Who is a true Christian here?

That is not logical, in any sense of the word, you cannot create science and not know everything about it......

I haven't but then having no interest in the bible, I wouldn't.

I can however provide several examples of how the bible is not historically accurate

• The earth has been here far longer than 6000 years
• Human remains have been found that predate the existence of the bible and the notion of god
• There is no concrete geological or historical evidence to suggest the earth was covered in water around 2000 years ago, some thoeries but not good ones
• Dinosaurs ruled this planet long before god was thought up
• We KNOW dinosaurs and humans did not coexist
• There is no evidence to suggest that the red sea was once drawn apart by an old man and his stick

I could go on, however I won't I know already you're coming up with mad ways of explaining all of the above, and why wouldn't you, you have all the answers right there in the bible .......

Of course you don't, that doesn't make it so though does it .....

 

Joe,

You are mixing up doctrines here. Where did any Jehovah's Witness say the earth is only 2000 years old, the great flood was 2000 years ago and dinosaurs did not exist or that humans and dinosaurs co-existed?

Please don't tarr us with the same brush. If you are going to quote things that we say or do, then check your facts first.

Thank you,

Col

 

Read the post colin, that post is concerning the hostorical accuracey of the bible, not JW's ......

I got the date wrong, bible says 6000 years, equally ridiculous to 2000

 

Struggling to understand the logic there.

So there is a gap in your knowledge and understanding.

• I agree and the bible doesn't disagree either.
• As long as there have been men there has been a notion of God; there are theories about the long-term origin of men on the earth but not good ones.
• On the contrary, there is good evidence of a flood, e.g. mammoths found frozen with the food they were chewing still in their mouths, a study of the earths strata etc. The book, "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch", by D. Patten suggests that water pressure of 2 tons psi caused by the flood waters brought about changes to the topography of the earth, some of which are still in evidence today. Worldwide flood legends also lend support to the historical accuracy of the flood account.
• 'Thought' of God and the existence of God are not the same.
• Do we? You mean that's more sure than the existence of God? Again, provide your evidence.
• Archaeological evidence exists to support the account of the crossing of the Red Sea.
  Despite the abundance of scholarly evidence to support the bible and many bible events, to the Christian faith is also involved and that is something that comes with a serious study of the bible and a common sense evaluation of the evidence.

The bible certainly has the answers but so do many secular authorities both of today and of times past. An open-minded examination of the facts will enable anyone to come to a decision as to the existence of God, something that you should always do before discounting Him.

 

Really, you don't get it ?? If I code a program, and I code it from scratch from nothing I don't use any libraries available on the net, I know exactly how that program will behave in every aspect, if god really was the creator of science how ever could he not know everything about it .....

I changed the date, 6000 years is the age of earth according to the bible, again both scientifically and historically not only inaccurate but impossible.

Exactly, that's what religion is, a poor theory about the long term origins of man on earth, coudln't have said it better myself.

No like I said, not good theories, of course you see them to be sound they work for you, but in reality they do not.

Yes we do know, of course we do, the oldest human remains found to date are dated only 200000 years old, dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

No there isn't, again you have found the evidence where there is none because it supports your views on life, but infact the theories are very very weak.

 

Right, okay I see what you are saying ... can't disagree, God as the Creator knew and knows everything about the creation.

No, the bible does not claim that the earth is only 6000 years old!
To quote a JW publication (bear with me):-
"The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1) Just how long ago the starry heavens and the earth were created is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is no basis for Bible scholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. Scientists estimate the age of some rocks as being three and a half billion years, and the earth itself as being about four to four and a half billion or more years.
As to time, the Scriptures are more definite about the six creative days of the Genesis account. These days have to do, not with the creation of earth’s matter or material, but with the arranging and preparing of it for man’s habitation."

You misunderstood but no matter.

They may not work for you, but then you haven't given time to thoroughly study them have you so your view is hardly objective.

When you say 'we', who do you mean and where is your evidence?

I haven't 'found' the evidence, it is others who have found the evidence, archaeologists, most of whom who have no interest in God let alone JW's.

 

Firstly the bible does claim that earth is 6000 years old by implication.

Secondly, I don't ever misunderstand, it's called turning the tables, it was a description fitting to religion, so I used it.

"When you say 'we', who do you mean and where is your evidence?"

You want me to show you the bones or articles describing those bones or what ?? You answer is weak, you know who I mean by we and could easily find the articles yourself if you wanted to, but you don't because it's all part of your dilusion that you will do anything to preserve, even sacrifice logic and reason.

 

No it doesn't, nowhere in the bible does it say or imply that the earth is 6000 years old.
If you think otherwise, show me where it does.

You never misunderstand ... wow you must be something really special, at least in your own eyes!

So you don't have the evidence then.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment." (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

 

Yes it does.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

Thousand other examples if you wanna see them, but I'm sure you wont actually see the words on the page anyway, because you already know you're right ......

Nice attempt, but a failed one, and that's right, never.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-17-voa51.cfm?CFID=89145500&CFTOKEN=39196608

It's common knowledge when dinosaurs were wiped out, if I need to find you an article about that then I will, but I'd rather not hold your hand all the time, it's getting quite boring now.

Again with the quotes, maybe I didn't explain properly the first time around, these words mean nothing, can I make it any clearer ?? Your book is fake, and so the words, they are fake, surely you get it now.

 

No it doesn’t … quoting from the views of someone who might believe that it does doesn’t prove that the bible says it!
I repeat: The bible nowhere states that the earth is 6,000 years old, if you can prove otherwise from the bible then please show me where it does.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, I have already said that in an earlier quote. Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that dinosaurs pre-date man, the Genesis account shows the order of Gods Creation and man was created after all of the vegetation, bird and animal life.

For every quote that you can find that supports your view of the age of fossils I can find you another that says you are wrong, why? Because the dating of fossils is so inaccurate that it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how old they are.
Take my previous example of Piltdown Man … part of the skull of a primate and part from a human.
Was the trick spotted?
Not for years, such was the desire of people like you to prove their theories that they failed to notice what was a complete confidence trick until 40 years later!

John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of dating methods. He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences. (Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.)

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years. (Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility, CEN Technical Journal, 6(1):2-5, 1992.)

“There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.” (The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Nguaruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon ‘Dating,’ Proc. 4th ICC, pp.503-525, 1998.)

Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above). However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game. (M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 247-266, 1993.)

True, you're begining to sound like a record.

I know they mean nothing to you, that just demonstrates the limitations of your closed mind, you refute even what many of your so-called experts can find some agreement on.
But the fact that they mean nothing to you has absolutely no relevance to the truth of the bible, you are but as a speck of dust on the scales.

 

I repeat : I know the bible doesn't say it, nor does it directly imply it, but if you want to believe the bible is historically accurate, then that makes the earth around 6000 years old, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

I'm not only talking about JW's here, I'm talking about the historical accuracey of the bible in general, I really coudln't care less what Jw'S or any other religious sect think, my point is that it is a physical and scietific impossibility that the earth is as young as 6000 years old, it just is, that alone is enough to discredit the stories in the bible as fact.

It is inaccurate to a DEGREE, but it is not inaccurate, there is a MASSIVE difference between the scientific age of earth and the religious age of earth, and no amount of discrepancy will bring them any closer together, religion will always be wrong here.

I have never had anything to close my mind, it's not me that has been brainwashed into believing the impossible, it's actually you, I really am bored of you now, I have things to do, so there really isn't any point in answering my thoughts again, because your attempts to get another rise out of me will be ignored, you're obviously too stupid to grasp reality, so I'll leave you in your dream world.....

 

I do not and have never donated to charity out of principle. It's a sad world that this is the case, but unfortunately there are too many 'charities' that are non-transparent, where not all the money goes to the intended cause, and heaven forbid where none goes to the intended cause at all. Unfortunately too many charities have succomed to commercialisation. I refuse to give money for what I think is a good cause only to find it's paying for someone's salary or the Friday night party.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone. I would love to help the poor and needy. I have relatives living in Tanzania, and going over there have seen first hand the people on the street dressed in nothing more than rags, those whom we call 'thieves' who are in fact doing nothing more than making a desperate attempt to find food to feed their children, the people looking longingly at wealthy incoming tourists, with their posh laptops, mobile phones and expensive hotels to stay at, wishing for even a fraction of that.

Personally, I would rather donate my time and effort in helping people personally, rather than financially. then at least I would be able to genuinely know people were actually being helped. Last time I went to Tanzania, I remember working around the house and in the garden with the house-maids (both male and female) and paying them for my time. At least I knew the extra notes I slipped into their pockets at the end of the day would be put to good use. Of course, that having been said, there have sadly been times where people have taken advantage of people's generosity. My grandmother told me of a case where the person she employed claimed they were on the street, when it later turned out the pay they were getting was going towards drugs and crime. He was quickly fired.

H.

 

A true christian should love one another as his brother and sister. He should not look at the person of the opposite sex with a lustful eyes or should not have lustful thoughts. Giving 10% to the church is giving 10% to God.You cannot rob God by denying that 10% but if a person gives 10% to God and do all the opposite things in life which is not of God then that person will never be blessed.He will never witness fruits in his life.

 

Again you are quite wrong 6000 years has nothing to do with the age of the earth, but there is no point in going through it again, you just don't seem to be able to grasp it.

In due course of time one of us will be shown to be wrong, you must continue to hope that it is me.

 

I think that a lot of people feel the same way as you and with good reason because such 'bogus' charities do exist and how do you know how good each one is?
Personally I support sos-childrensvillages and their villages in Malawi (Africa) and Nuwara Eliya (Sri Lanka), which we have visited and found to be excellent facilities for the orphan children and truly worthwhile supporting.

We have experienced similar situations, not only in Africa but also in India and South America - there are always those with a 'good story' that turns out to be a scam. My own personal view is that it is better to be scammed than to withold charitable giving but better still to ensure that the charity is a worthwile recipient.

 

That would be Mormonism, they donate 10% each month.

 

Again your lost in the translation of the bible. There is great debate about whether the number 6000 is years or time periods. I would suggest reading through the many bible translation from the original through now. Again your letting your biased view of the bible prevent you from reasearching this subject thoroughly. Once you have done all this then maybe you can formulate a a statement worthy of a response needed ina debate.

 

Through attrition, contrition can later come. There are many ways to grow the conscience of the human heart. All it takes is maybe suffering through something horrific in your life or giving to a homeless person for the first time to open that spark of humanity within your spirit. Its good to know that there are people like you out there that support organizations that help others

 

Me! Well, I'm trying to be...

 

Zakat is having to give 2.5% to a chairty, usually an orphange or something like that, makes alot more sense.