Wow, I was raised a Catholic, and I don't ever remember them telling me that Jesus was either around at the begining of creation nor that he had always existed.
I was taught that his existence began when he was born.
quote:
Jesus is morre real than that monkey man or missing link thing.
Wow, we have Jesus' fossilized skeleton or skull, then?
quote:
you can check outside the bible for the existence of jesus and there is evidence and a lot of it.
Really? Like what evidence?
quote:
If jesus is real so must have moses,abraham, adam, and the creation.
Excuse me? How on earth does this follow logically?
I could just as easily say, "If Jesus is real, so must unicorns have existed." (You do know that unicorns are mentioned in the Bible, don't you?)
quote:
Jesus is a witness of creation and im afraid theres no witness of evolution
Um, actually, we have and do observe Evolution all the time. Here's a link to quite a few examples of evidence. Let me know if you want more:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Anyway, do you really think that every single one of the hundreds of thousands of scientistswho use evolutionary theory every day in their work are completely deluded in the same way?
quote:
It is impossible to have different views of the bible so all christians will agree on this statements.
So, I suppose that you have a different explanation for why there are hundreds and hundreds of different Christian denominations in the US alone if everyone sees the Bible in exactly the same way, then?
quote:
2 plus 2 is always four. Theres no other way of seing it. the bible is the same.
Actually, there are many different translations of the Bible, each containing it's own mistakes of translation, word choices, and omissions or additions, depending upon who ordered and did the translation.
The King James Version, for instance, contains quite a few translation errors where other Bibles have fewer.
quote:
Different views come from people who want to accomodate the bible to their beliefs. Theviews presented here are from people who accomodate themselves to the bible not the other way around. An integral is an integral and a comandment is a comandment. The bible is not relative.
Ah, engineers. They think because math can deliver unambiguous, absolute answers, so does (or must) everything else.
I'm sorry, but the Bible as a whole does not provide anything close to, "2+2=4". It is very ambiguous and quite open to interpretation because of this ambiguity. Add to that that the many clear errors and contradictions and, well, 2+2 starts to add up to 6 3/4.
quote:
"In the end this comes down to a belief that Christians should not study and try to understand the Bible - they should believe Jonathan Sarfatti instead."
Those who do study it will reach the same conclusions.
So, Sarfartti is the ultimate arbiter of Biblical truth for all time and forever?
Couldn't it be that you think his interpretation is correct because you want to, because it fits into your own beliefs?
™ Version 4.2
