Eternal oblivion and the anti-bible??

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#41
As far as Noah and others such as Moses are concerned they were not restored to fellowship as Christians are which is true fellowship with God through the re-birth in Christ:
If you are happy with your fellowship with God then that is great.

Only in Christ is true fellowship restored - Christians have access to the living water, I doubt whether this could be said for those pre-Christ worthies:
Are you sure you didn't mean when the Spirit of Truth is within that one will have the well of water? But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. John 4:14

If you've received the holy spirit then you have been restored to the garden and the fellowship that Adam had with God:
Does that mean you received a white stone?

The water of life has been flowing since Pentecost, it flowed out of the "belly" of the apostles.

If people want to survive on Coca Cola whom am I to argue...
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:38
That's why I drink No Longer Water [SUP]TM[/SUP]
ion.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#42
I recently had a discussion with a self proclaimed atheist who was almost inviegle in sharing with me his "belief". He said the cessation of the brain means eternal oblivion because the brain is life. No brain no life.
I replied look at trees or any vegetation for that matter they live, grow, and communicate with no brain.
He ignored that point.
He went on and on but it made me wonder when did science suddenly become the anti-bible? Who would consider the endless void of eternal oblivion oppose to something more wonderful?
So, just for my own knowledge I am looking for science written within the bible. If anyone knows any passages that would help this cause than please let me know. Thank you.
The man without the spirit cannot understand spiritual things. Not the man without a brain. Brains matter is made up of flesh and blood as rudiments of this world formed from the dust .

We walk by the unseen spirit not looking in a microscope as if God was made of the molecules and atoms of this corrupted world . They will not find Christ by looking trough the lenses of a microscope.

Brain activity needs spirit life in order to think. Spirit life is in the brain of living beings but not of the brain. Just like blood .The life of the flesh is in the blood but is not literal blood without it.

Cant’ mix philosophies of men with the law of the Spirit. Can’t find Jesus with a microscope.What a person needs a new spirit one that will be raised to new spirit life on the last day .In that sense we have the mind of the Spirit as Christ in us but again not of us. His thoughts are not our any more than the new spirit by which we are born again. It where the gospel comes in ..


Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 
Last edited:
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
822
113
#43
Gen 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Adam "died" in the day he ate from the above tree - but it was not physical death which is natural. What he suffered was "spiritual death" - a separation from God's fellowship which is restored in Christ.

If Christ's death was to reverse the effect of Adam's sin then the conclusion is that His sacrifice was ineffective because not one Christian ever skipped the grave.

Now I know some of yus is gonna try and make a case of the "second death" in the book of revelation yada yada.
I don't agree with that. I don't think physical death IS natural. It wasn't meant to be. God didn't create A & E to die. He created them to live.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#44
So if the serpent lied? When did he lie?

"Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Gen 3:1

Is it not written in Genesis 1:29
"...and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."It doesn't say that we can't eat of any tree but rather the tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed shall be for protein which is the nutritional source primarily derived from meats. So what exactly does the fruit of a tree yielding seed mean? The nut being the seed of the tree or the pericarp of the fruit of the tree?

[2] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Genesis 3

So what if a real tree then what tree did they actually eat of? Based upon the fact they made aprons of leaves after their eyes were opened then wouldn't it be likely that it was also the tree they ate of?

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Genesis 3:7

So did the serpent lie when he said the following? "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." If he did then why is it written in Genesis 3:22; "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:..."

How does one know that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was referring unto a actual tree, Genesis 6:3 seems to infer that maybe it could have been a book since several scriptures refer unto the 'book of life' such as in Revelations 13:8, "...in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
The fruit of the tree is not important some say and apple I would think a almond tree.The fruit that was forbidden would be the wisdom of this world. Eating it shows Adam and Eve doing the pleasure of the god of this world as the wisdom of this .

When they did eat, corruption/death came .If they had eaten of any of the other trees they would been following the wisdom of God not seen.

She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour.Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.
She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. Pro 3:18

Trees are used in parables as that seen to represent that not seen. (the law of faith)

The almond tree represents the rebellious nature as the things or wisdom of this world
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,670
13,130
113
#45
I recently had a discussion with a self proclaimed atheist who was almost inviegle in sharing with me his "belief". He said the cessation of the brain means eternal oblivion because the brain is life. No brain no life.

if existence isn't eternal, it isn't existence at all - it's only the illusion of existing, waiting to be revealed as void in the passage of time.

we're communicating over the internet - neither of us have any direct observation of each others bodies, much less our brains. we make assumptions about those things, figuring we must have some kind of appendages that are inputting letters to form words, to express thoughts to each other, and figuring there must be some organizational organ in a physical body that is controlling those things, but we don't have any direct evidence of that. what we're observing is that information packets are being transmitted that are consistent with some kind of intelligent, autonomous source.

when we write back and forth, all we're actually interacting with and observing are tools being apparently put to use by some kind of being. what we're seeing is all second or third hand or further removed from the source, depending on how granular our analysis is. that's more obvious in written communication like this, but it's equally true if we are face-to-face: we observe audible, visual, olfactory and tactile signals from what amounts to engines producing those things, and we attribute them to a source embedded in what also amounts to an engine or 'factory' producing those things, and we attribute to that engine/factory a controlling agent embedded in the body that we are interacting with: all the things a person uses to communicate with another amount to tools being put to use by some intelligent agency, their voice, their gestures, their smell and so forth.

your atheist associate was using such tools to communicate to you that the brain is that very source, but the brain is just another collection of tools being used by something else. it's a processing engine, not an entity: no scientific inquiry has ever identified any physical location within it, or the thing in total, as the autonomous controlling agent, and many such experiments and probings have been carried out, for centuries. there are numerous, well-documented examples of animals and human beings suffering severe damage to and loss of brain function, and though their capabilities diminish in a way correlated to that loss, they don't cease to exist. people flatline for extended periods and recover. the functions normally carried out by certain sections of the brain can be taken on and accomplished by other parts of the brain; when the visual or motor center is destroyed, another lobe can re-wire itself to carry out these functions for example, and extensive research in animals has never been able to find any section of physical matter that, when compromised, totally destroys consciousness, until so much brain matter is compromised that the body cannot physically continue to operate and the creature expires. all evidence suggests the brain is a conduit, not a source. you may hear from people the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent faculty of complex biophysical/chemical reactions, but brain tissue has been kept 'alive' after death and no such consciousness has ever either remained or been introduced simply by 'leaving the cord plugged in.' the body can be kept functioning, but after 'brain death' - the cessation of activity within the complex neural architecture beyond 'idle processing' associated with ordinary subconscious running of the organs, brain activity that amounts to consciousness has never been re-introduced no matter how well the brain keeps functioning. only in sci-fi musings, never yet in reality.

it may ironically be science that winds up conferring to mankind in general the understanding that there is an eternal soul, a continuity of consciousness which is wholly separate from the body. seeking to defeat death, many brilliant minds are looking for a way to transfer consciousness from an old body suffering from the inexorable march back to the dust it came from into new bodies. but key in all that kind of research and effort is that it must be transferred - we could intricately map every atom of a human being, and 3-D print an exact ((above a quantum level)) replica of it, brain and all, but it would remain an inanimate shell, according to every indication of experiment and research to date, contrary to Mary Shelley's fictional Frankenstein.

the atheist you spoke with probably is just more ignorant of these things than he imagines himself to be. the brain is certainly a necessary organ, but it's a tool that the consciousness uses to interact with and control the body: it is not consciousness itself, any more than a computer, fully powered and even with operating system and software installed, is able to without input instigate autonomous operations. my account profile doesn't go around making posts without me opening it up, making decisions ((and indecisions, lol)) and using the tools it provides to express the things that my eternally existing soul wills to express.

in the end, even if one rejects all such analysis, and insists that existence is inseparable from the physical body that now harbors it, the inescapable conclusion is utterly nihilistic: the brain was dust, and at one time did not exist, and will return to dust, no longer existing, therefore it never existed at all - if existence is purely monistic, temporal & physical, there is no existence, only the temporary illusion of it, like a shape that momentarily formed in a cloud, only perceived for an instant from a narrow angle.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
#46
Physical death is natural:

1 Cor 15:35 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

Adam had to physically die to come to life.

1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Adam was not born with a spiritual body but a natural one

1 Cor 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#47
The fruit of the tree is not important some say and apple I would think a almond tree.The fruit that was forbidden would be the wisdom of this world.
[FONT=&quot]Exactly, the wisdom of this world thinks that a pineapple grows on a tree because wisdom is like everything else, we get what we pay for [/FONT]:p
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#48
1 Cor 15:35 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
If that which is sown dies then it didn't come from above.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." John 8:51
 
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
822
113
#49
Physical death is natural:

1 Cor 15:35 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

Adam had to physically die to come to life.

1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Adam was not born with a spiritual body but a natural one

1 Cor 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
So you think Gods' plan from the beginning was for all men to die?
I know He knew what was going to happen, because the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world.
But do you think He created A & E to die and that the death of every man was what He intended/desired from the beginning?
He is the author of life, not of death.
Good morning by the way, Locutus! :)
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
#50
I recently had a discussion with a self proclaimed atheist who was almost inviegle
in sharing with me his "belief". He said the cessation of the brain means eternal
oblivion because the brain is life. No brain no life.
Why is man so much smarter then animals?
some animals have about the same brain size or even larger.

1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth
the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

- science calls it youre concience, they can't see, or feel, or touch it, calling it human nature.

8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

- this it what imparts thought, it seperates mans brain and thoughts from
animals instints, but science cant understand it.

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

-you could say a recording of your life returns to God, but without youre body it
knows nothing and it's not immortal or alive by itself - having no body means it has no
ears or mouth or eyes to see, or physical brain.

this spirit in man, that makes us 100 times more superiour to animals,
if combined with the gift of Gods Holy spirit, makes man complete person with God.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
#51
No brain no life.
people can and do live, even if they are "brain dead".

the bible says that "the life of the flesh is in the blood"
but a person can bleed to death, no blood no life.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
#52
1 Corinthians 2:11 (KJV)
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

-man knows and learns by his physical sences, seeing- hearing............sciences

....even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

-things of God can only be revieled by God through the Holy Spirit.


-

Proverbs 20:27 (KJV)
The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
#53
when did science suddenly become the anti-bible?
What Is Evolution

Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals
At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence with fact”

Most biology textbooks have a section about evolution. One of the favorite “proofs” commonly
included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man.

This information may be traced back to embryologist Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s.
Haeckel published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken,
hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in the early
stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor.

Jonathan Wells wrote in his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, “When Haeckel’s
embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings
were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.”This fraud was known and published as early as 1894

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least 10 major biology textbooks published
from 1998 through 2000. These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote
what they call the “theory” of evolution.

Students are being taught these lies as if they are facts. Evolution is Satan’s most powerful
modern weapon. It is Christianity’s greatest enemy. The “theory” of evolution demonstrates
the depth to which men are willing to go in an attempt to explain creation and leave out God.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind …” (Romans 1:28)
-

Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin called
the similarity of embryos as reported by Haeckel “the strongest single class of facts” for evolution.

The father of the “theory” of evolution used evidence from science literature already known to be
false. There had already been many articles published in the mid-to-late 1800s which disproved the
drawings of Haeckel, making it inconceivable that Darwin was not aware of the fraud. Yet he included
Haeckel’s pictures not only as evidence for evolution, but called them the strongest single class of facts

-

Another example is that of the peppered moths.
Dead moths were glued or pinned to the tree trunks. This fact has been known since about 1980,
and still the faked pictures are being published in textbooks as proof of evolution.

-

Not one “missing link” has been discovered.

Even Darwin was aware of the missing evidence for evolution. Evolutionist Sir Edmund Leach
stated in Nature 293:19 (1981), “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry
to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely
to remain so.”

“After the microscope was invented in 1683, the masterly work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur
proved conclusively that the ‘law of biogenesis’ [that life can come only from life] held true
for microscopic forms of life as well!

“Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been able
to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence from
the not-living!
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
#54
The “missing link” is the holy grail of evolutionists. If scientists can find
the remains of a “transition” species, they will definitively prove evolution,
the thinking goes. Now, that missing link has been found!

That is, if we are to believe recent reports.


At the end of May,2009 mass media started hyperventilating over the discovery
of Ida, a fossilized monkey skeleton hailed as the “missing link” in human evolution.

Fox News said the fossil “made waves” among scientists and non-scientists alike.
Scientists: 'Missing Link' Fossil Not Worth Media Hype | Fox News

The Guardian called it “one of the most significant primate fossil finds ever made.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-missing-link

Google made the fossil image a part of its homepage logo.

The Wall Street Journal dubbed Ida a possible “landmark discovery”
—potentially a common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes—and humans.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124235632936122739

Yes, the media went bananas over the fossilized remains that scientists claim
closely resemble a lemur (a small, tree-dwelling primate found in Madagascar)
in some respects but an ape in others. Some experts called the skeleton
the “eighth wonder of the world.” Others said the impact upon paleontology
would be comparable to an “asteroid falling down to Earth.”

At one point, the euphoria was so intense that the discovery was compared
to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination.
The Missing Link ... to a Bigger Audience? - The New York Times


Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg got carried away at the star-studded
unveiling, calling the preserved specimen an “astonishing breakthrough.”
http://www.livescience.com/5427-media-circus-scientists-doubt-ida-ancestor.html

We haven’t seen science hype like this since the Mars rock.

But before you take the scientists’ and the media’s word for it and hang portraits
of apes over the family fireplace, you might want to look a little closer.


Sorry evolutionists: For all the big headlines and grand proclamations,
this “missing link” is another—if beautifully preserved—fraud,
another in a long line of distinguished frauds.


The fanfare surrounding Ida is reminiscent of another famous fossil:
the Piltdown man. Perhaps you have heard of it? The Piltdown fossil
was a series of skull fragments discovered in the early 1900s that
encompassed a human-like skull, orangutan-like jaw, and chimpanzee
-like teeth. Scientists gave it the name Eoanthropus dawsoni.

A familiar degree of great excitement accompanied the discovery of
this fossil, as it purported to demonstrate a transition species between
man and “lower primates.” The great majority of the scientific community
jumped on this discovery as proof of evolution and the fossilized missing
links that even Charles Darwin was admittedly at a loss to explain.

Over 500 essays and scientific papers were written on the subject. Graduate
students produced their doctoral theses from studying the fragments.


There was only one problem: The fantastic find was a fake.

The perpetrator combined a 700-year-old human skull, a 500-year-old
lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and fossilized chimpanzee teeth.
He then used chemicals to dye the bones to give the appearance of age.

But here is the point. It took approximately 40 years for the scientific
community to discover the difference between a supposed multimillion
-year-old fossil and a modern chimpanzee.


For four decades, the majority of the scientific community accepted the
fossil as legitimate fact and proof that modern man was just part of
an evolutionary chain of species—despite the fact that several credible
scientists almost immediately disputed the validity of the find, that there
were visible file markings detectable on the teeth, and other incongruities.

Textbooks incorporated the discovery, thousands of students were taught
the faulty information, and untold millions were unsuspectingly influenced
into accepting the belief that people had evolved from monkeys.

All from a cobbled-together mess of human, orangutan and chimpanzee parts.


It was not just because of shoddy “scientific” testing applied to it that
the Piltdown hoax worked (although an unbiased and careful examination,
using the tools available at the time, would have revealed the hoax),
but because the fake fossil neatly satisfied the prevailing preconceived theory
of the time. Thus, supposedly unbiased truth-seeking scientists easily and even
willingly overlooked the aspects of the discovery that argued against its validity.

This is the pitfall that evolutionary enthusiasts repeatedly fall into.

Despite more than 150 years of searching for bones, the fossil record continues
to disprove the evolutionary theory. Not a single confirmed transition fossil
has been found! According to the evolutionary theory, there should be millions
and billions. Animals have been evolving into new species for hundreds of
millions of years, the theory goes. Therefore, scientists have reasonably
expected to find thousands of fossils, or at least hundreds, or maybe 10
transitionary species. But they can’t find a single one!


Scientists are not trying to honestly prove whether evolution holds true, as they
would any other theory. They are desperately, one-sidedly trying to verify evolution.

That is why the supposed Ida discovery (Darwinius masillae) is such a big deal.

“It’s part of our evolution that’s been hidden so far, it’s been hidden because
all the other specimens are so incomplete,” says Prof. Jorn Hurum, the scientist
who bought the fossil from a private collector who obtained it many years prior.

“They are so broken there’s almost nothing to study, and now this wonderful
fossil appears, and it makes the story so much easier to tell, so it’s really a
dream come true” (emphasis mine throughout).

“The significance of this new find is it has almost every single fragment
of bones,” confirms Tab Rasmussen, an anthropologist at Washington
University in St. Louis. “It’s very difficult to find anything besides teeth,
a jaw, and bones here and there. This is something that really vaults
the whole field forward.”


According to revealingthelink.com, the official website promoting Ida,
there is no primate fossil “so well preserved until we get to human burial.”
Revealing the Link - Welcome
Revealing the Link - The Implications - What Ida Tells Us

How condemning. The notion of evolution, accepted by the mainstream scientific
community as fact, is largely based on nothing more than a few eroded bone
fragments or scattered teeth—garbage evidence. And these are scientists;
individuals who supposedly reject anything but the hard, cold facts.

Evolution, it seems, is a theory based upon the evidence of things not seen.

But what about Ida? It is 95 percent complete, and even the contents of its last
dinner are visibly preserved in the fossil. Surely, all the hype must indicate
that it is good proof of evolution.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, as it turns out, Ida is a fraud too.

Professor Hurum and the professors at the University of Oslo purchased
the Ida fossil from a private collector who had purchased the fossil from
other black market dealers who had purchased it from amateur fossil
hunters in 1983. But even disregarding the atrocious second- and third-hand
chain of custody that would typically invalidate normal scientific procedure,
other evidence has come to light.


One of the co-authors who released the Ida study, Dr. Philip Gingerich,
recently admitted that the team would have preferred to publish in a
rigorous scientific journal, but had to settle for an open-source journal.

He told the Wall Street Journal, “There was a tv company involved and time
pressure. We’ve been pushed to finish the study. It’s not how I like to do science.”


And then, to even be allowed to publish their ideas in the less-rigorous,
free online Public Library of Science One journal, the scientists had to
virtually renounce their own claim that Ida was a human ancestor by
inserting the statement: “[The species] could represent a stem group
from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans],
but we are not advocating this here.”


Wow! So, outside of the History Channel (which spent a record amount to
purchase the Ida movie rights months ago), the book promotion, and the
high-profile Michael Bloomberg press conference, Ida as a “missing link”
isn’t even considered good science.


It rings “all sorts of warning bells” when a tv company is dictating the science,
notes Prof. Peter Brown, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New England.

He says the scientific study did not provide sufficient proof to consider Ida as
a human ancestor, or even a primate ancestor. “It’s nice it has fingernails,
something we have, as do most primates … but they’ve cherry-picked
particular character[istics], and they’ve been criticized [by other scientists]
for doing that.”


“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys,
apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” says Carnegie
Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris Beard.
“I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.”

Even the scientists—in fact, the majority of scientists according to Yale
University’s Chris Gilbert—don’t believe the Ida fossil is a missing link.
http://www.livescience.com/5427-media-circus-scientists-doubt-ida-ancestor.html

A Multimillion-Dollar Monkey Fraud
So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with monkey bones. Very beautiful, very complete fossilized
monkey bones, but monkey bones nonetheless. Ida is nothing more than
an extinct species of lemur. It’s not the “astounding” “landmark discovery”
it was hailed to be.


But this episode does uncover a real discovery: Just how willing “scientists”
are to close their eyes to the scientific truth. ?


A Multimillion-Dollar Monkey Fraud
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/6223.3.0.0/society/media/a-multimillion-dollar-monkey-fraud
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
#55
So you think Gods' plan from the beginning was for all men to die?
I know He knew what was going to happen, because the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world.
But do you think He created A & E to die and that the death of every man was what He intended/desired from the beginning?
He is the author of life, not of death.
Good morning by the way, Locutus! :)
Morning yerself...

I think that physical death was always part of creation.

John 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

Since no Christian ever skipped the grave then it is evident that physical death was not what the atonement was meant to reverse.
 

mcubed

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2013
1,449
218
63
#56
When I was at university my abdomen professor said that 5% of all living things have the same element, to be honest I forget the element 20 years later… nickel or something stupid. He said see we all came from the sea… So, I asked him, “My English Professor” said only your first few essays do you have to put your name because I will know who you are by the way you right. Every painter has their own signature in their brush strokes, ever writer has their own signature in their style of writing. So, could it not be the signature of G-d to put the same element in His creation?

In front of a class over 200 the man did not know how to answer?

If you really want to know to how to answer go to Answer in Genesis, type that in it will take you to the web site. Great scientist, men that debate Richard Dawkins and others like him can give you real answers there. What I have learned most of all the greatest defense is to put them on the defense. Their logic is ALWAYS FALLED! They fall every time and they always will because they believe a lie and we have the Truth. G-d is Creator, in six days, just by speaking…. In the beginning G-d said…

If you really want to know to how to answer go to Answer in Genesis, type that in it will take you to the web site. Great scientist, men that debate Richard Dawkins and others like him can give you real scientific answers there. Great men/women of science!!!!!
 

OneFaith

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2016
2,270
369
83
#57
Is that out of the lost books of Eden? I heard numerous times that if it wasn't for religion man kind would be much more technologically advance. I haven't read anything that condemns the growth of man through scientific endeavors have you?
(Books of eden? I stick to the Bible only).

Actually God made us in His image, and said we are capable of great things. (The iPad comes to my mind lol). Science (natural) does come from God, but He also uses super-natural. Behind both of these is 'spiritual'. The problem scientists have is that they try to figure out everything with only one ingredient- nature. But life comes from both natural and spiritual means (mostly spiritual- nature itself came from spiritual). (Man does not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeeds from the mouth of God- literally. God said "Let there be..." and spoke us into life). That's like trying to discover how chocolate milk is made, while ignoring milk and only looking at the chocolate.

So yeah, all throughout the Bible are prideful men who ingnore God and try to make things fit or make sense without Him in the equation- thus scientists were 'born'. There are many natural things in the Bible that prove true in all categories- health, relationships, finances, growth of vegetation, and certainly spiritual. But there are a lot of supernatural things too. All are true, but God always leave room for faith- because "without faith it is impossible to please God."
 
Last edited:
C

Cumulus-halo

Guest
#58
(Books of eden? I stick to the Bible only).

Actually God made us in His image, and said we are capable of great things. (The iPad comes to my mind lol). Science (natural) does come from God, but He also uses super-natural. Behind both of these is 'spiritual'. The problem scientists have is that they try to figure out everything with only one ingredient- nature. But life comes from both natural and spiritual means (mostly spiritual- nature itself came from spiritual). (Man does not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeeds from the mouth of God- literally. God said "Let there be..." and spoke us into life). That's like trying to discover how chocolate milk is made, while ignoring milk and only looking at the chocolate.

So yeah, all throughout the Bible are prideful men who ingnore God and try to make things fit or make sense without Him in the equation- thus scientists were 'born'. There are many natural things in the Bible that prove true in all categories- health, relationships, finances, growth of vegetation, and certainly spiritual. But there are a lot of supernatural things too. All are true, but God always leave room for faith- because "without faith it is impossible to please God."
I actually started a thread looking for anyone who had read the lost books of Eden. I was told I should reevaluate the story of Adam and Eve in more literal terms. It piqued my interest to find that book but I can't. Not that I believe the book because some stuff was out into the left field but Im curious to know where it came from exactly. Thank you for a great reply and I agree the bible is all we need. Its even in its acronym: Basic Information Before Leaving Earth :D