation preached at Pentecost
2)Baptism doth not save
3)tongues were the initial and only evidence of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2, 10 and 19
4) the invocation of Jesus name baptism is the apostolic model and applies to blood of Calvary

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by DAII

Jason, I don't a dog in this fight but when you resort to this ....

It sounds like the guys that say this:

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation preached at Pentecost
2)Baptism doth not save
3)tongues were the initial and only evidence of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2, 10 and 19
4) the invocation of Jesus name baptism is the apostolic model and applies to blood of Calvary

DA, I completely disagree. In the things you listed it goes against the plain teaching of scripture, namely justification by faith. All of those arguments can be rebutted with a use of scripture.

The arguments I am presenting are not rebutted with scripture, but with science (and claims of misinterpretation).

[coadie]

In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.
But the true state of affairs was very different. Haeckel had produced a drawing of just a single embryo, and then produced human, monkey and dog embryos from this by making very small changes. In other words, it was a hoax.
That was the supposed “scientific work” (!) that Darwin citied as a reference in his book The Descent of Man. In fact, some people realized that Haeckel’s illustrations were a distortion even before Darwin wrote his book. Following the exposure of the fraud, Haeckel himself admitted the huge scientific fraud he had perpetrated:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index...makale_id=1889

This hoax exposed in 1874 and still in textbooks 120 years later.

The devil wants lies about his counterfeit creation story.

No wonder these people are worried about Zerubabel. They are creating a distraction

Now for the really ugly story. Haeckel was an influence in Germany and an article in German about them trying to get a real ape to mate with a real Negro woman because these darwinists thougt she was closer in species similarity.

The minds of these pagan evolutionists are evil continually.

No wonder Christians with discernemnet avoid this horror.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.
But the true state of affairs was very different. Haeckel had produced a drawing of just a single embryo, and then produced human, monkey and dog embryos from this by making very small changes. In other words, it was a hoax.
That was the...

No wonder Christians with discernemnet avoid this horror.

coadie can you actually prove that "Haeckel" is "still in the textbooks 120 years later?"

No, you can't. And again - Haeckel's Lamarckism was the very ideology that was eventually overthrown by Darwinism.

As far as the lurid thing about crossing apes with humans, Stalin was infamous for his attempt. Haeckel? Dunno, but we've already seen the depths to which your own lurid imaginings can go.

How about you proving your assertions? Why can't you answer the "Zerubbabel Question" that YOU brought up?

[Jason B]

Great thread. I can't even keep up.

[coadie]

11And 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.

12And 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.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
So wse have plants on the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
sunshine the 4th day. Just in time for the plants.

Not 2 billion years after the plants evolved.

Prax and pelthais and Danny don't realize the order on the scripture was from God.

They say old earth and sun light before plants. Call God a liar. The buible says plants before

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


The bible is correct and it doesn't fit with the Darwiniac scriptures.