Ivan Panin

[ccc]

Richard … you may (?) be interested in the following that I found on the net.

Numeric Materials

(Note from David: We at UBM do not sell any materials but because these important materials are not easily found we are making Mr. Irwin's service known to you. I highly recommend the Numeric English New Testament by Ivan Panin. It is the most accurate in the world, proven by God's own numeric pattern. I also highly recommend Mathematics Prove Holy Scripture, also called Astounding New Discoveries, by Karl Sabiers. It is the simplest, clearest explanation of the numeric pattern as a way to prove authenticity of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Not so much as a letter may be added or removed without being exposed by this pattern. The American Revised Version mentioned in this little book has been popularly known as the American Standard Version.)

Bible Numerics Materials By Ivan Panin, Price List and Order Form.

* Numeric English New Testament @$25.00......................

* Writings of Ivan Panin @$30.00…………………….

* Shorter Works @$5.00........................

* Bible Numerics @$3.00........................

* The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark @$4.00........................

* A Holy Challenge For Today @$5.00........................

* Verbal Inspiration Of The Bible
Scientifically Demonstrated @$4.00........................

* Inspiration Of The Scriptures
Scientifically Demonstrated @$1.00........................

* Inspiration Of The Hebrew Scriptures
Scientifically Demonstrated @$4.00........................

* The Gospel And The Kingdom @$1.50........................

* Once In Grace, Always In Grace? @$5.00........................

About Bible Numerics (Not by Mr. Panin)

* Mathematics Prove Holy Scripture by Karl Sabiers @$5.00........................

* Absolute Mathematical Proofs @$1.00........................

Please SEND payable to "J.W. Irwin"
Prices are in United States Dollars. Please add 25% for postage and handling.

J. W. Irwin
81 Bayview Ridge
Toronto, Ontario
M2L 1E3
Fax: 416-445-4060
Jirwinc617@rogers.com


PS I have an extra copy of "Bible Chronology" by Panin 192 pgs.
If you wish to pm your address, I will send it along.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard … you may (?) be interested in the following that I found on the net.

Numeric Materials

(Note from David: We at UBM do not sell any materials but because these important materials are not easily found we are making Mr. Irwin's service known to you. I highly recommend the Numeric English New Testament by Ivan Panin. It is the most accurate in the world, proven by God's own numeric pattern. I also highly recommend Mathematics Prove Holy Scripture, also called Astounding New Discoveries, by Karl Sabiers. It is the simplest, clearest explanation of the numeric pattern as a way to prove authenticity of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Not so much as a letter may be added or removed without being exposed by this pattern. The American Revised Version mentioned in this little book has been popularly known as the American Standard Version.)

PS I have an extra copy of "Bible Chronology" by Panin 192 pgs.
If you wish to pm your address, I will send it along.
Hi ccc,

Thanks for the offer of Panin's book. I would be happy to review it. You can send it to

Bible Wheel Ministries
PO Box 10677
Yakima, Wa 98909

As for Panin's work - I am not confident that he was a "prinicipled student of the Bible" or that his results can be trusted. For example, this site (http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/panin.htm) documents how he changed the text of the last twelve verses of Mark to make them fit his pattern. I have verified some of the claims on that site, but since I don't own a copy of Panin's pamphlet called "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" I can not verify everything they claimed. But if they are correct, it would be one of the worst crimes that can be committed against God's Holy Word. I would be very interested if you could check out the claims on that site, and let us know how much of them are true.

Thanks!

Richard

[jacky1982]

Thanks!That's Great!


__________
Cafeteria and Buffet Chains (http://www.top-10-business.com/top/6335-cafeteria-and-buffet-chains.html)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Our friend Alec Cotton sent me this email:



Hello Richard.

I have no words to express my admiration and gratitude for your colossal work.

The only reason I'm not putting this on the forum is that I am determined not to discourage or stumble any one. I'll try to be brief. I only got a computer about two years ago and I might make a hash of attaching . This is from “the shorter works of Ivan Pannin”. He takes the view that the translators of the bible sought to put the books in chronological order. Instead of the original order. I am sure that both are right. The Spirit moves where he will. Not where we expect him to be. In his analysis of the genealogy of Jesus he said that there were 72 words I could only count 71. Using Wescott and hort. My knowledge of Greek is abysmal . Pannin says that in mat.1.18-25 “of the 77 words the angel uses”. I could only count 74. In my mind these errors caused a long shadow of doubt to creep over the rest of his writings. I have tried all night to copy and paste to make this make sense but failed . I will now try to attach it to an email. The next thing I did was to take your Bible wheel and impose pannin's scheme onto it to see if I could find any correlation. I found nothing. By the way,I used a Bible printed entirely in Hebrew to check the way in which the books were arranged. I do get bored with writing. There is so much I would like to say . If you want to print any or all of this on the forum or none it is up to you. Do be careful ,I copied some of this from the printed page. Kind regards and best wishes

Alec

P.S What a struggle that was.



Alec sent these images from Panin's work with the word counts that don't seem correct:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/pannin83.jpg


There are many problems with Panin's calculations on this page. According to this website (http://cs.anu.edu.au/%7Ebdm/dilugim/panin_mark.html), they don't match any of the known Greek documents. I haven't had time to check it out, but Alec's comments seem to be correct.

The other issue Alec brought up was the order of books that Panin suggested on this page:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/pannin82.jpg

Alec put together this rough image of what this would look like when displayed on the Wheel:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/biblewheel_panin1.jpg

The first thing to note is that the little book of Zephaniah replaces the all-encompassing Book of Isaiah on Spoke 1. This alone proves that the order Panin suggested is greatly inferior to the traditional order of the Bible. Another extremely obvious degradation is the displacement of the Song of Solomon from Spoke 22 where it aligns with Revelation to establish the great theme of Consummation of Chirst and His Bride the Church. I think there is great value in this kind of comparison because it exemplifies how any variation from the traditional order degrade the patterns revealed in the Bible Wheel. This is the essence of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.asp) which as yet no one has ever successfully met.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Ram

It was my interest in Panin that led me to this site. First up let me say the work on the bible wheel looks fascinating, I cant say I fully understand what it is all about yet, but I applaud anything and anyone who aims to demonstrate the infallibity of Gods word. Thankfully as supernaturally regenerated human beings some of us are blessed enough to have all the proof we need. Others may need work like this to assist them to come to the Lord.

Hi Panman,

Welcome to our forum,

:welcome:

In general, I have taught that the Bible Wheel proves that the Bible was designed by God, but I have never taught that it proves the Bible is "infallible" or "inerrant." This is because I do not believe in those doctrines, and I never have. They are man-made doctrines that have no support in the Bible. On the contrary, if we assume that the Bible is God's Book, then we must accept it the way God designed it, warts and all. If we deny the contradictions that God plainly placed in the Bible, then we are denying the Word of God as God revealed it, and that seems wrong, very wrong.

Simply stated, I think that folks who deny the contradictions in God's Book have a very low view of Scripture, and of God. They write as if God were so stupid that he couldn't give us a coherent book, so the "apologists" write big books correcting God's Book to support their false claim that God's Book is "infallible and inerrant." To my mind, it makes God look like a very poor author. The proper approach is to hold the Bible in the highest possible esteem and to wrestle with the question of why God made it "seem" to have so many contradictions.



Somone kindly posted the site were all of Panins work can be purchased. I had the pleasure of dealing with John at that site and purchased most of the Panins available works about two years ago. John and His father dedicated their lives to making Panins work available, from what I can gather, both men are committed godly men. John trusted me enough to send me all Panins work prior to receving payment and I live in New Zealand, and he in Canada.

I have no reason to doubt that they are "committed godly men" - but that doesn't mean they have not been deceived by false claims, or that they did not fail to confirm the validity of the claims that they are propagating. The world is filled with falsehoods propagated by "committed godly men." Just look at all the books claiming to refute established Science (Young Earth Creationism, anti-evolution, etc.).



On the one hand it is easy to fall for the disinformation on the odd website (quite a few have been posted) designed to refute Panins works with a few throw away lines. Im sure there have been a few posted about the bible wheel here and there, and Im sure that irratates you somewhat, as the panin sites do me.

Im a bit dissapointed to see that you have surmised, from said disinformation Panin sites, that he is, potentially, not a principled student of the bible.

Yes, there has been plenty of erroneous attempts to refute the Bible Wheel, but the refutations of Panin's work seem justified from what I've seen. I have never been impressed by his writings. His logic seems very weak and simple-minded. He appears to have been obsessed with multiples of seven, whereas the Biblical patterns involve all numbers. But my mind is open. I know that some of his results had some validity, since I know that some passages in Scripture show amazing numerical designs. But I think he missed the real patterns for the most part because of his obsession with the number 7. And I think there is evidence he "monkeyed with the text" which has always ranked as "one of the worst crimes" against God's Word in my book. But I will review the evidence before asserting that as a fact.



Panin spent at least 50 years of his life studying the bible and applying his numeric theories to every scripture, he wrote a numeric version of the New Testament in Greek and a translation of it into English, I own the English one.

To be honest I was a died in the wool Panin convert before I eventually realised that his NEw Testament English version includes many of the strange anomolies pointed out By Terry Watkins on Bible Corruption at http://www.av1611.org/ Prior to that, from the books I purchased, his research revealing a phenomena in the bible certainly appears to be quite legitimate and if it is, I think it deserves a little more research than acknowledging a hurridly thrown together disinformation web page on the subject.

Panin apparently has well over 40,000 pages of notes on the topic, and he answers the over 3000 queries in Westcot and Horts new testamnet liner notes. If that isn't a principled and commited student of the bible, then Im not sure what is. Granted; you can be a serioulsy unprincipled committed student of the bible, but Im quite sure Panin does not fit into that category.

Are you a "KJV only" believer? If so, then how would you reconcile Panin's "proofs" with that?

In my studies of the Bible Wheel, I have found that the KJV text displayed more significant and confirmatory patterns than the modern versions. That's one reason I put the KJV cover page in the intro to my book. But I was never a KJV only person.



The last great battle ground in these last days is by far the doctrine of the inerrency of Scripture and I believe, inspite of little or no support from the church, Panin dedicated his whole life, in isolation, to proving that Gods word could be trusted, and further more, that the resurection in bodily form of the Lord Jesus Christ, as in the last 12 verses of Mark, was a real supernatural event in History, able to take away the sins of the world. An unprincipled bible scholar would be doing his darndest to prove this didnt happen, not the other way around.

Hummm ... what makes you think we are in the "last days"? Folks have been saying that for nearly 2000 years. Lot's of folks predicted Christ would come in the 70s and 80s and 90s and then a few said that God would absolutely definitely come before the year 2000 and then many Christians went nuts with Y2K (some are still eating beans they bought to survive the coming destruction) ...

As for the last 12 verses of Mark - the doctrine of the resurrection does not stand or fall on those verses since it is found in the other gospels and the apostolic letters.



PS, may I kindly suggest you buy "The last 12 verse of Mark" from the site on this thread before posting such frightful disparaging remarks about Ivan Pamin IE " One of worst crimes comitted against Gods word" - my goodness, thats some accusation. A potentially libleous accusation no less.
I have a copy and will check the facts.

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's the first data we need to consider - it's the word counts of Mark 16:9-18 in the various versions of the Greek text listed on this site (http://cs.anu.edu.au/%7Ebdm/dilugim/panin_mark.html):

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/panin-mark-wordcounts.jpg

This was one of the facts that I said I needed to confirm before coming to any solid judgment about Panin's work on the last 12 verses of Mark. I have not counted the words in all the various versions.

Now on page 5 of Panin's pamphlet, he presents what he claims to be the Wescott-Hort Greek text. It is different than the Wescott-Hort text that I have in my Bible Works 7 software. It would be helpful if you (Panman) could find a source that confirms the text Panin claimed to be that used by Westcott and Hort. If no such text exists, then it appears that we must conclude that Panin falsified the Greek text he used in his analysis of the last 12 verses of Mark.

Update: I counted the Wescott & Hort text in Panin's pamphlet and found only 174 words, rather than his claim of 175 = 7 X 25. He left out the particle "de" in verse 12 which is found in all versions I checked. But worse, he twice divided the single word contraction kakeinoi (and they) into the meaningless two word phrase "ka keinoi" which does not appear in any Greek text in my Bible Works 7 software. Likewise, he divided the single word contraction kan (and if) into the meaningless two word phrase "k an" in vs. 18. I assume therefore that the missing "de" in verse 12 was an accident, since it is needed to get to the magic number 175 = 7 x 25 which is achieved only when Panin manipulates the text by dividing the contractions. I'm pretty sure that he would not have divided those contractions if the text gave him a multiple of seven as is. This really makes me doubt the validity of his work. And there is another fundamental problem. There is no reason we should think that the text by Westcott & Hort is absolutely correct. It was an attempt to reconstruct the originals which we do not have. It has many variations. Indeed, Panin left off the last part of the long that was included in Westcott and Hort's text.

PS: When the contractions are omitted and the de included (as it should be) the word count is 172 which confirms the data from the website posted above.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard thanks for the welcome, no offense mate, but you probably will want to see the back of me after this.

As the bible was delivered by God in the Greek and Hebrew languages, to be a KJV only person would be imbecilic. I do hold to the view that the KJV it is most likely the best English translation and it is therefore my personally preferred version for reading and study.

Hey there my friend, :yo:

No worries. No worries at all. I like straight talk. And I am happy to admit when I am wrong. It's actually a very good thing that you give me an opportunity to correct errors in what I have said. Nobody is perfect and indeed, acknowledging our weakness takes a big load off our backs since we don't have to try to pretend to be something we are not!



I told you in the previous post that I cant reconcile Panin’s Proof with that, especially after reading Terry Watkins expose in the "new improved" versions of the bible. Im no longer a died in the wool Paninite. I’m simply making a comment that you appear to have bought into some meaningless disinformation about his work which neither categorically refutes nor proves his work and yet you make very harsh judgments about the man and his motives. Clearly you haven’t studied his work at all, because 7 is only one of the many numbers he reveals to have patterns in the bible, 13, 11 and 19 are others. You should see his work on the patterns of 11 in the 66 books of the bible - it’s quite phenomenal. I will post it if you are interested.

You may well be correct that some of my judgments were too harsh, or perhaps premature. But on the other hand, I have no patience for anyone who monkeys with the text to create patterns that are not really there. This is extremely common amongst practitioners of gematria and oddly, folks who proclaim that they are proving the original text of the Bible was designed by God letter for letter! So I may have conflated some of Panin's work with errors I have seen in others. Time will tell.

But I have seen some of Panin's ruminations on the numbers 11 and 13. The thing that sticks in my mind is a claim he made against an imagined foe he called "Mr. Cavalier" who rejected one of his patterns as not in the text, and Panin corrected him by admitting that yes, the numbers 11 and 13 were not there, but the number 12 was, and so we could see the numbers 11 and 13 "standing as guards" to the left and the right of the number 12. Do you recognize this argument of his? I have not been able to find it, and would like to since it is one of my favorite examples of what I don't like about his reasoning.

And here is the primary error in Panin's work: In general, he makes lists of "features" that involve a number, and then says "That's improbable!" when in fact it is not. The error is that he does not close his sets. He picks out a set of features that yields multiples of the seven, say, but ignores all the similar features that do not. For example. he notes that the sum of the numerical values of all the FORMS of the words are a multiple of seven (Feature 4), but ignores the fact that the sum of the numerical values of all the words in the VOCABULARY is not a multiple of seven. Likewise, he notes that the number of letters in the VOCABULARY is a multiple of seven (Feature 6), but ignores the fact that the number of letters in the FORMS is not a multiple of seven. So to calculate the probability, he must begin by closing the set of possibilities, and then checking to see if the number of sevens found in that entire set is significantly larger than 14% (the number we would expect with a random text).



I see you don’t believe the doctrine of the inerrancy and inspiration of Gods word. IE that every word is God breathed. That’s disappointing to read to say the least. It is clearly one of the most fundamental and important of all Christian doctrines. I must assume you aren't a Christian. It appears as though you hold to "science" and a theory of evolution too. If you are a "Christian", then that would be a can of worms I have no desire to open.

I would be delighted to discuss evolution with you. My wife Rose and I are studying it a lot right now and the evidence is truly amazing. Have you read any genuine scientific books explaining the theory? If not, you would be wrong for judging it as false, right? Just as I would be wrong for judging Panin's work without giving it an adequate review.

Now as for the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture: Your position mystifies me. You know that the Bible is not inerrant, so why do you claim otherwise? We know the answer of course. You say that all the errors in the Bible are not found in the "original" inspirited documents. I have never seen any evidence of that and we have no "original" documents to check, so your assertion of inerrancy has no foundation in the text. Furthermore, it is a humanly crafted doctrine. There is nothing in the Bible that says the Bible contains no errors. So now you are telling God that He is not free to produce a book that has errors. Exactly where did you get such authority to direct the action and wisdom of God? What if God desired the Bible to contain signs of it's human origin??? Maybe human errors were needed in order for the "written Word of God" to be order to be fully human and fully divine just like Jesus Christ, the "living Word of God." Anyone who tells God what he can and can not do has crossed the line in my estimation.

This has nothing to do with the "inspiration" of Scripture. I never denied that. Indeed, there is nothing for me to deny, since there is only one verse that speaks of "all Scripture" as "God-breathed" and folks can debate forever exactly what that passage means. Some folks come down on the "plenary verbal inspiration" side which says that the human writers of the Bible were like scribes who simply wrote down what God "dictated" and others, like myself, take it to mean that the Bible is "God's Book" and he will design it as he pleases without any demands from us humans.



You didn't qualify what you meant by contradictions in the Bible, but no need to, I don’t care for personal opinions on such important matters. I’ve seen enough of the so called "contradictions in the Bible" disinformation disseminated from Muslim fundamentalist web sites, all easy to refute if one has the time to bother with them. Any way, a perceived contradiction does not mean; not inerrant or, uninspired of course.

Excuse me for speaking plainly, but your words strike me as absurd. Granted, there a many enemies of Christianity make all sorts of false assertions about supposed "contradictions" in Scripture, but to assert that the Bible does not actually contain any contradictions is simply contrary to the facts of the situation. I've studied the Bible for decades. I own and have read encyclopedias of Bible difficulties. To me, it is like somebody casually leaning on the back of a two ton elephant and saying "What elephant? There's no elephant in the room!" We can not make the Bible into something it is not by merely saying so!

And you are correct - the existence of contradictions (whether "apparent" or real) tell us nothing about whether the Bible is inspired. But they certainly say a lot about the doctrine of inerrancy. And here's the bottom line: The Bible we have received from God via history is full of tangles and seemingly irreconcilable contradictions. If God wanted us to believe the Bible inerrant, then why did he make it look like it was full of errors? I believe it is impossible for anyone who really reads the Bible with an open and honest mind to maintain the doctrine of inerrancy. Therefore, it seems to me that the people who proclaim the Bible inerrant are forced to lie (deceive) themselves and others. Ironic, is it not? Folks who push the Bible as inerrant by arguing that "God cannot lie" are themselves forced to lie by their very proclamation!



A supernaturally unregenerated human being will never understand or make sense of the Bible and frankly one can say, and or, make the Bible say what ever one likes. (every body does and the cults make a fortune out of it) This doesn't affect the inerrancy of every word of it. One can throw muck at a crystal; it has no effect on it.

Excellent point. And that's why "inerrancy" is meaningless. Suppose you are correct and the Bible is inerrant. What does it matter? It still must be read by us fallible humans! And that means that folks will never agree about what it really means, and there will be no way for two REGENERATE CHRISTIANS to come to agreement if they interpret things differently. The only way out of this mess is to assert that you happen to be one of the lucky few with a mind enlightened by God, and so anyone who disagrees with you must be blind, even if they hold to all the same doctrinal points and believe they are regenerated.

See the problem? Having an "inerrant" text does not help up resolve any of our disagreements about how to interpret that "inerrant" text! So it is functionally equivalent to an errant text, but worse because we are denying things that we plainly see with our own eyes, such as the irreconcilable differences between the four accounts of the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.



The Bible is a whole other universe of supernaturally revealed facts which can only ever be revealed through personal experience in connection with the Holy Spirit of God and the will of God, and if one's personal experience do not align perfectly with the scripture then the personal experience is meaningless.

That's a very problematic view. Can you tell me how we should discern between "supernaturally revealed facts" and our own fallible interpretations?

Here is the reason for the problem. It is our "personal experience" that teaches us about reality. If we try to learn about reality only by reading the Bible, we will run the risk of becoming ignorant monsters like medieval Roman Catholic Church who thought they were adhering to what the Bible really taught when they said the earth was at the center of the universe. It was Galileo's personal experience that corrected their reading of the Bible. It's not the other way around. The Bible, taken alone without reference to personal experience, misleads people into all kinds of errors based upon their ignorance, prejudice, and misinterpretations.



Bible wheel and numeric patterns are also meaningless, unless of course they align perfectly with the scripture. Nothing usurps the word of God, which is why He bothered to give it to us in the first place - IE to stop liars dead in their tracks.

Nothing usurps the word of God? Again, I must ask, how do you distinguish between your personal interpretation and the true meaning of the Bible? And as for stopping liars "dead in their tracks" - where did you get that idea? The Devil, the Father of Lies, delighted in quoting Scripture. I've never seen the Bible stop a liar. On the contrary, I've seen liars use the Bible more than any other book!



It is my humble opinion that if the words of God about the Word of God are not inerrant then the whole book is a waste of time and we may as well all be down the boozer, off our scones, trying to score, whilst waiting for aliens to come. Either that or take up Buddhism or convert to Islam. But that's just me.

That's a very low view of God and the Bible in my estimation. I am shocked that you impose your own view of how God must behave with such vehemence. Who are we to tell God that his book is crap if it does not mean what we think it should mean???

This is the problem with the doctrine of inerrancy. It is a human doctrine born of bad logic and intellectual arrogance. Don't worry, I'm not blaming you because it's not your fault. You were taught this false doctrine by others. You did not invent it.



The 66 books of the bible, as received and recorded in the Greek and Hebrew text, are most definitely the inerrant word of God and any professing believer who says other wise is at best apostate and at worst, worthy of being taken to with a knotted rope and clattered about the head with it. The unbeliever can say what ever they like as far as I'm concerned. If you are not a believer then you can, and most probably will, take everything I've written here with a pinch of salt.

Wow! Now you've taken your human doctrine of inerrancy and have placed it above the Gospel itself as the standard of "apostasy." I am stunned. Christians have never held the doctrine of inerrancy as the acid test of faith! Look at the creeds. It's not there. Where did you get this idea?

But worse - your doctrine is demonstrably false. The Bible we possess today is not inerrant. No one can deny this simple fact. The best you can do is to try to explain away the errors as errors that crept in when the original "inerrant" Bible was copied.

And worst of all - you have taken the false doctrine of inerrancy and declared that all Christians must believe it or be "apostate." You have invented a new form of Christianity.

This post is getting too long. I'll answer the rest in another.

But before I go, let me say that I hope you will stick around and continue this conversation. I find it very interesting.

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In my opinion to hold the belief that the Bible is erroneous renders a bible wheel as about as much use as a Childs cut -out on the side of a wheetbix packet – seriously; what would be the point in developing something like that to "prove God designed the Bible?" If the Bible is judged, by you, to be erroneous (remember if something is not inerrant, means it is therefore erroneous IE full of error), this of course would mean you have quite brilliantly designed a tool to prove something to be erroneous, therefore making your tool also equally erroneous. Quite bizarre to say the least, and people actually buy a book about it? Poor deluded gullible children of men, I do despair.

Your comments have a few false assumptions. I never said I developed the Bible Wheel to "prove God designed the Bible." On the contrary, the Bible Wheel is something I simply discovered - I was not trying to prove anything at all. The fact that it proves design is like saying a car proves design. It's true, but that's not the purpose of the car! The car was designed to get people from Point A to Point B. It was not designed to prove that cars were designed! Same goes for the Bible Wheel. It proves that Bible was designed, but that is not its purpose. And it does NOT prove that the Bible is inerrant or infallible. That's something else altogether. For example, my friend Yoseph Sopherim could have made up the whole Bible himself last Tuesday and all the patterns of the Bible Wheel would remain, but the implication of inerrancy would not.

Sloppy thinking does not glorify God.



One can't say God designs erroneous things. Unless of course one wishes to hold God to account for sin and Satan and all satanic manifestations, leading to the potential presumption that, as the bible is erroneous, then it was quite possibly even written by Satan. Indeed it has been perverted to high heaven by him, but God promised to preserve every jot and title of His word and not a bit of it will ever pass away. (There is nothing in this promise to assume it means "preserved on the "original" papyrus the words where first written down on, either) Best you get back in line with the truth if you want to be taken seriously in regards to all things Bible. Just a suggestion.

Uh oh. You just accused God of failing to keep his word. You say that he promised to "preserve every jot and title of His word" but you know that the copies of the Bible have many errors (even in the Greek and Hebrew), and we don't possess the inerrant originals. So where is this "preserved" word? In heaven? If that's all that God meant, then it has nothing to do with the Bible we have here on earth so it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

So where is this "preserved" word? If we don't have it, how can you say that God preserved it?



What makes me say we are in the last days? Good question, there is only one unfulfilled Biblical prophesy that has not taken place prior to the supernatural transformation of the church (also known as the rapture, another great bone of contention with the unbelievers and apostate bible pervertor) and preparations for its completion are imminent, that being the construction of the third temple in Jerusalem. The Rabbinical Priests have been rearing and ready to go for at least a decade on this. I'm not a fatalist or a doom and gloom merchant, I have a 2 year old son, I would love to live a long life on earth and see him enjoy one too, this of course will happen either way for the believer, but it will of course have a few odd turns in the supernatural road ahead for us.

Wow! Why are you making up stuff that's not in the Bible? It contains no prophecy about any "construction of the third temple in Jerusalem." None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. You have fallen for one of the most obvious and ridiculous false teachings out there. The irony blows my mind. You are an advocate of the Bible as the perfect and inspired inerrant Word of God, yet you believe all sorts of things not taught anywhere in Scripture! This truly amazes me. Do you also believe in the magic stretchable 2000+ year imaginary gap in Dan 9 between the 69th and 70th week? Do you believe that the Bible teaches something about an "Antichrist" who is going to be a world dictator? All that stuff is made up man! Made up out of whole cloth! It's not in the Bible.



Check out The Final Count Down By Pastor Billy Crone (Youtube or getalife ministries) to learn more about the Rabbinical Priest's preparations for the Third Temple. Further more 2000 years ago the Jewish Nation of Israel was a pipe dream, it happened in 1948 in "a day" just as was prophesied in Isaiah. One would be very foolish to ignore the significance of such prophesy. This is the real deal and occurred only 62 years ago. The new temple can be constructed in approximately eleven years and there is even a view that the construction of a temple is not required to re-institute the rabbinical sacrifices of the Red heifer, the Red heifer has been genetically engineered to meet the required standards prophesied as well - also waiting in the wings since, I believe 2007, possibly earlier. Not to mention companies like Mondex (meaning right hand) who are ready to mark every human being on earth with RIFD chips on the forehead or right hand or the work of organisations like the UN to prepare for a one world religion.

This shows again that you are believing things that are not taught anywhere in the Bible. It blows my mind. The mark is a BRAND that shows allegiance to the "world system" in Rev 13. The Bible never says that the brand identifies the individual - on the contrary, it identifies the OWNER of the individual, the "beast" who rules the "world system" (first century Roman empire).

Please think about this. Your entire body of beliefs are made up of all sorts of things not found anywhere in the Bible. Nowhere! The mark is like a brand. E.g. "This bull belongs to Bar-S Ranch." It does not say "This Bull's name is Fred."

Your mention of the fact that it's been 62 years since the establishment of the modern secular state of Israel amplifies the error of using it as "God's prophetic timepiece." Major Christian leaders like Chuck Smith PREDICTED the end in 1981 = 1948 + 40 - 7. When that failed, others predicted 1988. And then 1989. And then 1990. And then ... You get the picture. They were all wrong. And always have been wrong. I have no reason to think they will every get it right. Indeed, I know they can not get it right because their doctrines are just made up like cartoons with no foundation whatsoever in the Bible.



Finally, thanks for the effort you made to check out the Panin research. If I may say, Panin referred to Westcott and Hort a lot because he clearly respected their research, but he did not rely solely on Westcott and Hort for his findings. That said, I don't put my faith in Ivan Panin, but I still maintain the point of view that his work is given scant regard by you and others here, given that it has been shown by Bible scholars to irrefutably prove beyond cavil, the inspiration of scripture - messing about with the figures in the way you are doing is very deceptive and is a misrepresentation of the facts. (Again, not that God ever needed Panin to prove the inerrancy of scripture) For you to accuse Panin of the worst crime of bible tampering with the same tongue that spouts forth "I don’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture" renders any opinion out of the your mouth on the bible as pointless as a Base Player auditioning for a gig with a one man band. But I do agree that anyone who sets a date on the actual return of Christ, as far as days and dates etc, is not to be taken serioulsy, even Jesus Christ (AKA God in His human form) was not given that information to pass on to us.

Like I said, my accusation of tampering with the text may have been too strong. After a more careful examination, the only "tampering" I could find had to do with the separation of contractions. I believe this is wrong and unjustified, but it does not rise to the kind of manipulation that was claimed in the critics I had read. Remember, I explicitly stated that I needed to check into the fact before making a firm judgment and I only said it would be the "worst crime" if it proved to be true. But the jury is still out because he wrote a lot of other stuff that I have not reviewed.

But I do not believe your assertion that Panin's work "has been shown by Bible scholars to irrefutably prove beyond cavil." Could you provide a link to one or two of the primary "Bible scholars" who have shown this? Thanks!



PS: one more point if I may - it is intellectually immoral to refuse to research and seek out one pathway to truth while at the same time embracing all others. If you choose to refuse not to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as taught in the Scripture, by at least testing them, then that is intellectual immorality, it is skeptisicm and God has no time or interest in the skeptic - the agnostic, I believe He has all the time in the world for. Spinning your wheels and holding to the scientific doctrines of men, whilst skeptically point blank refusing to even investigate something that can only be revealed supernaturally is a crying shame and fool hardy not to mention exceedingly arrogant and completely annoying, particularly in light of the words of your signature -

I am wide open to investigate and discuss any and all evidence that is brought to my attention. If there is something you think I am overlooking, please notify me so I can correct that error.



please, please, please don't tell me your a theistic evolutionist?? I can live with the 13.5 billion year old universe types if that's your bag, even though I still believe the history of man on earth is around 6000 years, and that God made this planet for us, which therefore would mean the age of the universe is at best a moot point, at worst rediculous to think it took Him 13.5 billion years to prepare it for our habitation, as rediculous as you obviously think the Young Earth Creationist is, which is, and lets be honest about it, just another smart alec "nur nurne nur nur" name for a bible believing Christian and I'm over it already.
No, I am not a theistic evolutionist. I would be happy to look at any evidence that you think necessitates that point of view. I understand that there are some gaps in our understanding of the precise path of our evolutionary history. But those gaps are not a good place to put God because then every time one of the gaps gets filled with knowledge we squeeze God out of the picture.

Have you ever read any popular scientific books on evolution? If not, how can you have such a strong opinion? The evidence for common descent appears to be rock solid. It's based on DNA which is accepted in courts to determine paternity and guilt even in capital crimes.

It is very important that you do not ignorantly invent another "rule" for God to follow. You do not know if evolution must be "theistic" to fit with the Bible. I presume by "theistic evolution" you mean "evolution guided by God." If so, then you have a lot of learning to do, because the idea of "guided evolution" is very much like an oxymoron. The beauty of evolution is that it is a response to environmental pressures. There is nowhere in the theory that we would ever think of "guidance" happening. Read the "Blind Watchmaker" for a good explanation.

Well, we've got quite a few issues on the table! I hope you will feel like pursuing them. They are very interesting, and it is my impression that a lot of your opinions are based on false assumptions about what I believe. And I also think that your Biblical fundamentalism is not clearly thought out, and if you took the time to think about it, you would see that it is not correct intellectually or biblically.

All the very best,

Richard

[Panman]

Uh Oh.
Wow.
Truly amazing.
etc etc.

Your just another of the many Bible disinformaton terrorists that populate internet forum land with far too many GAPS in your thinking that warrant or deserve exploring. Particulalry in light the fact that every weird and whacky opinion you hold dear has been explored by people like you who refuse to accept the TRUTH for over 6,000 years, isn't that about long enough?? And the fact that many of your statements are bald face lies is what has led me to this rather prompt and curt FINAL reply.

All the best.

Panman.

[alec cotton]

Uh Oh.
Wow.
Truly amazing.
etc etc.

Your just another of the many Bible disinformaton terrorists that populate internet forum land with far too many GAPS in your thinking that warrant or deserve exploring. Particulalry in light the fact that every weird and whacky opinion you hold dear has been explored by people like you who refuse to accept the TRUTH for over 6,000 years, isn't that about long enough?? And the fact that many of your statements are bald face lies is what has led me to this rather prompt and curt FINAL reply.

All the best.

Panman.Phew that's a relief. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.
Alec

[Mad Mick]

Panman, what a relief it was to have your wit and one liners grace my screen! Maaaate I've only started to get to like what I'm hear'n and your choos'n to ditch this site!

Be not discouraged by the opposing views at this site. People like Cheow, Alec and Myself have sharpened our swords to the max through multiple headbutts at this forum.

This site attracts a lot of differing mindsets, if only it could be pooled and bridled then we would be a force to be reckoned with!

The works of Vernon and Craig are out of this world, truly amazing stuff. On the Bible Wheel side Victor, Gilgal, Richard and Rose have compiled heaps of correlated patterns of text gematria and structure according to the order and structure of the bible, and it's about to go 3D once I get of my ass and get my model off to Richard.

Most of us here are aware of Ivan Panin's work, I too came here via a Panin link, and respect the mammoth amount of effort he put into proving his theory. Yes like all of us he had his moments, yet the main gist of his work is being carried out by this 3rd and 4th generation of researchers right here at this very site and Richard is facilitating it!

It was good of you to remind him to give Panin a little more credence and show some more respect for the fellow (especially since his site attracts many people here to the BW), but once you get to know RAM you'll find his brand of scepticism is an invaluable sharpening asset to have by your side.

A lot of switched on believers visit this site daily and it's steadily growing. Your views are needed here to create a balance and give other readers here a feeling that their views are being represented.

When you look at it from this perspective, it's my hope that you too will come to the conclusion that the Bible Wheel needs us and our views as well as theirs.

PS. Were you ever into or accustomed with the works of Barry Smith from NZ. He copped a lot of flack for date setting, yet when I saw him at an AOG in Melbourne mid '90's, I found the man to be quite genuine and the information well researched.

God bless you, your family and your business in the name of Christ Jesus, amen.
Mick

[CWH]

Panman, what a relief it was to have your wit and one liners grace my screen! Maaaate I've only started to get to like what I'm hear'n and your choos'n to ditch this site!

Be not discouraged by the opposing views at this site. People like Cheow, Alec and Myself have sharpened our swords to the max through multiple headbutts at this forum.

This site attracts a lot of differing mindsets, if only it could be pooled and bridled then we would be a force to be reckoned with!

The works of Vernon and Craig are out of this world, truly amazing stuff. On the Bible Wheel side Victor, Gilgal, Richard and Rose have compiled heaps of correlated patterns of text gematria and structure according to the order and structure of the bible, and it's about to go 3D once I get of my ass and get my model off to Richard.

Most of us here are aware of Ivan Panin's work, I too came here via a Panin link, and respect the mammoth amount of effort he put into proving his theory. Yes like all of us he had his moments, yet the main gist of his work is being carried out by this 3rd and 4th generation of researchers right here at this very site and Richard is facilitating it!

It was good of you to remind him to give Panin a little more credence and show some more respect for the fellow (especially since his site attracts many people here to the BW), but once you get to know RAM you'll find his brand of scepticism is an invaluable sharpening asset to have by your side.

A lot of switched on believers visit this site daily and it's steadily growing. Your views are needed here to create a balance and give other readers here a feeling that their views are being represented.

When you look at it from this perspective, it's my hope that you too will come to the conclusion that the Bible Wheel needs us and our views as well as theirs.

PS. Were you ever into or accustomed with the works of Barry Smith from NZ. He copped a lot of flack for date setting, yet when I saw him at an AOG in Melbourne mid '90's, I found the man to be quite genuine and the information well researched.

God bless you, your family and your business in the name of Christ Jesus, amen.
Mick

Well , we are the "beating guys" in this forum...Cheow, Alec, Mick, Joel and several others. I guessed we have been hardened and immuned to Preterism; the more they "beat", the harder we become.

By the way, my view about Panin's work and RAM's Biblewheel is that they are done by fallible human beings and I would certainly expect errors and bias in their works. But anyway, we should give credit for their hard work even if we know that there are errors and bias in their works. I don't take their works as 100% accurate....not even 80%. But they are certainly mind-openers and made us see the scriptures in different perspectives.

Many Blessings.

[Panman]

Panman, what a relief it was to have your wit and one liners grace my screen! Maaaate I've only started to get to like what I'm hear'n and your choos'n to ditch this site!

Be not discouraged by the opposing views at this site. People like Cheow, Alec and Myself have sharpened our swords to the max through multiple headbutts at this forum.

This site attracts a lot of differing mindsets, if only it could be pooled and bridled then we would be a force to be reckoned with!

The works of Vernon and Craig are out of this world, truly amazing stuff. On the Bible Wheel side Victor, Gilgal, Richard and Rose have compiled heaps of correlated patterns of text gematria and structure according to the order and structure of the bible, and it's about to go 3D once I get of my ass and get my model off to Richard.

Most of us here are aware of Ivan Panin's work, I too came here via a Panin link, and respect the mammoth amount of effort he put into proving his theory. Yes like all of us he had his moments, yet the main gist of his work is being carried out by this 3rd and 4th generation of researchers right here at this very site and Richard is facilitating it!

It was good of you to remind him to give Panin a little more credence and show some more respect for the fellow (especially since his site attracts many people here to the BW), but once you get to know RAM you'll find his brand of scepticism is an invaluable sharpening asset to have by your side.

A lot of switched on believers visit this site daily and it's steadily growing. Your views are needed here to create a balance and give other readers here a feeling that their views are being represented.

When you look at it from this perspective, it's my hope that you too will come to the conclusion that the Bible Wheel needs us and our views as well as theirs.

PS. Were you ever into or accustomed with the works of Barry Smith from NZ. He copped a lot of flack for date setting, yet when I saw him at an AOG in Melbourne mid '90's, I found the man to be quite genuine and the information well researched.

God bless you, your family and your business in the name of Christ Jesus, amen.
Mick

Wow thanks for that awesome post Mad Mick - totally unexpected I might Add, but warmly received and welcomed. I read Barry Smiths book "Warning" when I was 18 years old, 26 years ago.

Barry's book "Warning" was instrumental in my Salvation; it literally put the fear of God in me. So, I have a special place in my heart for Barry and his work. I think he wrote three others in the Warning series, I read them all and watched all his videos which I was lucky enough to be able to rent from a Christian video store. I don't recall him ever being so foolish to mention a specific date though. He has a website that is still up and running but I was a little disspointed to see how expensive his books are, I would have bought some if they weren't so dear.

For what it's worth he was drawing pictures of planes crashing into tall buildings and anthrax scares in the early 80s. In my opinion he makes a mockery of the so called truth movement/awakened types. Mind you, so does the Bible. People watch a David Icke, Jordon Maxell or Michael Tsarion clip on Youtube or listen to an Alex Jones presentation and they think they are awake and yet they are only awake to the problem while at the same time are quite content to ignore and even mock the solution, which is of course the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Furthermore they ignore the validity of the message in a book written thousands of years ago that predicts, down to the enth degree, exactly what is happening today.

As iron sharpens iron so brother strengthens brother is biblical but so to is "Unless we can be agreed we cannot walk together" and I dare say ought not to walk together especially if we cant be agreed on issues of sound doctrine. Evolution doesn't even enter into the frame he is telling us he and his wife are studying evolution and have found "marvelous evidence to support it"? get up off of me with that. He best get on the blower to his new best mate Richgard Dawkins then and set about creating the evolution wheel. I'm scratching my protruding neanderthal like forehead in wonder?? And he's got a Bible wheel?? Dudes on crack, is all I can put it down too!!!!!!!!

I'm serioulsy done crossing swords with heretics, apostates and bible disinformation thought terrorists. Why do you feel the need to defend a skeptic who claims to have evidence of evolution whilst peddling a bible wheel? Again, thats a bald face liar in action? Such arrogance and deluded ignorance awakens such a fiery holy scorn in me that it is not pretty to watch let alone feel it inside of myself - hence I need to back away and leave it the more patient of my brethren to deal with their ilk. Name them and shame was the Bibles method of dealing with apostate ministers, not working with them. I found his brand of "skepticism" to be unpleasant enough to have realised what a wast of time it was to have bothered joining this site.

May God bless you and yours richly my brother. Again, your post was a surprisingly nice encouragement to me.


Panman.

PS: clearly you have been a contributor of the site for a while and you appear to have repsect for the work of a lot of the people you make mention of. I dont know them but I mean them no ill will, I just call it like my finely and supernaturally transformed mind I sees it, and when I see someone saying the Bible is not inerrent and infallible, frankly I can't be bothered with the whole shooting match after that. As I said, the biblewheel or the ferris wheel or whatever else they want to call it, has about as much use as a cut out from a weetbix packet if the people behind it hold that view and support evolution, these view certainly don't need me, or the Bible either for that matter. Perhaps you need to give some thought as to why you feel the need to defend these guys. That would be my advice to you as a brother in Christ.

Because you seem to be such a top bloke I promise to check in now and again and say hi and annoy the other "not so" fine folk here, kind of like killing two birds with one stone. lol

PS: I note that Ram has tamed the introduction to his last hot air apostate ballon filling response, somewhat, from the one I innitially responded too. , in fact it looks like he may have even squeezed in a whole other response which I didn't even see before (obvioulsy that'll be proof of evolution for us)- Which frankly gives me the creeps and hebeejebees and that's on top of apostasy? - not a good look.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

PS: I note that Ram has tamed the introduction to his last hot air apostate ballon filling response, somewhat, from the one I innitially responded too. , in fact it looks like he may have even squeezed in a whole other response which I didn't even see before (obvioulsy that'll be proof of evolution for us)- Which frankly gives me the creeps and hebeejebees and that's on top of apostasy? - not a good look.
Hey there Panman,

If you want to write something intelligible, please do so. As it is, you have failed to respond to the points I made. Are you capable of discussing the Bible as a rational human being? If not, why do you bother posting at all? Do you think anyone reading your ravings would mistake you for a genuine Christian?

I let you post because I have very liberal rules here to encourage free speech and free exchange of ideas. I do not take offense easily, but you are abusing your privileges. You are not offering any intelligent refutation of anything I have written nor any ideas for anyone to work with. So remember, this is my forum. If you want to post here, you need to have some basic level of intelligence and enough common decency to refrain from pissing on the carpet in the living room like some demented fool. If I were to judge by what you have spewed out so far, you would be banned already. But I want to give you a chance to discover your error and to repent of your gross sins, and to behave in a way consistent with your assertion that you that you really believe the things taught in that book you so adamantly claim to be "inerrant and infallible."

Thanks!

Richard

[Mad Mick]

Panman, in true NZ style you cut to the point without taking the bait of getting caught up in the same old arguments that have been stonewalled time and again. I'll be lookin fwd to the next time you drop in.

I had only heard an anti Jesus coming sceptic claim that Barry had date set in the 80's. When I saw him in the '90's there was no inkling of that, but like a true fool I spouted something unverified that was stuck in the back of my mind, along with Disney and Hollywood misconceptions of the bible and the odd dose of pure filth.

Now that I've deleted that thought, it would be interesting to know what he is up to. Someone told me he was dead some years back. It didn't occur to me to do a search online.

You know it happens every time. I get online then blank I forget all the things I need to do and follow the Bloody Links!

Triple blessings to you!

Mick

[Rose]

Hey Panman,

No matter how inerrant the Bible may be, it still must be interpreted by errant humans! Hence, the multitude of different Christian beliefs.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Ram

You and I have clearly diametrically opposed views on what the bible is and what it isn't. And thats okay, but Im sorry, I don't have any patience with people who monkey about with the doctrine of the innerency of scripture. You may also be "mystified" to know that as it is the basis of the true Christian biblcal faith (not the apostate biblical view), that millions upon millions of regenretade human beings throughout the history of the human race hold the exact same belief in it as me. That you are mystified by it, tells me that any further conversation regarding the topic will only further frustrate us both.

Furthermore I already told you I have no intention of discussing your views regarding the bible because they are abhorrent to me (not you, your views). I believe I was simply responding to a rather pleasant post I received from Mad Mike. I didnt realise it was your forum and your living room, I do now, I shall leave you in peace. It would be rude not to. But statements like that, means it is not a forum that promotes free speech, you need to realise that too MY FRIEND.

Hey there Panman, :yo:

Thanks for sharing your mind and heart in a way that I can understand and engage. This is when things get interesting and potentially fruitful for you, me, and everyone else. I see no reason to think we cannot have a reasonable conversation like two mutually respectful adults. The fact that we may hold some "diametrically opposed views" means that we should have plenty to talk about! I see no reason to think it should make conversation impossible, unless, of course, one (or both) of us let's his fleshly emotions rule and rage where reason should prevail.



The Theory of evolution is the greatest lie ever believed. For the past 150 years indoctrinate the youth the world over away form the biblical creation account. It has been heavily promoted throughout worlds museums, the media, hollywood movies, televions etc etc. It is a lieing conspriracy of epic proportion and it disgusts me no end. in fact it really gets my dander up friend. Not to mention creeps like Dawkins use it to mock God and the holy bible, based again on lies that he has somehow been able to prove evolution to be true. What a load of poppy cock LIES in other words LIES.

Wow ~ your "dander" certainly is "up." Unfortunately, the condition of your dander is not a test of truth. On the contrary, raised dander is more often than not an indicator of a programmed response, like a dog conditioned to automatically attack anyone seen as a stranger or threat of any kind. And this seems to be what is controlling you. Your understanding has been programmed by anti-science propaganda written by folks with a religious agenda. They do not want you to think ~ they want you to react emotionally by attacking the "lying godless unbelievers" who contradict the mind-controlling dogmas they teach.

Do you not realize what your words sound like to someone who has not been programmed like you? Raving about a world-wide conspiracy that has fooled the best and the brightest scientists for over a century sounds just plain nuts, especially when it is expressed with "much dander" and not much logic or evidence. And it does not touch the FACT of evolution. That's the real problem. Evolution is demonstrable in real time. Just look at the evolution of resistance to antibodies. But you will say that's only "micro-evolution." Fine ... now we've entered into rational discourse. You admit evolution is true on some level. Therefore, your simplistic accusations of "lies" and "conspiracy" are not so plain and obvious, are they? You would do well to speak with reason if you want to change the minds of reasonable people.

I get the impression that you have never read a single book by an evolutionary scientist. Is that correct? If so, then why do you believe the anti-scientific propaganda? And how could you be writing a book against ideas that you have never read?




It further disgusts me that a person such as yourself who is grandstanding and promoting some whacky "bible" wheel theory about God knows what exactly, whilst at the same time claiming to have been convinved on the reality of evolution based on fact?

You should refrain from criticizing things you know nothing of. It makes you look foolish, and it contradicts the "inerrant and infallible" teaching of the Holy Bible.

This is what blows my mind. Folks proudly hold up the Bible to the sky for all to see and shout about how they really believe it, and then immediately violate its teachings! And so we behold Romans 2:1 fulfilled again right before our eyes.



This is not just my opnion, there is zero accepted scientific evidence to prove a theory f evolution true and it has vener beev observed, the baisi of all true scientific fact is that it must be "observed" This is avery close subject to my heart at the monet becuase I am awriting abook about and cosequently have doens aloty of study on it, which includes both sides of the argument.

Your statement is ridiculously false. I get the impression that you have never read a single book written by an evolutionary scientist. Is this correct? If so, how is it possible that you are writing a book about something you have never studied? It's like someone writing a book against Calculus who has never learned to add 1 + 2!

If, on the other hand, you have read and critiqued a serious book on evolution, I would be delighted to discuss the facts with you.



I will go as far as to say that in my opinion, the theory of Evolution has brought more evil into the world than any other doctrine. Hitler thought he was doing the world and the theory of evolution a favour by wiping out 6 miillion "sub human Jews". Thats a fact!

That is the purest form of propaganda. You have received a twisted history that reverses the facts! Hitler explicitly stated that he was doing "the work of the Lord" when he murdered the Jews. Take a look at this excerpt from Mein Kampf (source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html)):
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” – Adolf Hitler
He frequently promoted Christianity and said he was and always would be a Catholic. We all know about the institutionalized hatred of the Jews as "Christ-killers" deserving of death found in the Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant. You think Hitler invented the idea that the Jews were "sub-human" or that he based that idea on Darwin? Think again, my friend. Just read these words from another German raised in Catholicism like Hitler. Here are some snippets from Luther's vile book called On the Jews and their Lies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies):
In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."[19]
You can't blame the persecution of the Jews on Darwin! It was religiously driven by dogmatic ideologues who sound very much like those who now are twisting history to attack evolution. It is very important to see what is going on here. You have been programmed to believe that Hitler was the product of Darwin. Nothing could be further from the truth. The German nation would never have gone along with Hitler's RELIGIOUS hatred of the Jews if they had not been programmed by centuries of institutional hatred in the Christian Church.

So please think about this. The very facts that you are using to prove that evolution is "evil" actually show that institutional Christianity is evil. Oh! The irony!



And your mystified by me? I'm mystified to say the least. You can't have your Bible wheel and evolution too my friend, unless of course you claim to be a theistic evolutiuonist, which you already said you are not. What exactly do you believe about the bible? I know what you don't believe about it? Care to make that clear?

When I discovered the Bible Wheel, I was a standard non-denominational Bible-believing Christian. Here is how I described myself in my old FAQ (http://biblewheel.com/FAQ/FAQ.asp):
Are you a Christian? Protestant? Catholic?
Praise God, I am a man saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesian 2:8). I am a non-denominational blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian. I believe that the true “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) is well stated in the early creeds of the church that Christ founded, as explained in my Statement of Faith (http://biblewheel.com/forum/../About/Credo.asp).
I was happy to describe myself as a "Biblical fundamentalist" though I never went so far as to say that the Bible was "inerrant and infallible" because I have always recognized those as man-made doctrines that contradict the Bible as given by God.

The discovery of the Bible Wheel drove me further into a fundamentalist view since I thought it proved that God designed the Bible. The fact that you are willing to gleefully piss on it reveals the true nature of most "Christians" who are dominated not by anything even approaching God's Truth or Spirit, but rather by ludicrous micro-brained cultish moronism that is as far removed from God and Truth as Hitler himself.

So what do I think it means now? I don't know. I'm still figuring things out. I think it would be an excellent topic of conversation.



And if the scriptures are not inerrent then what scriptures and what version of the bible is your Bible wheel based on and what exactly is the purpose of the bible wheel any way?

Even in my most "fundamentalist" stage, I never thought that the primary purpose of the Bible Wheel was to prove the Bible. The fact that it was designed was a necessary consequence of the fact that it was designed. It's like a car. A car is designed to move people from Point A to Point B. It was not designed to prove it was designed!

The Bible Wheel reveals things in the Bible that simply could not be seen in any other way. It opens Scripture to new and amazing insights. But Christians don't care about that. All they care about is dogma because they have been taught for 2000 years that they are saved by dogma. You have to have the correct set of beliefs or you will not be saved. That's why you are so nuts about "inerrancy." To you, it seems that "Biblical inerrancy" is the Gospel itself.



Also what scriptures are accurate and which ones are erroneous?? And who are you to say that God can not preserve His word, in every single language known to man kind on this earth, without having a piece of "original pyprus and ink" the words where first recorded on by human beings. You seem very sure of yourself that it can not be. Why? and based on what? And who are you to say that the original Hebrew and Greek text has not been preserved in con-cordances and other such documents that we have today. Are you awar how meticulous the Jewish Scribe have been throughout the history of their religion with the Old Testament? If they made one wrong stroke of the pen, they had to start the from the begiing again. and if the Bible has not been preserved by God,

Are you aware of textual variations? We do not have the originals. That's why scholars have to argue about which ancient document is correct. This proves that your doctrine of inerrancy has not "teeth" because we do not possess the original documents, and the documents we do possess DISAGREE with each other.

Now don't get me wrong. The documents are good enough to give us confidence that the Bible is highly reliable. It just does not allow for the man-made doctrine of inerrancy. And if the Bible is received as GOD'S BOOK then we must accept it as given by GOD. Right? That has been my point from the beginning. If God wanted to give us an inerrant book, it would have been very easy. But he did not do it. And we should not lie about God and His Book, right?




PS: if you really must ban, then so be it. But you can forget about the petty threats. I won't be losing any sleep over it, in fact on the contrary Im losing valuable sleep and wasting time writing this - you would be doing me a huge favour.
I see no need to ban you! On the contrary, as long as you are here to discuss your understanding of God and the Bible and Science and everything, you are most welcome. The only reason I spoke of banning you was because it appeared you were not interested in rational and mutually respectful discourse, which is the way I run my house. But now I get the opposite impression and look forward to a fruitful discussion.

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What on earth did you hope to achieve by quoting Romans 2: 2 on its own??

I cited Romans 2:1. It is a classic text on religious hypocrisy. If you can not understand it on your own, no explanation will help.



I' am now your proof for your "scripture is erroneous" theory , this simply highlights your mindless inane position on the topic.

First, I do not have a "scripture is erroneous" theory. I have simply stated the fact that there are errors Scripture. Anyone can verify this fact for themselves.

Second, I am still waiting for a rational and substantial response to something I have written. Hurling empty and unsupported insults like "mindless inane position" is meaningless because you failed to explain why they are "mindless" or "inane." You gave no evidence for your accusations. No one has any way to know what you are talking about. Therefore, your rude and infantile comments exemplify the definition of "inane" with perfect precision:
Definition of INANE (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inane)
1: empty, insubstantial
2: lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly <inane comments>
Therefore, your comments are demonstrably inane and once again we see that you fulfill Romans 2:1.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
I find it exquisitely ironic that you fulfilled this passage a second time even as you tried to squirm out of its obvious implications. You are an excellent "object lesson" for the study of Christian Hypocrisy. Indeed, you would make an excellent poster child.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Just look at the evolution of resistance to antibodies. But you will say that's only "micro-evolution."
Umm no thats the wonderful God given immune system, it's nothing to do with evolution, in fact one could argue its homeostasis.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I meant to write "antibiotics" not "antibodies." My comment had nothing to do with immune systems. I am talking about the change in the DNA of bacteria that enables them to survive in the presences of antibiotics that normally would have killed them. This is the DEFINITION of evolution: A change in the gene frequency in a population. Over time, it leads to the development of different species. Do you agree with the definition of evolution? If not, then we need to clear that up before we could hope to make any progress.




You admit evolution is true on some level.
No I do not. So why and how gives you such mind bending license to even imply I do. If your going lie, Im not playing your game. .

I'm sorry, I certainly wasn't trying to "lie" about you! I simply assumed that you understood and accepted at least the most basic fact of micro-evolution. I see I must never assume anything ... no matter how obvious it seems.



The book I am critiquing is The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. This book is not focused on the Theory of Evolution, But I have read many opinions and books on the topic of evolution. I am a member of John Mackay's Creation Research Website. http://www.creationresearch.net/

I haven't yet read the Origion of Species, but I plan too next and also the Greatest Show on Earth, by DAwkins.

What books have you read on the topic?

At the same time as of right now I'm reading

The Early Earth by John C Whitcomb,
The Evolution Conspircay - By Caryl Matriscianna
God The Big Bang and Stephen Hawking by David Wilkinson (Finished this one)
21 Scientists Who Believe - Eric C Barrett.

I'm confused. You chastised me for "assuming" that you have not read any books on evolution by evolutionary scientists, and here in your answer I do not see any books about evolution by evolutionary scientists! :confused:

So is it true? Have you not read any books by evolutionary scientists about the evidence for evolution?

And another assumption is abundantly confirmed. You are steeping your mind in anti-scientific creationist literature.

As for the books I've read recently: The best is The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean Carroll. Then I read Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True." A few years ago I read Darwin's Black Box. Those are books relating specifically to the evidence for evolution per se. I've also listened to many hours of lectures by professional biologists, neurologists, and other scientists relating specifically to the discoveries that support the theory of evolution available from various university via iTunes. And I've read other books that are use evolution to arrive at their conclusions, such as the The Cerebral Symphony by William Calvin and Consilience by E. O. Wilson. I also recently read The God Delusion but it wan't focused on evolution per se. The last few days I've been reading "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant, which is extremely interesting, especially since philosophy has played a central role in the criticism of religious belief.

I'll answer more in another post.

I'm happy to say that it feels like we are almost having a conversation!

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi ram, I have given a more full response, Im going to delete the first one, feel free to so the same if you wish - Cheers
Yeah ... it might be a good idea to delete the "noise" between us. It's not edifying, is it? But I'll wait till things settle down a bit.

Let's do our best to communicate in a way that will shed more light than heat!

I kinda get the impression you get a bit "overheated" once in a while. Don't worry about it. But if you can, please try to maintain a more even tone. I will do the same.

All the very best to you.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard Dawkins interviews John Mackay of Creation Research ministry.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8vFdFB-9Nw

Mackay is a Young Earth Creationist. He says the earth is 6000-7000 years old in the video. And that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Are you aware of textual variations?
What do you mean?

Textual variations are when one ancient manuscript of the Bible differs from another. For example, most ancient manuscripts don't have 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum)). That's why most modern versions of the Bible don't have it any more. There are many little variations like this. This means we must answer the question of how to determine which ancient manuscripts are "correct" and which are "incorrect." Have you never thought of this problem?




We do not have the originals.
moot point, We dont need the originals to have what was originally written, you need to get past that one. You dont have the original skin your where born in. In fact I think our skin sheds and replaces every week, but we still maintaine all the exact never changing fingfer prints! It's getting tired, old, boring, annoying, innane and frustrating. Broken record.....

You missed the point. We do not have perfect copies! That's the problem. Indeed, many fundamentalists who try to maintain the idea that the original mss were "inerrant" use the fact that all our modern copies have errors to support their case. For example, when there are contradictions in the numbers in Kings vs. Chronicles, the fundamental apologists will argue that the error is just a copying error and assert (without proof) that the originals were perfect (even though we don't know which number they used).




That's why scholars have to argue about which ancient document is correct. This proves that your doctrine of inerrancy has not "teeth" because we do not possess the original documents, and the documents we do possess DISAGREE with each other.
Scholars?? What scholars??

I think this is another misunderstanding. The "scholars" I am talking about are the folks who actually study the ancient manuscripts and produce the Bibles we read. This is how it has always been. There have always been "specialists" who work on the Bible. There were dozens of scholars working to produce the King James Bible for example. How did they know which text to use? They didn't! They had to study it and discuss it and just do the best they could. It's not as simple as you may have thought.



Im happy to say you aren't like him, you seem genuine, but I know where your line of thought will take you to. But if you are truely born again, the Lord will not let you go that far. I'm not worried about believers going off on spiritual crusades and or a voyages of self discovery or what ever, The lord always brings us back.

That sounds like some real faith to me! I can't help being where I am. I am doing my best to speak honestly. And I appreciate your feedback. Sure, we might disagree about a lot of things, but in the recent past we would have agreed about a lot more things. I don't know where this is leading. All I know is that Truth is compelling me to rethink everything I have held believed before. Maybe it's a "mid-life thing."

And by the way, I know how disgustingly rotten the internet world of forums can be. It can be so bad I don't even have words for it. So I know where you are coming from.

I'll answer more later.

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

[
To my knowledge we are needing stronger an stronger antibiotics to fight disease, this seems to prove devolution not evolution?

No, just the opposite. We need stronger antibiotics because the bacteria are evolving defenses so the antibiotics don't work as well as before.



I think it would be better (for me any way) if you provided some actual scientifically verified date prooving it rather than "Yours or anothers definition of what it is." Most people thinks it means we evolved from apes etc, I've since learned that according to Dawkins, Dawrwin never taught this, I'm very interested in looking into exactly what Dawkins mean't by that, and if he was telling the truth or not.

Actually, I took that definition from the online Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml) class provided by Berkeley University. Here it is as presented on that page:

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
I would recommend reading the whole page. You will need to understand all the basic concepts if you want to prove they are wrong, right?

Now as for "data proving" evolution - that's what this discussion is about. But before we can "prove" evolution, we obviously need to define it.

It is very interesting that you bring up the common misunderstanding that evolution means we "evolved from apes." That idea is altogether wrong and has never been taught in any valid explanation of evolution. The correct idea is that humans and apes have a common ancestor. If you look at a "tree of life" you will see it has many branches. One branch represents humans, another apes, another birds, etc. Each branch represents a series of ancestors, and when two branches meet, that represents the common ancestor. The trunk of the tree represents the common ancestor of all life.



I'm honestly not quite following your definition of evolution. But your right it is very important that we find a premise to agree on what we both think evolution means in order to have a meaningful discusion on it.

You should just Google evolution and read the definitions given by reputable sources. For example, here is the definition as given by Biology-online.org:

The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
And here is a bit more explanation from the same page (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution):

In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution.
As you can see, "evolution" is a simple fact that we all can prove in no time. The breeding of dogs is "evolution." When similar changes occur in nature by natural selection, it also is evolution.




I'm confused. You chastised me for "assuming" that you have not read any books on evolution by evolutionary scientists, and here in your answer I do not see any books about evolution by evolutionary scientists! :confused:

So is it true? Have you not read any books by evolutionary scientists about the evidence for evolution?
I chastised you for being a cheeky monkey for the most part. No I havent read any pro evolution book by pro evolution scientist, however I have debated such doctrines with pro athiest evolutionists on Evolution verses Creation forums, so I am not ignorant of the "so called" evidence they use to argue with. I also studied Anthropology at University, which is all Evolution Doctrine based teaching.

Does this mean I have to go to the back of the class now?

Cheeky monkey! I love that! I'm gonna find me a cheeky monkey pic and add it to my collection of smileys!

I very much appreciate your honest answer. :thumb:

But I am confuse about how you could "debate" evolution if you were not familiar with things like it's scientific definition. Did you and your opponents just yell at each other? Given the abysmal state of the internet forums, coupled with the corrupt nature of most humans, I can imagine that's pretty much what happened. Lots of heat, little light. Lots of yelling, little learning. I hate that. I hope we can have lots of light and learning here in our discussion. But to do that, you really should read at least one book. I would strongly recommend Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest as the best introduction. It is a fast and easy read, with lots of solid evidence for you to sink your teeth into. And since I have recently read it, you can critique it and we can discuss it's merits.

And no - you do not have to "go to the back of the class." On the contrary, you have been promoted to the front of the class for your simple and honest answer! That's an essential key to all knowledge, and to being a leading student in this class we both find ourselves in! :winking0071:




And another assumption is abundantly confirmed. You are steeping your mind in anti-scientific creationist literature.
It seems abundatly celar that you ahev voluntarily steeped yu rmind in pro evolution doctrine and arte now usingit beat (arguably) a Christian brother about the head with it. Why? To what end? Coupled with accusations that I am a deluded brianwashed dogmatic programmed drone.

I'm sorry. I almost deleted that comment. Now I wish I did because I do not want to offend. But in truth, the statement was correct, so there should be no offense, right?

But as for "beating" anyone over the head ~ NO! I do not want to do that. I don't like having my head beat so I know I don't want to beat your head. But I most certainly do want to dig deep to discover the truth or falsehood of all these things we have been discussing.



Im not quite at the stage of feeling we are having a conversation - quite yet. But I am quite proud of myself for excersizing a remarkeable amount of restraint, thus far in the discussion.

Wow ~ if that was restraint, I'm sure glad I didn't find out what you are like when you "let yourself go!"

But hey - I really do think we are coming closer to having a genuine conversation. One of the indicators was my initial response to your "cheeky monkey" comment. I laughed. I felt poked by a friend, not mocked by an enemy. So we are making progress. And I have every reason to hope it will continue.

All the very best, my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What is your purpose of posting these clipps? I havent watched them as yet. I'm just wanting to know your purpose and your view on them and why you posted it?

Lets be clear that we already both know Mackay is supporting the biblical view, the one which Dawkins mocks while maintaing that he has a religious fundamental faith in the as yet unproven "scientfic" theory of evolution ( if you want the proof for that I can and will provide it) he also believes and has stated publically when being interviewed on international televised programmes that his only explanation for how we got here is a highly evolved darwinian species "most likely" from another planet may have started us off.



Do we really need to add these videos to our Conversation, if so why???
Hey there Panman, :yo:

I just thought the clips were informative and relevant because you said you were working with Creation Research. There is nothing in the videos that makes fun of John Mackay. It was a very "straight" interview by Richard Dawkins. He just asked questions and allowed Mackay to freely answer.

We don't need to add them to the conversation, unless there is something you think is relevant. Let's just see where the conversation leads. I don't have any pre-planned agenda.

All the very best,

Richard

PS: Sorry to everyone for the site outage. It happened at about 7:45 PM and just got up again at 10:00 PM. It was frustrating because it happened right in the middle of an interesting and very active conversation.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm glad you saved your work before the system crashed! Smart move. It's really frustrating to type out a big response, hit send, and BURP! something goes wrong and it's just gone. The browser might crash, the connection times out, the site goes down, whatever. I've gotten in the habit of frequent copy/paste/save into notepad to avoid the frustration.



I have raised eyebrows over something being "put into" the received text, this would require more clarification as to what is meant here. There is no question as to the validity of the doctrine of the trinity within scripture, a few misplaced comma's intentional or unintentional won't effect that.

I think there might be some confusion. We are not talking about a few misplaced commas. In Greek, the word "comma" means "a short phrase." The Comma Johanneum is a "short phrase" in 1 John 5:7 that is MISSING from most ancient Greek texts. The missing text is this (in bold):
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
The scholastic story goes like this:


The original Greek text did not have 1 John 5:7-8
The Latin Vulgate added the text of 1 John 5:7-8
Erasmus removed it because it was not found in ancient Greek texts
There was a storm of protest because it related to the Trinity
So Erasmus put it back in, and that's why the text is in the King James Bible.

So here's the BIG QUESTION: Does this text belong in the Bible? The only reason we have it is because it was in the Latin Vulgate which you "never put any stock in." If it is not found in the oldest Greek documents, how do we know it belongs in the Bible?

Now personally, I do not think we need to settle this particular question. It is simply an example of a much larger problem ~ the problem of textual variations. Given that there are many differences in the ancient Greek manuscripts, how are we supposed to determine what was the "original" Greek text? And if we don't have the original Greek text, how can we say that it was inerrant?



I have studied some research done on these "modern versions" the changes are astounding, many many verses have completly been omitted (thats right left out) important verse like this

I understand. My research on the Bible Wheel convinced me that there was "something special" about the King James and the received text (TR). But I was never "King James Only." But the important point is this ... the reason for the different modern versions is largely because of textual variations. This is something that must be understood by any serious student of Scripture.



1:14: the KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption , even the forgiveness of sins.

The NIV and other "moderns" have removed THROUGH HIS BLOOD.

Why? Have you thought about that? Did you even know this, Id wager you didnt. This is just one of hundreds like it.

That's because ancient Greek manuscripts disagree with each other on this verses. Some say "through his blood" others don't. How do we know which is correct? Mere tradition?



Here's another beauty.

In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ."

The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star".

According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ! What blasphemy! What perversion! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change! The Hebrew word for star (kokab) is not even found in Isaiah 14:12! Is there any doubt who is the "daddy" of these new versions?

Just a couple of the many strange and wonderful slight of hand interpretations have been added that are all lot more sinister than "many little alterations" I . Indeed I have given it a lot of thought to it, which is why I stick to the KJV and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.

I understand how this could seem like a satanic perversion. But that's not what's going on at all. The word "Lucifer" came from the Vulgate. It is a Latin word that was the name of the planet Venus, also known as the "day star" because it is visible in the morning after sunrise. Now get this: Exactly the same word is found in the Latin version of 2 Peter:
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Here is the same passage from the Latin Vulgate:
2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
Literally, the Vulgate says "until the day dawn, and lucifer arise in your hearts." Simple minded Bible study is for fools. Let us not be fools. You need to learn about the real history of the Bible. How Latin errors were transferred into the King James Bible. The word "Lucifer" is NOT a name of Satan. That doctrine is found nowhere in the real Bible. It is all based ENTIRELY on a bad translation!



I dont trust anything from the catholic church, even if it has the words "Official" in the front of it.

The King James Bible was derived primarily from the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible. As shown above, that's where the supposed name of Satan came from. The word "Lucifer" is a Latin word. It would never be found in the King James if the King James had been directly translated from the Hebrew.




You missed the point. We do not have perfect copies! That's the problem. Indeed, many fundamentalists who try to maintain the idea that the original mss were "inerrant" use the fact that all our modern copies have errors to support their case. For example, when there are contradictions in the numbers in Kings vs. Chronicles, the fundamental apologists will argue that the error is just a copying error and assert (without proof) that the originals were perfect (even though we don't know which number they used).

Can you be more percise with your examples here, they are very vague. Can we also move away from the potentially deceptive use of the word "originals" (we are agreed we dont have the original paper and ink recorded documents), but I dont have the original thoughts that wher forumlated in your mind, but I am reading EXACTLY what they are on screen! Please it's getting tedious as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. I deserve at least your closet attention to detail in delivering your "evidence" that you believe refutes the innerency of scripture, and how yuo have comforably arried at this belief. Otherwsie your wasting my time and yours. If you can prove it to me irrefuteably I will believe the facts. I am not closed minded. But stump of with clearly defined facts and evidence please.

I'm sorry, I truly thought I was being perfectly clear. When I say we do not have the "originals" I mean we have neither the original "papyrus and ink" nor exact copies of what was originally written. But we do have very good copies, and indeed, I have strong confidence that much of what we have is letter-for-letter exactly correct. But I also am strongly convinced that we do not have the entire Bible letter-for-letter correct. God simply did not give it to us. So we do not have it. Therefore, we can not say anything about the "inerrancy" of the originals since we don't even know what they said in every details.



Can we stick to wher the KJV comes from and leave the modern versions out of it, I have no time of any of them (hopefully you can see why) I think possibly the Geneva bible is an Okay version aswell, translated in the 1560s I think.

Sure, we can ignore "modern" versions, but we can not ignore the ancient manuscripts, since they are the real Bible. The King James is just a translation. I read the Hebrew and Greek. So that's why I think of when I speak of the Bible.



Well thats a nice sentiment, but you will need to define what you mean by "TRUTH is compelling you", IE what truth?

What truth? There is only one truth, whether or not we can state exactly what it is. I would hope we can agree upon that!



Dude I walked away from the faith for many years and went back to the world of sinfullness (which I am not proud of) Im not judging you or your thoughts or your actions or any change of heart or what ever, the thing is when The Lord brought me back, or when I made a decision to come back, He and his word had not changed, and it never changed when I was wandering the wilderness.

I'm pretty sure my rethinking the meaning of the faith has nothing to do with wanting to return to sin. On the contrary, I'm in the least difficult stage of my life with regards to sin because I am happily married so I'm not out lusting after woman like when I was as a single youth. That was always my worst difficulty. Being a single young Christian male with a normal sex-drive was torture.



You can change all you want, I dont have an issue with that, But at I take issue and some of your opinions, regarding scripture, that you appear to be stating as fact, if your right, then Im open to be shown, but it will need to be very convincing, not compelling, convincing based on THE TRUTH. As i HAve said, if you can prove to me the Bible is erroneous, and that it therfor can not proved fallible, then, I will drop my faith in it, including my faith in Christ as my saviour, like a hot potatoe. I mean that. if ther is a loop hole out of hell, other than Jesus Christ, then show me it.

Wow ~ that's not right. The Gospel has nothing to do with the idea of inerrancy of the Bible. Paul preached the Gospel before the Bible was complete. He never said that we must believe in a book to be saved or to have a right relation with God.

It seems to me that this discussion has exposed a fundamental confusion in your faith. The Gospel preaches Christ and Him crucified. You have said that you would reject Christ if the Bible had any error at all. That is altogether wrong in my estimation. But it's late here on the west coast of the USA, so I'll be going to sleep now.




So true brother, God bless you.
And God bless you, my true friend.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We need stronger antibiotics because the bacteria are evolving defenses so the antibiotics don't work as well as before.
Oh I see, bacteria is evolving, how does that work?

The basic idea is very simple. This page called Evolution in bacteria (http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolution/evolution-in-bacteria.html) has an excellent explanation. Here is the first paragraph:
Like all forms of life, bacteria undergo evolution. Evolution is a slow and gradual process, and it was the person of Charles Darwin, combining keen observation with a sharp mind, who first described the principles of evolution. Had microbiology existed in those days, then he would certainly have used bacteria to illustrate his ideas. Since bacteria are relatively simple forms of life, and have a short generation time, evolutionary processes can be observed directly, as opposed to most other life forms. The study of bacterial evolution has resulted in many insights of general biological processes, and modern research still uses bacteria as a model to study evolution.
The internet is overflowing with information my friend! Take full advantage of it. You can give yourself the equivalent of multiple college degrees if you are diligent. I use iTunesU a lot ~ you can get lectures from Ivy League universities for free!




There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully,
I dont believe this can be defined as evolution, I accept natutal seletcion as an observed natural reality. nothing more or less than God's marvelous design.

Well ... our personal beliefs have nothing to do with the definition of scientific terms. The simple fact is that evolution is defined as "descent with modification" and "natural selection." We are not free to accept or reject the definitions of scientific terms.



I dont believe that my my son "evolved" out of me and my wife.

Of course not. That would be absurd. And that's why no evolutionist would ever suggest such a thing.



Or that the cross breeding of two breeds of dog is in any way evolution either. Not for one iota of a nano second. That is steeling natural happenings and applying them to a non existant unproveable idea.

Evolution is defined as descent with modification (heritable traits) plus natural selection. It seems that you accept both of these facts as entirely natural. You accept that offspring inherit traits from the parents, right? And you accept that natural selection is a "natural happening", right? If so, then you accept evolution as a natural fact, you just don't realize it yet. Of course, I know you will disagree on this point, so please understand I am not trying to "lie" or put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to state things as clearly as possible. I am open to correction as always.



I also don't believe that apes and man have a common ancestor. Apes have 97% the same DNA as man, that proves one thing, a common creator - yes it proves it!

That's a very poor argument because you forgot to explain why God put an unused ape gene in our human genome! This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective, but it makes no sense from a creationist perspective. And there is other proof. Retroviruses inserted DNA at some random points in a common ancestor of apes and humans, and now both apes and humans have the same retrovirus DNA inserted at the same random point in the DNA. This is like a smudge on a copy machine. After the "DNA smudge" was put on the screen (our common ancestor), it was copied to all the descendants. This PROVES that apes and humans have a common ancestor ... or that God is designed the genomes to deceive us. If you have a better explanation, I would love to hear it!




This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution.
No its not it called nature!.

Perfect! We agree completely. Evolution is called "nature." :thumb:




But hey - I really do think we are coming closer to having a genuine conversation. One of the indicators was my initial response to your "cheeky monkey" comment. I laughed. I felt poked by a friend, not mocked by an enemy. So we are making progress. And I have every reason to hope it will continue.

All the very best, my friend,
me too, Im sorry I was a little too confrontational in my approach at the outset. I appologise for that.

Phil.
Hey there Phil! :yo: You've got a name! Now I know we're chatting.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh I see, that whole verse is under dispite, I understand now. What is your view on it? Who is suggested to have added this to the received text first?

My view was formed by my study of the Bible Wheel. If I had simply followed the manuscript evidence and scholastic consensus I would have had to agree that the text does not belong in the Bible since it was not in the "original" manuscripts. But there is some profound evidence from the Bible Wheel that convinced me the passage belongs in the Bible. I explain this in my article called Three Witnesses for 1 John 5:7 (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tzaddi_Comma_Johanneum.asp). But that's too complex to go into right now since we are talking about a lot of other things.

As for "who is suggested to have added this to the received text" - the answer is the Catholic scholar Erasmus, the guy who published the Received Text that was used as the basis of the KJV. Are you familiar with the history of the Textus Receptus and the KJV? Here is a snippet from the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus):
Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.
See that last red highlighted text? This is another example of the influence of the Catholic Vulgate on the origin of the KJV.



I have to say the verse is not that Critical either way, there are literaly hundreds and hundreds of scriptures that teach the doctrine of the trinity. That said. I would suggest that this verse doesn't challenge the inerrenncy of scripture either, one can simply surmise that it is their or not their by Gods will. I accept this is a very simplistic unaccpetable as proof stance though.

You've missed the point entirely. This particular verse is not the issue. The issue is that there are textual variants, so we can not assert that the Bible as we have it is "inerrant" and we can not assert that the "original" Bible was "inerrant" because we don't even know what exactly was written in the original Bible.

Now as for your response to 1 John 5:7 ~ If the verse does not belong in the Bible, then it is not "God's Word" and we see that the Bible has an error, so it is not "inerrant." On the other hand, if the verse is supposed to be there, we have no way to prove it because it is missing from the ancient Greek manuscripts, and we must rely on the CATHOLIC VULGATE to support the authority of the King James Bible. This is not acceptable to you, is it?

So the big question is this: Upon what FACTS do you base your claim that the Bible is inerrant? I think the answer is "no facts." You base the claim of inerrancy upon your own interpretation of some verses of the Bible, coupled with your own philosophy about what the "word of God" should be. Correct?



To my knowledge the issues are with the New testament not the old. The Jewish scribe have preserved the old testamnet quite thoroughly.

Yes, there are many more variations in the ancient NT mss than the OT mss. But that's because we have thousands of NT mss and only a few OT mss. The Jews were in the habit of burying worn copies of the OT so not many survived.

But many of the numerical problems come from the OT. Especially comparing Kings and Chronicles. Many of those numerical discrepancies are thought to be caused by copying errors. But the source is not so important. The real issue is that there are errors, no matter how slight, in the Bible, and so we can not assert that the Bible is "inerrant." That's just the way God gave us the Bible. Nothing we can do about it. We certainly must not lie about what God has done, right?




That's because ancient Greek manuscripts disagree with each other on this verses. Some say "through his blood" others don't. How do we know which is correct? Mere tradition?
Which ancient manuscripts are you referring too again? Is the received text not the recieved text? Does using the word "ancient" add any value to the discussion its kind of a moot word isnt it?

The received text is a composite of six Greek manuscripts that contained most of the NT, augmented with a back-translation from the Latin Vulgate to Greek to fill in the missing text. Obviously, it is not the best representation of the original Greek New Testament inspired by God.




I understand how this could seem like a satanic perversion. But that's not what's going on at all. The word "Lucifer" came from the Vulgate. It is a Latin word that was the name of the planet Venus, also known as the "day star" because it is visible in the morning after sunrise. Now get this:
What value does a latin translation add to the recived greek and hebrew text exactly? Vulgar latin, latin vulgate. You are awra thatthe Roman Catholic "Church" is a corrupt organisation are you not??

The Vulgate is the source of 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV. So if you think that every verse in the KJV is "valuable" then you probably would think that the Vulgate is valuable. But on the other hand, the Vulgate introduced some significant corruption into the King James Bible. The entire Christian world has been misled into believing that Lucifer is a name of Satan. There is no such teaching in the Hebrew Bible. It comes only from the Latin Vulgate, and that's how it got into the KJV.




The King James Bible was derived primarily from the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible.
Show me your proof for this please, I have KJV 1611 version. The KJV translators where from all scholars from all over the world and spoke many languages and they where heavily anti the Roman Church and all things popish and said is much in the Translator to the reader introduction.

As noted above, the Vulgate was used as a source to back-translate missing portions of the TR from Latin to Greek, and the TR was then used to produce the KJV. Likewise, word patterns found in the Vulgate were often carried over verbatim from the Latin Vulgate to the KJV, as we see in the reference to "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12.

And you might want to check your facts relating to the Protestant opinion of the Vulgate. According to this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate), it "remained the assumption of Protestant scholars that, while it had been of vital importance to provide the scriptures in the vernacular for ordinary people, nevertheless for those with sufficient education to do so, biblical study was best undertaken within the international common medium of the Latin Vulgate."

Talk more soon,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But I also am strongly convinced that we do not have the entire Bible letter-for-letter correct.
Why?

Because of the textual variations in the ancient manuscripts. We do not know what the exact letters were in many cases, so we can not say we have the entire Bible letter-for-letter correct. Simple as that.




God simply did not give it to us. So we do not have it. Therefore, we can not say anything about the "inerrancy" of the originals since we don't even know what they said in every details.
You are making a statemnt that first of all is contrary to the scripture (that we do have) and second of all you contradict what tyou said earier about the originals, why do you insiste in usingthe "originals" I think your hung up on that more than I am.

How is my statement "contrary to the scripture"? There is no verse in the Bible that even defines which books are in the Bible, let alone that those books would be preserved letter-for-letter.

And how does my statement "contradict" what I said about the originals? That seems exactly backwards. My assertion that God did not give us (or preserver for us) perfect letter-for-letter copies of the originals coheres perfectly with everything I have written before.




Sure, we can ignore "modern" versions, but we can not ignore the ancient manuscripts, since they are the real Bible. The King James is just a translation. I read the Hebrew and Greek. So that's why I think of when I speak of the Bible.
Thers is only one real bible, heaps and heaps of differnt "ancient" translations are not the real bible. Its the same thing with the gnostic gosples and the appocrypha people think this should be the real bible also.

If God is going to Dam people with great curses for changing one word or adding one word of scripture, He is certainly going to make sure it is preserved. Obvioulsy you do not believe he has done this, but you have yet to offer an ounce of proof other than your opinion and reson as to why.

Well, that's your opinion, and you are free to have it. But it seems to me to be contrary to Scripture, contrary to the facts of history, and logically absurd. But that's just my opinion! :p




I'm pretty sure my rethinking the meaning of the faith has nothing to do with wanting to return to sin. On the contrary, I'm in the least difficult stage of my life with regards to sin because I am happily married so I'm not out lusting after woman like when I was as a single youth. That was always my worst difficulty. Being a single young Christian male with a normal sex-drive was torture.
Oh well thank you for your honesty but there is a lot more to the sinful nature that sexual lust I'm sure you will agree. That slightly naive thing to say if you don't mind me saying.

No, I don't mind at all. Of course I was fully aware that I was focusing on only one particular sin. I felt no need to write a whole catalog of sins that I do not feel are secretly driving me away from God under the pretext of examining the Truth.




Wow ~ that's not right. The Gospel has nothing to do with the idea of inerrancy of the Bible. Paul preached the Gospel before the Bible was complete. He never said that we must believe in a book to be saved or to have a right relation with God.
Is that right, how do you know Paul did that? Obviously you dont, your assuming it, and how did you know the apostle Paul even existed? How do you know Christ did what He did? Because it was recorded by eye witness who saw him do it - in the bible. With out the bible we have nothing, can a man be saved without owning a bible of course, but not until he know what was written in it.

Ah ... that's the fundamentalist mindset. You are saying that I can have no confidence in any teaching of the Bible if I do not have perfect confidence in every teaching of the Bible. I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. If it were true, then you would have to deny your faith because I can easily prove that you do not have perfect knowledge of every teaching in the Bible. There is no logic distinction between an error cause by imperfect human knowledge and an error caused by an imperfect Bible. Therefore, you can not have any real knowledge of the teaching of the Bible because you think with a fallible human mind.

Please think about this carefully. You are putting your faith in a fallible human doctrine that declares the Bible must be inerrant. This doctrine is not taught in the Bible, so it is obviously a human doctrine. Your faith is supposed to be in God, not in a human doctrine about the Bible.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The fundamentalist mindset remark I find most insulting and extremely condenscendning. But I know you didnt mean it to be.

Hey there my friend,

You are correct, I did not mean it that way at all. I am really glad you understand. I do not intend to offend. But we are writing really big posts with lots of ideas and sometimes a poorly worded statement will slip through, especially since we have some very different ideas about some very important things. I am glad to be able to take the same attitude when you write something that seems insulting. I do my best to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well, it's Wednesday night so I gotta take my girl out to dinner at Red Robin (a deluxe burger shop).

I'll write more when we get back.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

if I was to find out that one or two scriptures in the bible where in accurate due to a mistake on mans part I would not lose my faith at all. I agree that would be stupid. But this has not been proven to be the case by you, not have you proven the doctrine to be erroneous - not even close. How do I know that, because you wont refute God words and his Will with clever Uri Geller like spoon bending tricks.

What have you given me? A scripture in John under dispute, some numbers in Judges and Chronicles (post the scriptures you refer to please.) And Lucifer is not satans real name and we are all duped. LOL. Behave yourself mate. By the way wickidpedia is not an acceptable source to win or lose any argument especially as important as this.

Hey now ~ the statement "clever Uri Geller like spoon bending tricks" is very rude, don't you think? And it's also extremely inaccurate. I have been giving you solid facts that you should have already known. The Comma Johanneum is but one of over a dozen NT passages that are not included in the modern versions. You should have known about this already. It is foolish for anyone lacking knowledge of textual variations to make claims about the "inerrancy" of Scripture. But you do not seem to know about them, so now you are complaining about the small number of examples I have given you. And this proves you have not done your own research on this issue since otherwise you would know about the textual variations and would not need me to tell you about them. It is very strange for you to think that you can prove the Bible to be "inerrant" when you do not have this elementary knowledge about the history and nature of the Bible.



I am going to prove the doctrine of inerrency of scripture, and I will prove it is not a man made doctrine.
I will be happy to review your argument.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have volumes of works by brilliant Christian writers from the 1800s such as Charles Spurgeon to name one of 50, that I wont have time to read in this life time, why would I want to be diligently studying evolution to degree level? Mate, I marvel at your infatuation with evolution and quite honestly your biblewheel must be nothing more than a phase you went through, a good idea for a money spinner possibly? I applaud the effort and say well done for your achievement. I thanks you also for the free download of yor book - but I think you have little real interest in the word of God. You'd clearly rather wax lyrical about evolution. It's tres bizzar. Why?

Dude! Your language is really too rude! I don't like reading your posts tonight. You are the one obsessed with denying evolution because it contradicts your personal interpretation of the Bible. Don't go telling me I've got an "infatuation" with evolution, unless you mean that I have an infatuation with Truth and Science and Reality. And you can shove your godless insult about the Bible Wheel as a "money spinner" back into the dark hole from whence it came. Man! It's no wonder you get banned from most forums on the internet! I've bent over backwards pandering to your crazy ego and treating you with kid gloves and you still can't control your behavior. And then to top it off, you conclude that I have "little real interest in the word of God" as if you would know! You habitually speak from GROSS IGNORANCE. You obviously know nothing of which you speak, and you do not care at all for truth in any way. Did you give a moment to think what kind of devotion it takes to spend a decade researching the entire Bible to write the Bible Wheel book? Did you look at any of the hundreds of pages where I declared the overwhelming glory of God's Word? No! Did you think about the fact that I had to do all the diagrams, tables, and graphs, all the research, had to learn Hebrew and Greek, and had to format and edit the entire book? YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING YOU SAY! You criticize me from complete ignorance. You criticize the entire body of modern evolutionary scientists from complete ignorance. You assert the Bible is inerrant even while you were completely ignorant of the textual variations.

This is absurd. I think I want to take a break. Good night.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is almost a mathematical certainty that I know nothing about anything which is why I fit in here so well. God bless you.

Nice attempt at back-handed humor, but it backfired on you. We all know you are grossly ignorant of the most basic elements of modern science that most schoolchildren learn and understand. And worse, you are proud of your ignorance and you have no desire to educate yourself. I guess that would be OK if you kept to yourself in a cave somewhere in the outback, but no, you want to come here and insult everyone on this forum as if we were as ignorant as you. So you are not merely willfully ignorant, you are disgustingly rude and grossly arrogant!

And then you "top off" your putrid insult with a blasphemous "God bless you." So now you show yourself as not only an ignorant and arrogant member of a anti-science young earth creationist cult, but you are also a demonstrably fake Christian who delights in using God's name to insult others!

Your hatred of knowledge and truth follows directly from your hatred of God.

That's about all I have to say to you right now.

[Panman]

Nice attempt at back-handed humor, but it backfired on you. We all know you are grossly ignorant of the most basic elements of modern science that most schoolchildren learn and understand. And worse, you are proud of your ignorance and you have no desire to educate yourself. I guess that would be OK if you kept to yourself in a cave somewhere in the outback, but no, you want to come here and insult everyone on this forum as if we were as ignorant as you. So you are not merely willfully ignorant, you are disgustingly rude and grossly arrogant!

And then you "top off" your putrid insult with a blasphemous "God bless you." So now you show yourself as not only an ignorant and arrogant member of a anti-science young earth creationist cult, but you are also a demonstrably fake Christian who delights in using God's name to insult others!

Your hatred of knowledge and truth follows directly from your hatred of God.

That's about all I have to say to you right now.

Wow, don't hold back, let it all out. :sFi_machinegunnest:

Shame on you for writing anything to do with the bible. Who do you think you are? You won't get a way with it. I knew I should have left it at the first post in saying I find your views abhorent and have no desire to enter into discussion with you. I now find you to be an equally abhorrent individual.

Your scum on the bottom of a barrel using the Holy Bible to push your satanic agendas.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Wow, don't hold back, let it all out. :sFi_machinegunnest:

Shame on you for writing anything to do with the bible. Who do you think you are? You won't get a way with it. I knew I should have left it at the first post in saying I find your views abhorent and have no desire to enter into discussion with you. I now find you to be an equally abhorrent individual.

Your scum on the bottom of a barrel using the Holy Bible to push your satanic agendas.
And it seems a safe bet, given your life-long devotion to self-delusion, that you will have no idea why you were banned!

Bye-bye.

:chores037:

[alec cotton]

Hello Panman . I thought that you had forsaken us and fled long ago. Hello Richard . There's a ding dong battle going on here and it is of some interest to me so I will put my two cents worth in. Herr Panman: you indicated on more than one occasion that you were exiting stage left with a bang and yet you did an about turn and came striding back in. I might say it is nice to see your back and I will tell you why I oppose Pannin. Many years ago I was searching for patterns in scripture. I came across Ivan pannins booklet ; 'The shorter works of Ivan pannin'. I was thrilled by it .You Just indicated that he never claimed to use Westcot and Hort exclusively. I am quite certain that he wrote ;' I used Westcort and Hort throughout. ' I got a copy of wescott and Hort's text. When Pannin wrote about the genealogy of Jesus he said that it contained 72 words if I eif I remember rightly when in fact it only has 71. Now because the rest of his thesis depends on the number of words and letters and the number of adjectives , verbs and nouns in the new testament then his whole thesis falls to pieces. The realisation of that fact flattened me I never pursued the subject again for years. I came across Bullinger's book: ' numbers in scripture and my interest revived. I found a few mistakes with Bullinger. But nothing disastrous. Pannin favours something he calls neighbourhood. That is a tolerance of one or two. Del washburn calls it clustering. It sounds a bit iffy to me. Because of Pannin I lost a few valuable years. .
N ow Richard I will turn again to the fallacy of evolution by the ( accidental) selection of the species. Millions of man hours and astronomical amounts of money have been spent trying to establish it as a fact. Now here is what you wrote.



And here is a bit more explanation from the same page:
In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution.
As you can see, "evolution" is a simple fact that we all can prove in no time. The breeding of dogs is "evolution." When similar changes occur in nature by natural selection, it also is evolution.


Deliberate selection proves nothing. 'Scientiststs' over the past hundred years or so have bred fruit flies . They have bred millions of generation in a futile attempt to produce a 'superior' race without success. . They have used alpha , beta , gamma ultraviolet , infra red and ex rays . All to no avail. They produced flies with different coloured eyes and deformed wings and twist6ed legs but not one with an advantageous change. Vast amounts of energy are expended annually in a futile effort to establish the theory of evolution by the accidental selection of the species. Simple observation proves the absurdity of the notion. Now the rules of the game go something like this . : An accidental changes takes place at the molecular level. This change gives That particular member a slight advantage over the members of the same species and so outnumbers them . Now observe a perfect example of an entity which could not possibly evolve under these rules. THE EYE. .
Unless an eye is complete and functional , it has no survival value whatsoever. The first genetic change that is needed is the cornea. It must be opaque for the most part. A transparent disc must appear in the centre. A chemical change must occur which causes a transparent lens to appear . Still no advantage There must be a round socket in which the eye fits and then of course the ball must be accidentally filled with transparent liquid ( not blood) Although there is no survival advantage so far , the process continues. An iris diaphragm Is needed and coordinating muscles. Appear as if by magic . Of course this is not design . A similar observation can be made about the ear This all happens by chance.. Impossible.!! It is deliberate and it is designed. I could go on at great length about micro-organisms and the difference in the eyes of a fly and dna and mitochondria, genes and enzymes and genetic disorders ,B.S.E and scrapie. But I grow weary. Suffice it to say that determination , design and direction and purpose are apparent . Only a fool would deny the obvious. Darwin claims that it all happened by accident without any outside influence. God claims that he said the word and it was. Now you are left with a choice. You can believe God who can see the end from the beginning or you can believe Darwin who couldn;t see beyond the end of his nose. There is no halfway house to hide in . There is no fence to sit on . The choice is yours.
Alec.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Deliberate selection proves nothing. 'Scientiststs' over the past hundred years or so have bred fruit flies . They have bred millions of generation in a futile attempt to produce a 'superior' race without success. . They have used alpha , beta , gamma ultraviolet , infra red and ex rays . All to no avail. They produced flies with different coloured eyes and deformed wings and twist6ed legs but not one with an advantageous change. Vast amounts of energy are expended annually in a futile effort to establish the theory of evolution by the accidental selection of the species.

Where are you getting this information? Natural selection is not "accidental" selection. On the contrary, natural selection can stongly mimic deliberate selection. For example, you know bacteria evolve to become resistant to antibiotics, right? Some species are very stable, because they are already highly adapted to their environments and so they don't have anywhere to evolve to.

How do you understand the tree of life that shows how all the creatures are genetically related? Why doesn't this prove evolution to you?





Unless an eye is complete and functional , it has no survival value whatsoever.
The first genetic change that is needed is the cornea. It must be opaque for the most part. A transparent disc must appear in the centre. A chemical change must occur which causes a transparent lens to appear . Still no advantage There must be a round socket in which the eye fits and then of course the ball must be accidentally filled with transparent liquid ( not blood) Although there is no survival advantage so far , the process continues. An iris diaphragm Is needed and coordinating muscles. Appear as if by magic . Of course this is not design . A similar observation can be made about the ear This all happens by chance.. Impossible.!!

That is not correct Alec. A simple light sensitive spot like the eye of a flatworm is very helpful to its survival. It then evolves to be directional, and it's more helpful. There are many examples of animals with "eyes" that vary between a simple light sensitive spot to the advanced eyes we have.

Talk more soon,

Richard

[alec cotton]

Hello Richard
I am deeply indebted to you for taking the time to debate this subject with me . This post might get quite long . I hope it does.'t get boring. Quote . 'Where are you getting this information from? Natural selection is not 'accidental' ( it must be deliberate then) On the contrary natural selection can mimic deliberate selection. For example you know that bacteria evolve to become resistant to antibiotics.Right?. Wrong. As always that statement is based on assumption. No bacteria or virus has ever evolved to resist the poisonous effect of copper.Nor has any germ evolved to live on honey. The malaria virus is becoming resistant to man-made quinine but not to the extract of the bark of cinchona. As I said in a previous post : the human body has the capacity to produce any chemical specific to any virus. Normally a 'trigger 'is needed to stimulate the process. These days it usually takes the form of a vaccine. Most people of my age have four scars on the upper arm . They are the scars of the small pox vaccine. I have none. It did not 'take' because I was already immune. No, bacteria do not adapt themselves accidentally , incidentally or deliberately. There is a mind directing the process. In support of evolution you mention the light sensitive spot on the flat worm I am familiar with these red dots and I know for a certain fact that no one knows what their function is. I have seen them on Cyclops and euglina I wish that I had the time to go into the fields and ponds to gather specimens but it is not to be . I set very little store by the statements of 'scientists'. I read the statement that spiders are short-sighted. They have eight eyes . The fact is SOME spiders are short sighted. I once saw a wasp caught in a spider's web . The spider shot out ,but as soon as it got close enough to see what was on the menu it turned round and marched back to the neutral corner. It wasn't going to tackle that. On the other hand , the jumping spider has to have good distance vision or it would miss its target by a mile and go to bed without any supper.
Quote ; How do you understand the tree of life that shows how all creatures are genetically related? Why doesn't that prove evolution to you to you ?.
Because it is nothing more than the product of a fertile imagination. Furthermore it was fertilized with horse manure. As I have already said , Nothing evolved by increments. Wherever rocks are found, they can be identified by the fossils found in them There has never been found a transitional form in between the distinctive and recognisable geological periods. Anyone with the time to spare can prove that conclusively. Go to the grand canyon in colorado . There is a stretch about five miles long and one mile high. I assume that the whole mile high thickness was formed in the Cretaceous period. The bottom layer is obviously the oldest. From there to the top ALL fossils belong in that period and no other. Except of course those which survive the next catastrophic event and even after that they never mutate into any other species There is not one speck of EVIDENCE to suggest that any one species ever mutated into another. .

[CWH]

I totally agree with you alec with your excellent post.:thumb:

I would like to add that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics but this is just an adaptation to the environment. If no more antibiotics are gven, the bacteria will revert to its original self. A good example is MRSA (multiple-resistant staphylococcus aureus), given time and away from the antibiotic environment, it will become a normal staphylococcus aureus. It never become more and more resistant to antibiotics when away from the antibiotic environment. It's like a muscle, the more you exercise it, the more stress you put on the muscle and it becomes stronger and bigger so as to be able to cope/adapt to further stress. However, once you stop exercise, the muscle reverts gradually back to its original state and may even emaciates. Strong muscled people don't passed its gene to its offspring. Offsprings from their strong parents don't get stronger and stronger every generation. Same with vaccination, we don't passed our life long immunity from vaccination to our children so that they become totally immune to measles and small pox naturally; they will need vaccination themselves in order to acquire life-long immunity to measles and smallpox. Yes, bacteria don't get resistant to several things such as copper and ultraviolet radiation, this shows intelligent design. If bacteria based on the theory of evolution gets immune to copper, antibiotics and ultraviolet radiation and pass their genes to their offspring, there will come a time after many millions of years of evolution when they will become totally immune to copper, ultraviolet radiation, antibiotics etc. until nothing touches them. But this is not currently what is happening or the world will be a terrible place to live in if nothing can kill bacteria after so many million years of evolution and natural selection.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard
I am deeply indebted to you for taking the time to debate this subject with me . This post might get quite long . I hope it does.'t get boring.

I am very pleased to discuss this with you Alec. I think it is very important to understand the truth as clearly as possible.



Quote . “Where are you getting this information from? Natural selection is not “accidental” ( it must be deliberate then) On the contrary natural selection can mimic deliberate selection. For example you know that bacteria evolve to become resistant to antibiotics.Right?.

Wrong. As always that statement is based on assumption. No bacteria or virus has ever evolved to resist the poisonous effect of copper.

That is nor true. A quick Google search yields many articles talking about Bacterial Resistances to Mercury and Copper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1717500):
Heavy metals are toxic to living organisms. Some have no known beneficial biological function, while others have essential roles in physiological reactions. Mechanisms which deal with heavy metal stress must protect against the deleterious effects of heavy metals, yet avoid depleting the cell of a heavy metal which is also an essential nutrient. We describe the mechanisms of resistance in Escherichia coli to two different heavy metals, mercury and copper. Resistance of E. coli to mercury is reasonably well understood and is known to occur by transport of mercuric ions into the cytoplasmic compartment of the bacterial cell and subsequent reductive detoxification of mercuric ions.
Again, I must ask, where are you getting your information? A little research quickly reveals that bacteria evolve. There is no question about this; it has been observed. If you want to disagree, you will have to respond to the scientific studies that have concluded bacterial evolution is true.



Nor has any germ evolved to live on honey.

That's irrelevant. Evolution does not state that bacteria can evolve to live in every conceivable environment. If you want to argue against evolution, you need to address the actual claims made by evolutionary scientists.

This is really important. You are just pulling things out of the air. If you want to refute evolution, you need to QUOTE something an evolutionary scientist has stated as fact and show why the fact is false.



The malaria virus is becoming resistant to man-made quinine but not to the extract of the bark of cinchona. As I said in a previous post : the human body has the capacity to produce any chemical specific to any virus. Normally a “trigger “is needed to stimulate the process. These days it usually takes the form of a vaccine. Most people of my age have four scars on the upper arm . They are the scars of the small pox vaccine. I have none. It did not ”take” because I was already immune.

The same scientists who have immunized the world against many viruses are the scientists who base all their understanding on evolution. How could they be so smart in one part of biology and so stupid in another? Especially when their understanding of how to fight viruses is profoundly based on evolution?



No, bacteria do not adapt themselves accidentally , incidentally or deliberately. There is a mind directing the process.

Mere assertion my friend, with no facts backing you up.



I read the statement that spiders are short-sighted. They have eight eyes . The fact is SOME spiders are short sighted. I once saw a wasp caught in a spider's web . The spider shot out ,but as soon as it got close enough to see what was on the menu it turned round and marched back to the neutral corner. It wasn't going to tackle that. On the other hand , the jumping spider has to have good distance vision or it would miss its target by a mile and go to bed without any supper.

I once blew a wasp into a spider web hoping for a good fight and was disappointed when the spider carefully cut out the wasp and let it drop to the ground. But I don't see how your comment relates to evolution.



Quote ; How do you understand the tree of life that shows how all creatures are genetically related? Why doesn't that prove evolution to you to you ?.

Because it is nothing more than the product of a fertile imagination. Furthermore it was fertilized with horse manure. As I have already said , Nothing evolved by increments. Wherever rocks are found, they can be identified by the fossils found in them There has never been found a transitional form in between the distinctive and recognisable geological periods.

That is false. Just Google transitional forms and you will find plenty. Again, I must ask, where are you getting your information?

Furthermore, the relation between the species is confirmed by DNA evidence. The tree was put together many years ago based on fossil records and other data. Then when the DNA sequences could be analyzed it CONFIRMED the pre-existing tree. How do you explain that? All the evidence confirms all the other evidence. Many mutually confirming witnesses.



Anyone with the time to spare can prove that conclusively. Go to the grand canyon in colorado . There is a stretch about five miles long and one mile high. I assume that the whole mile high thickness was formed in the Cretaceous period. The bottom layer is obviously the oldest. From there to the top ALL fossils belong in that period and no other. Except of course those which survive the next catastrophic event and even after that they never mutate into any other species There is not one speck of EVIDENCE to suggest that any one species ever mutated into another. .
Please tell me where you got this data so I can confirm it.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I totally agree with you alec with your excellent post.:thumb:

Hey there Cheow,

I get the impression you think posts are "excellent" merely because they confirm your conclusion. Don't you care about the facts? There are many erroneous statements in Alec's post. Don't you care about that?



I would like to add that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics but this is just an adaptation to the environment.

Adaptation to the environment is the definition of evolution.



If no more antibiotics are gven, the bacteria will revert to its original self.

That is not correct. Changes in the DNA will remain for a long time after the selective pressure is removed. But eventually, the traits will be lost because they will be degraded by random mutations with no selective pressure to remove the mutants. That's how evolution works.

So where did you get this information? Just making claims proves nothing. We need real evidence.



A good example is MRSA (multiple-resistant staphylococcus aureus), given time and away from the antibiotic environment, it will become a normal staphylococcus aureus.

Where did you get this information?



It never become more and more resistant to antibiotics when away from the antibiotic environment.

Of course not. If it is taken away from the antibiotic environment, there is no selective pressure to drive evolution in that direction. This is one of the most elementary facts about how evolution works.



It's like a muscle, the more you exercise it, the more stress you put on the muscle and it becomes stronger and bigger so as to be able to cope/adapt to further stress. However, once you stop exercise, the muscle reverts gradually back to its original state and may even emaciates.

That is not correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with how muscles grow strong. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Where did you get this idea?



Strong muscled people don't passed its gene to its offspring. Offsprings from their strong parents don't get stronger and stronger every generation.

If you mean acquired traits are not passed on, you are correct. That form of evolutionary theory is called Lamarkianism and it has been proven false.

But if you mean that there are no genes that determine muscle size and strength, and that such genes can not be selected to breed larger muscled creatures, then you are wrong. Just look at how we have bred horses into super strong big muscled creatures.



Same with vaccination, we don't passed our life long immunity from vaccination to our children so that they become totally immune to measles and small pox naturally; they will need vaccination themselves in order to acquire life-long immunity to measles and smallpox.

Exactly correct. Again, you seem to think that the Theory of Evolution is Lamarkian and that it says offspring inherit acquired traits. That is false. They do not. Therefore, your comment has nothing to do with the current Theory of Evolution.

All the very best,

Richard

[alec cotton]

Hello Richard .
I find it increasingly hard to fathom where you are or what is motivating you. . In reply to my post you said ' wrong , that statement is based on assumption . Of course it is . What is implied is ;that I have no right to assume anything unless and until it can be established by conventional laboratory controlled conditions. Step back sixty years : better make it eighty.Most people had never heard of a flush toilet. The lavatory was a small building in the back yard .There was a board with a hole in it and that was all. In towns and city s there were thousands and thousands of them The stink must have been eye watering and yet we never noticed it . We had never heard of E col ,botulism . Salmonella or any other food poisoner. When we got diarrhoea we just said ' I've got the wild shites, it must be something I ate. My point is quite simple. In those days it was unheard of for anyone to die of any hospital acquired infection. You went into hospital, got better and came out. In these days it is quite common to go into hospital , get M.R.S.A and die. What changed? In the old hospitals there was a distinctive smell. I didn't know then but it was a mixture of ether and carbolic. Brass was everywhere. Brass knobs and brass rails. Today it is all stainless steel an chrome. Bugs can n live happily on chrome but they don't like brass.

Quote>

Again, I must ask, where are you getting your information? A little research quickly reveals that bacteria evolve. There is no question about this; it has been observed. If you want to disagree, you will have to respond to the scientific studies that have concluded bacterial evolution is true.


This seems to be the crux of the problem . I am at ease with mutation . I refuse to accept the notion that it is accidental . I am convinced that it is deliberate. What you seem to be saying is that viruses and bacteria are constantly changing. . That D.N.A within this packet of protein is constantly slipping and when adverse conditions arise , the law of the survival of the fittest engages.The bacterium which is able to survive the new conditions thrives. The rest succumb. There is no external influence , Just chance. With Martin Luther King Jr. I say ;' I refuse to believe that man is nothing more than a few whirling electron in a wisp of smoke from a cosmic smouldering.'
On the subject of the spider you seemed to miss my point completely . I was pointing out that the professionals stated (Wrongly ) that spiders are short sighted. I was criticising the 'experts ' whom you seem to revere. Let me remind you of what one or two of these 'experts' did . One concocted thalidomide. It was Synthesised in 1954.. 5000-10000 babies were born without limbs . Some were born with none . Just stumps. Valium was hailed as a wonder drug and doctors thought that it was non addictive . It is highly addictive and has ruined the lives of millions. The researchers torture animals in the name of science and when the voice of protest is heard they reply ,' Well you wouldn't want us to experiment on people would you. ? The lousy hypocrites . They do just that and they call it clinical trials. The data does not extrapolate to humans anyway. These same 'clever 'People whom you seem to admire Invariably use placebos in their trials. The folly of that concept is readily seen by any one with half an eye. If the placebo has no effect then there is no point in offering it. If it has an effect (such as suggestion) then that effect would have to be quantified and the result deducted from the total . You unfairly ask me to give precise reasons for my conclusions and yet when I asked you to point out one disease which had been cured as a direct result of D.N..A research you ignored it. Information about the Grand Canyon is mostly from the encyclopaedia Britannica. My assumption as to the period was from a documentary . In it and behind the presenter I saw a fossil triceratops and related that to the Cretaceous. I have grown weary with this . Let us get down to the bottom line. I have asked direct questions before like , What is sin , what is righteousness. Should we obey the law? .After a lot of twisting and twirling ducking and dodging slipping and sliding the question ends up in the long grass. Is God in complete control or not. ?
Alec

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard .
I find it increasingly hard to fathom where you are or what is motivating you. . In reply to my post you said ' wrong , that statement is based on assumption . Of course it is . What is implied is ;that I have no right to assume anything unless and until it can be established by conventional laboratory controlled conditions.

Hey there Alec,

I think I found the source of some of your confusion. You have quoted your own words as if they were mine. In post #37 (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25224&postcount=37) you said the following:


Hello Richard
I am deeply indebted to you for taking the time to debate this subject with me . This post might get quite long . I hope it does.'t get boring. Quote . 'Where are you getting this information from? Natural selection is not 'accidental' ( it must be deliberate then) On the contrary natural selection can mimic deliberate selection. For example you know that bacteria evolve to become resistant to antibiotics.Right?. Wrong. As always that statement is based on assumption. No bacteria or virus has ever evolved to resist the poisonous effect of copper.The red words are words that YOU WROTE. You quoted my words (in black) and in response to my question "Right?" you wrote: "Wrong. As always that statement is based on assumption."

This is why you are having trouble understanding me. You are mixing up your words with my words. I think we need to simplify the conversation. You are bringing up too many topics all at once, and that makes the conversation hard to follow. My position is very simple. I think that the current scientific results relating to evolution are fundamentally correct. So rather than arguing over this or that odd point, we should be discussing the fundamentals. For example, you said that you agree that mutations happen. That is a very good start. But then you say you do not think they are random. That makes no sense to me at all. Why would God be causing the deadly bacteria to mutate to be resistant to penicillin????

All the very best,

Richard

[alec cotton]

I absolutely agree with you Richard. We were getting lost in the labyrinth. You just asked the legitimate question ;Why should God be causing deadly bacteria to mutate?. That is similar to the question ; why does God allow suffering?. . It is almost impossible to give a brief and at the same time , definitive answer. However , that leads me to the subject which I have tried to engage in on this forum , which is , Should we keep the law. God pleads with man :' Why will you die. Turn and live'. God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked should turn from his evil ways and live. That begs the question , what is evil and what is good . By what standard do we calibrate. I say that we must keep the law of God as given to us through Moses. Immediately I am smothered in an avalanche of protest. 'We are under a new covenant now ' is a favourite. All right , I read in this new covenant writings specifically that we must not steal,commit adultery , bear false witness , eat things strangled and blood. Honour your father and mother , love God and your neighbour .' If you love me you will keep my commandments. 'He who breaks the least of these commandments ( the ten) and teaches men so shall be called least in the Kingdom. If God says don't do that and I do not do it , I am showing my faith in God and it is counted to me for righteousness. Everything I do impacts another and that in turn affects someone else. Righteousness exalts a notion. . That is what I think of as fundamental
Alec

[Mad Mick]

Alec, It would be good to see this debate transferred to one of the science threads. There are a couple of current debates happening there at the moment which I believe should include the direction of where this thread is going.

Happy Headbutting!

PS. I came across some DVD's put together by an American by the name of Kent Hoban. Briefly he began as a disgruntled parent who believed his children had the right to learn of other theories that existed, which were contrary to Darwin's.
As time progressed he unwillingly became an unofficial authority on the whole creationist debate.

He's a clear thinker and puts forward a very good argument for creation.
I'll see what I can dig up.

Mick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

PS. I came across some DVD's put together by an American by the name of Kent Hoban. Briefly he began as a disgruntled parent who believed his children had the right to learn of other theories that existed, which were contrary to Darwin's.
As time progressed he unwillingly became an unofficial authority on the whole creationist debate.

He's a clear thinker and puts forward a very good argument for creation.
I'll see what I can dig up.

Mick
Do you mean Kent Hovind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind), aka Dr. Dino?

What was his best argument for creation?

[Mad Mick]

Yeah, that's the guy, Kent Hovind.
I saw a DVD a couple of years back, he spoke of the circular reasoning Darwinists use to prove dates which I agree with Kent on this point.

There were a number of other points (provided they were verified) showed a leaning to a much younger catastrophic past.

I'd like to get further into it, but have too much on my plate.

I don't like Ken Hams reasoning, it seems too hollow and presumptuous.
Yet Kent's arguments are more logical and better prepared.

I saw Dr Baugh (Creation Evidences Museum) back in the late 80's on a K.Copeland series. That interview brought up a number of good points.
Unfortunately the site today is nowhere near as scientific as was the argument he put forward back then.

It's like the whole thing has been dumbed down.
Like by Law, he had to omit piles of info, which rendered his argument pointless.
There was one thing he brought up then which took my notice.
He supposedly had a Mathematical Theory which was given to him via an atheist eastern block scientist that evidently claimed the age of the universe is at 8,000 +/- 2,000 years.

I could never get hold of it. Now it's claimed that the modern human artefacts below and alongside Dinosaur bones are fakes. I know if I went to Rosewood Texas myself I could prove it one way or the other.

It doesn't make sense. For years they had independent tests done which supposedly backed them to the hilt.
How is it that now someone is claiming it to be fake?

God I hate LIARS.
But even worse are dissinformationalists who make the TRUTH out to be a LIE!
May they both rot in hell!

Anyway one thing I do know and can be verified;
When Mt St.Helens erupted, I was told that the gully that was gorged out by the flow in one day was 1/40th that of the Grand Canyon (GC).

This then verifies that the GC could have been formed in a short period of time. The massive silt layers covering Dinosaurs caused by an immediate world wide flood could have easily been gouged out by the receding waters, especially while the silt was still fresh. One point Kent brought up was the positioning of the petrified vertical trees along the sides of both the GC and Mt St.Helens. Two key points which solidified his argument that the GC formed quickly.

Richard, have you come across or heard about this Math Theory Dr Baugh was talking about?

Mick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yeah, that's the guy, Kent Hovind.
I saw a DVD a couple of years back, he spoke of the circular reasoning Darwinists use to prove dates which I agree with Kent on this point.

I've heard the circular dates argument. Basically, he says that we use fossils to date the rocks, and rocks to date the fossils. If things really were that simple, then he might have an argument. But they are not that simple. There are many converging lines of evidence used to date rocks and fossils. I think his argument is false.



There were a number of other points (provided they were verified) showed a leaning to a much younger catastrophic past.

I'd like to get further into it, but have too much on my plate.

I don't like Ken Hams reasoning, it seems too hollow and presumptuous.
Yet Kent's arguments are more logical and better prepared.

We agree about his reasoning. I think it is entirely hollow and presumptuous, and I would add, false. But we don't need to dig into YEC right now if you are busy. You know I reject it completely, on the level of Flat Earthism.



I saw Dr Baugh (Creation Evidences Museum) back in the late 80's on a K.Copeland series. That interview brought up a number of good points.
Unfortunately the site today is nowhere near as scientific as was the argument he put forward back then.

It's like the whole thing has been dumbed down.
Like by Law, he had to omit piles of info, which rendered his argument pointless.
There was one thing he brought up then which took my notice.
He supposedly had a Mathematical Theory which was given to him via an atheist eastern block scientist that evidently claimed the age of the universe is at 8,000 +/- 2,000 years.

An 8000 year old universe is as absurd as a 10 year old universe. It simply does not match the facts on any level.



I could never get hold of it. Now it's claimed that the modern human artefacts below and alongside Dinosaur bones are fakes. I know if I went to Rosewood Texas myself I could prove it one way or the other.

Excellent work! Yes, they are fakes. Humans did not live with dinosaurs. Just look at the geological column. Human fossils are never found with dinosaur fossils.



It doesn't make sense. For years they had independent tests done which supposedly backed them to the hilt.
How is it that now someone is claiming it to be fake?

God I hate LIARS.
But even worse are dissinformationalists who make the TRUTH out to be a LIE!
May they both rot in hell!

I HATE lies too! In a big way. A pox on all their houses!




Anyway one thing I do know and can be verified;
When Mt St.Helens erupted, I was told that the gully that was gorged out by the flow in one day was 1/40th that of the Grand Canyon (GC).

This then verifies that the GC could have been formed in a short period of time. The massive silt layers covering Dinosaurs caused by an immediate world wide flood could have easily been gouged out by the receding waters, especially while the silt was still fresh. One point Kent brought up was the positioning of the petrified vertical trees along the sides of both the GC and Mt St.Helens. Two key points which solidified his argument that the GC formed quickly.

There's a huge problem with that whole theory. The dinosaur fossils are sorted by layers. This naturally fits the theory of evolution. But it completely contradicts the flood theory because a flood could not sort them in order of their morphological evolution!



Richard, have you come across or heard about this Math Theory Dr Baugh was talking about?

Mick
I've heard that someone did a special relativity calculation that concluded the universe would only look like it was six days old from God's "frame of reference" but I've never evaluated it. I'll let you know if I find it.

All the best,

Richard

[Mad Mick]

I've heard the circular dates argument. Basically, he says that we use fossils to date the rocks, and rocks to date the fossils. If things really were that simple, then he might have an argument. But they are not that simple. There are many converging lines of evidence used to date rocks and fossils.

When you get a chance it would also be good for your argument to highlight the types of modern methods that are used to date rocks and fossils.



Excellent work! Yes, they are fakes. Humans did not live with dinosaurs. Just look at the geological column. Human fossils are never found with dinosaur fossils.

Regarding the geological column I was led to believe by the creationists that a complete column does not exist anywhere on earth and that their are places where certain periods were in reverse order. Evolutionists counter claimed that through the ages massive crust upheavils at the plates caused certain sections of the crust to flip.



I HATE lies too! In a big way. A pox on all their houses!


As much as we shouldn't curse, "Your talking my language!"



There's a huge problem with that whole theory. The dinosaur fossils are sorted by layers. This naturally fits the theory of evolution. But it completely contradicts the flood theory because a flood could not sort them in order of their morphological evolution!


Archeologists or should I say gold diggers, generally aren't interested in the evolution debate. They generally rely on funding via the universities thus they're inclined to highlight or repeat whatever their told to satisfy their superiors for the sake of their greater agenda.

Regarding their morphological evolution account, it would be interesting to see if it lines up with specific gravity. This could be proven if a number of carcasses of various species were placed simultaneously in a silo of churned muddy water.



I've heard that someone did a special relativity calculation that concluded the universe would only look like it was six days old from God's "frame of reference" but I've never evaluated it. I'll let you know if I find it.


The latest theories are relying on the premise that light is slowing down.

The theory I was alluding to was supposedly created back in the mid 80's.

Good Hunting and most of all, God bless your endeavor.

Mick

[awhirledaway]

Among Ivan Panin's critics is a common argument which I think misses the point. Basically, their argument is that since so many works in literature contain patterns of code, the code(s) contained in the Scriptures are no more/less significant. This critique is inherently flawed since it attacks an argument Panin never asserted. It has always been my understanding that THE POINT Panin was attempting to prove was that ALL 66 BOOKS CONTAINED THE EXACT SAME CODE. It is this assertion which Panin mathematically demonstrates, and thus "proves" to the googleth power, there must have been a "devine designer", since most of the text's "authors" not only didn't know one another, they lived at different times in history. To my knowledge, no one has been able to disprove his mathematical proofs supporting this assertion. Would you agree?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Among Ivan Panin's critics is a common argument which I think misses the point. Basically, their argument is that since so many works in literature contain patterns of code, the code(s) contained in the Scriptures are no more/less significant. This critique is inherently flawed since it attacks an argument Panin never asserted. It has always been my understanding that THE POINT Panin was attempting to prove was that ALL 66 BOOKS CONTAINED THE EXACT SAME CODE. It is this assertion which Panin mathematically demonstrates, and thus "proves" to the googleth power, there must have been a "devine designer", since most of the text's "authors" not only didn't know one another, they lived at different times in history. To my knowledge, no one has been able to disprove his mathematical proofs supporting this assertion. Would you agree?

I am convinced that there are legitimate alphanumeric patterns in the Bible (see my holographs section (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Holographs.asp)) but I don't think Panin's work proved anything. Your assertion that the "same pattern" is found in all 66 books sounds very extreme. Did Panin really say that? It seems unlikely since I doubt he had a chance to evaluate each and every book.

So a good place to start would be to find a precise assertion that Panin actually made and then we can test it to see if it holds up.