Ken Ham vs Bill Nye (Is creation a viable model of origins?)

[spideyboy_1111]

Just couple a of verses containing the Gospel of Jesus-Christ

Roman 3:23-25
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Act 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I hope that this was helpful to you.

It isn't... Lol. That's my point its what your belief believes it to be. Doesnt make it "the true gospel" for others though

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't see how you can be a scientist and be a creationist.

That was indeed possible before we understood evolution, but then in those days science was very flawed. But now, cosmology, geology, biological evolution, they're all tied together.

Easy. And I've explained it before. You can believe god created the big bang and believe in intelligent design that includes evolution. Its not a black and white , one way or the other path.

Science can only explain so much currently,some believe science whole heartily... But like our ancestors have done since the beginning.... Fir what science can't yet explain, they turn to god. The human race likes answers and if they don't have it... They make it work for them

 

[Marvolo]

Just couple a of verses containing the Gospel of Jesus-Christ

Roman 3:23-25
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Act 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I hope that this was helpful to you.

Are you protestant, catholic, or Orthydox? Each one has their own bible with its own layout, differing books, and even differing verses. Which one is your true gospel?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Easy. And I've explained it before. You can believe god created the big bang and believe in intelligent design that includes evolution. Its not a black and white , one way or the other path.

Science can only explain so much currently,some believe science whole heartily... But like our ancestors have done since the beginning.... Fir what science can't yet explain, they turn to god. The human race likes answers and if they don't have it... They make it work for them

We may be having a semantics issue.

Intelligent design is the name of a specific type of creationism. Creationism in general rejects the Big Bang and evolution.

What you're describing is theistic evolution.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Perhaps I should rephrase it. I don't see how someone can be a creationist (as in, the term used to describe people who reject evolution, and believe humans were made in their present form) and be a scientist.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

We may be having a semantics issue.

Intelligent design is the name of a specific type of creationism. Creationism in general rejects the Big Bang and evolution.

What you're describing is theistic evolution.

Im just throwing examples. I know there's plenty if creationists who while believe in Genesis completely for instance. Don't believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I don't know when that suddenly became part of creatiionism but it wasn't always and i think people are confusing the semantics of everything. Because its truly not that black and white for people

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Perhaps I should rephrase it. I don't see how someone can be a creationist (as in, the term used to describe people who reject evolution, and believe humans were made in their present form) and be a scientist.

Well there's plenty of doctors out there who work wit cells, the human body , etc and still consider themselves creationists. i have trouble understanding aspects of it. But they just figure the body is too complex to not be made from the divine.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, creationism has become synonymous with young Earth creationism, since most non-Protestant creationist... theories have gone by the wayside. E.g. the Catholic church threw in the towel in the 19th century. In the Western world, anyway.

Though you're right, you do have some weird cases. There are actually some Catholics who reject the church's official position, like Rick Santorum.

 

[The_Harvest]

Here is what you asked:

And just what is the "true gospel"? Most Christians don't even agree on the same beliefs which is why there's so many offshoots (more than any other religion actually)

I gave you a clear answer backed by the Bible verses containing the Gospel of Christ. I don't really get your second remark.

It isn't... Lol. That's my point its what your belief believes it to be. Doesnt make it "the true gospel" for others though

And yes there is only one Gospel. Whether you believe it is another issue. The word Gospel or euangelion in Greek (meaning good news/message) refers to the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus-Christ.
He died for all our sins he who himself was without sin. Jesus-Christ was the perfect sacrifice.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Speak for yourself, man. I wasn't even born yet.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Honestly until the last decade i had never once heard about "young earth" ire that kirk Cameron "left behind" crap. They all seem like relatively new ideas that some how became a thing.

There's people i grew up with who never once been taught that and had the same education K-12 as me who suddenly began to believe all this hysteria..... Its so bizarre to me

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Here is what you asked:



I gave you a clear answer backed by the Bible verses containing the Gospel of Christ. I don't really get your second remark.



And yes there is only one Gospel. Whether you believe it is another issue. The word Gospel or euangelion in Greek (meaning good news/message) refers to the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus-Christ.
He died for all our sins he who himself was without sin. Jesus-Christ was the perfect sacrifice.

Nvm its over your head. Im discussing how torn apart Christianity is. They all have different beliefs in what's "true" and what's not

 

[Thundercrack85]

Honestly until the last decade i had never once heard about "young earth" ire that kirk Cameron "left behind" crap. They all seem like relatively new ideas that some how became a thing.

There's people i grew up with who never once been taught that and had the same education K-12 as me who suddenly began to believe all this hysteria..... Its so bizarre to me

In some ways they are, and in some ways they aren't.. Creationism (though not necessarily young Earth) was the norm, until evolution came around. And even then, most schools... taught a mixture of creationism, evolution, or nothing. But in the early 20th century, there was a big row among the super religious, and the teaching of evolution in public schools was banned in several states. Evolution was still taught, in states without bans, but it varied from state to city, to county, to school.

So it remained an odd local issue until the 1960's, when finally, the federal government started taking action. The supreme court case Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) found the laws banning the teaching of evolution unconstitutional.

However, this only legalized the teaching of evolution. It didn't say the schools couldn't teach creationism. So, they continued to teach creationism, until 1987, with Edwards v. Aguillard, which effectively outlawed teaching creationism.

This is where intelligent design comes in. Since they knew creationism wasn't going to fly, the creationists redressed young Earth creationism as a "scientific theory", called intelligent design.

Kitzmiller v. Dover (a federal case) found teaching intelligent design to be no different than creationism in 2005.

So, that's where we are now.

 

[Thundercrack85]

They really should teach this **** in school. The legal history, I mean.

 

[The_Harvest]

Are you protestant, catholic, or Orthydox? Each one has their own bible with its own layout, differing books, and even differing verses. Which one is your true gospel?

I gave you the true Gospel and yet you are asking me to give you the true Gospel?

I'm neither Catholic nor protestant. Although the secular world considers everyone who doesn't adhere to the catholic or orthodox doctrine a protestants. I guess you could call me a Baptist. There is only one Bible and the best way to know if you have a best translation is to verify if your Bible was translated from the Antioch Manuscript. This manuscript gave us the Textus Receptus. All modern translations of the Bible are corrupt.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's not really true. Religious people came up with those categories.

Though I can see why it might be annoying to have your identity defined by another religious group.

 

[The_Harvest]

Nvm its over your head. Im discussing how torn apart Christianity is. They all have different beliefs in what's "true" and what's not

It's not over my head you asked I answered. I do agree with you that today we have many different denominations but if you read the Bible you will notice that this was also the case during the early church history. The main reasons for the "different beliefs" are the lack of sola scriptura (meaning the Bible is our final authority and not man/the pope) and the different interpretations coming from not rightly dividing the word of God.
2 Tim:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

There is however one point where true Christians are not divided on and that is how we are saved. With time, patient, and good Bible study we can reconcile with the truth.

 

[Marvolo]

I gave you the true Gospel and yet you are asking me to give you the true Gospel?

I'm neither Catholic nor protestant. Although the secular world considers everyone who doesn't adhere to the catholic or orthodox doctrine a protestants. I guess you could call me a Baptist. There is only one Bible and the best way to know if you have a best translation is to verify if your Bible was translated from the Antioch Manuscript. This manuscript gave us the Textus Receptus. All modern translations of the Bible are corrupt.

Im aware of all that. Raised baptist and studied doctines and theology at school for 6 years. And there are older manuscripts of the bible than the textus receptus. And, no, modern translations are not corrupt. Modern translations come from older manuscripts written closer to the time of christ. They also use the knowledge we have gained in the past 400 years of the ancient aramaic and greek that the texts were written in. Some modern tranlations do take a looser approach, but other do not and are closer to the older manuscripts than yhe KJV.

Also there is not just one bible. The protestant bible leaves out multiple books that are found in older jewish manuscripts. As far as the Bible goes, the orthydox/catholoc church prior to the schism in 1054 put the bible and doctrine together in a series of councils. Their bible is just as legitimate as the bastardized protestant bible.

 

[The_Harvest]

Im aware of all that. Raised baptist and studied doctines and theology at school for 6 years. And there are older manuscripts of the bible than the textus receptus. And, no, modern translations are not corrupt. Modern translations come from older manuscripts written closer to the time of christ. They also use the knowledge we have gained in the past 400 years of the ancient aramaic and greek that the texts were written in. Some modern tranlations do take a looser approach, but other do not and are closer to the older manuscripts than yhe KJV.

Please, provide me these versions.

 

[Marvolo]

Please, provide me these versions.

Well ok then Ill name them.

New Jerusalem translation

NASB

ASB

RSV

RSV 2ND EDITION

NRSV

NRSV 2ND EDITION


Thats just to name a few that are use older manuscripts. Im at work right now so its gonna be hard for me to go into detail atm. But I will when I get the chance and will provide you with some links and you can read and take from it what you will.

Fun fact: Martin Luther that the protestants praise as a godsend actually wanted to toss out most of the NT. He considered all four gospels, the book of James and Hebrews, the book of Revelation, and a few others to be uncannonical. He did change his mind about removing them entirely, and instead moved all those books to the back of his own personal bible.

Another fun fact: The translators of the KJV wrote a prologue to their translation and stated that they didnt consider the KJV the only adequate translation nor the end all be all of translations. That tends to get left out of most modern KJV translations.

 

[The_Harvest]

Well ok then Ill name them.

New Jerusalem translation

NASB

ASB

RSV

RSV 2ND EDITION

NRSV

NRSV 2ND EDITION

Thats just to name a few that are based on older manuscripts. Im at work right now so its gonna be hard for me to go into detail atm. But I will and will provide you with some links and you can read and take from it what you will.

Another fun fact: The translators of the KJV wrote a prologue to their translation and stated that thry didnt consider the KJV the only adequate translation nor the end all be all of translations.

Ok I'll be happy to read your link. I didn't say that all translations are bad only the modern translations and those include the one's you cited.

Tyndale, Rogers, Coverdale, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishop's Bible, and of course the King James Bible are what I consider good translations for English speaking Christians.

 

[Marvolo]

Ok I'll be happy to read your link. I didn't say that all translations are bad only the modern translations and those include the one's you cited.

Tyndale, Rogers, Coverdale, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishop's Bible, and of course the King James Bible are what I consider good translations for English speaking Christians.

Thats perfectly fine. I wont deny that the KJV is a gorgeous translation. It is. However, when it was done many older manuscripts had yet to be discovered, knowledge of ancient jewish culture as it was when the books were written was much more limited, and their knowledge of the original languages the manuscripts were written in was much more limited. Point is we know more about the times and culture these books came from and that is invaluable in a translation. Some areas of the KJV just werent translated as accurately as they could have been knowing what we know today.

As an aside, I guarantee Im not wrong in saying one of your issues with modern translations is that they leave some verses out. Well it might interest you to know that the verses left out in places werent in the older manuscripts. They were added by a later writer. There is a verse in, I believe it is Mark, could be wrong like I said I dont have my links with me, anyways, there is a verse in one of the gospels and the verse is restated in Ill say John. The verse is in both places in the manuscript used by the KJV teanslators. In older manuscripts it is only in John. That is why modern bible translations leave some verses out. Some verses didnt appear where they do in the later manuscripts.

Look I know some modern christians like to think the KJV translators were directly influenced by god, and what they did was divine but they were just men. We have some of their own words. They cobsidered themselves blessed to have the task, but they didnt see themselves as superior or incapable of error. They didnt have some of the knowledge we have today. That had an influence on there translations. Modern translations are in ways closer to the oldest manuscripts than the KJV. Point is no one translation is perfect. An english translator is trying to translate a 2,000+ year old group of texts written in two dead languages that went through multiple writers from two long gone cultures. Its tough work and no one gets it 100%. Rather than dismissing modern translations it would be more productive to work with them all and find the most accurate representation possible of the original texts or the oldest texts we can find. Personally, I own about ten different english translations including the KJV and use them all. I know the shortcomings of all and the strengths of them all. It makes for a much more fullfilling read.

Edit: My phone is about to die. If I dont respond for a bit, its not because im ignoring your posts.

 

[Breogan]

Translation is still reading someone ells's interpretation. Unless you understand and read in the original language and know what was put in or left out, you really have no idea how close it is to any supposed "true" meaning.
No wonder you have some christians squeezing time in history so humans can ride dinosaurs, to make the bible "correct" with science. And other christians stretching the days in the bible so they can make the bible correct with science.
Everyone just makes up what works for them spiritually. Which is beautiful!
Just keep it out of science class.

 

[KevanG]

Edit: My phone is about to die. If I dont respond for a bit, its not because im ignoring your posts.

I'm taking it personally Marv.

 

[Marvolo]

Translation is still reading someone ells's interpretation. Unless you understand and read in the original language and know what was put in or left out, you really have no idea how close it is to any supposed "true" meaning.
No wonder you have some christians squeezing time so humans can ride dinosaurs, to make the bible "correct" with science. And other christians stretching the days in the bible so they can make the bible correct with science.
Everyone just makes up what works for them.

Yeah, the only "true" bible is the original greek and aramaic manuscripts and they are gone. Lost and destroyed. Id be willing to bet there were exact copies of the original greek manusceipts in the library at alexandria, but we all know what happened there.

Despite not having the originals or copies of the originals. Some christians, not all, believe that the KJV and other certain translations are divinely inspired. That the translators were guided by the hand of god.