General Music Chat

LOL

Jesus won the battle. The war ends at ARMEGEDDON !!

Another shameless song plug from the boys at NKF.

NOISY KUNG FU ROCKS!!!

Craig,
I agree there is nothing confusing about your posts.

We don't need science to understand God's will for us.

I don't have a brand of Christianity.

Anybody of age and sound mind can understand the will of God.

We will never cease to exist. The soul is eternal. It might make people feel good to think it's either heaven or I don't exist but it's just not in the bible.

But God is not some weird turturing executioner that keeps souls alive merely for the purpose of toruring them. What parent would do that? Would you? You still refuse to answer this.

God is just. God cannot lie. God said he would cast us into outer darkness forever with no chance of reprieve. I trust God. I believe what he promised.

You can't make stuff up like "the soul will cease to exist" AND not back it up with scripture.

It's amazing to look at how smart we think we are, and how much we know about our creator, the universe etc, all while being just a speck in the vastness of space and time, with tiny brains that couldn't even begin to comprehend a minute fraction of what it is really all about. I don't even try. We can simplify it to "heaven and hell", & "God and the devil" .. sheesh.. Because that's all we can understand. God had to put himself in to human form according to the bible just so humans wouldn't freak out back then. How much have we evolved?.. lol ..

premise 1. Those who never hear the gospel will not perish.
premise 2. Those who hear the gospel and reject it will perish.

Actually, I prefer and accept premise 3, as perfectly stated by the Apostle Paul, which is that REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANYONE HAS HEARD THE GOSPEL OR NOT, they KNOW through the witness of the creation that THERE IS A CREATOR, and yet THEY CHOOSE to worship false gods instead. As evidence, he points to primitive peoples who fashion idols out of stone or wood, and then worship before them. What Paul is saying, is that THEY UNDERSTAND they should worship a "god" but they choose to worship one of THEIR OWN CREATION, rather than the true God.

I love Paul's declaration of this fact for more reasons than I possibly have time to expound upon, but here are a few of them:

1) It confirms my personal understanding that the reversal of position, between Creator and created being, IS WHAT ALL SIN IS ROOTED IN. In fact, THIS IS WHAT SIN IS essentially, at it's root. The multitudes of possible sins... adultery, coveting, bearing false witness, etc... These are all merely SYMPTOMS of sin itself. Sin being, worshipping a false god, rather than the true God. Usually it means being "gods" of our own lives, rather than Creator God, being the God and Lord of our lives.

2) NO ONE IS INNOCENT. Paul expertly points out that the visible creation itself, is PROOF of the unseen nature of God. Therefore, we instinctively KNOW there is a God who created everything, but we choose instead to worship a god of our own making. No Bibles necessary. No stone tablets to violate. Without any missionaries having visited anyone in the deepest jungles of the Amazon. THEY KNOW THERE IS A GOD. THEY WORSHIP A FALSE ONE INSTEAD. THEY ARE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

3) It is powerful EVIDENCE of the blinding foolishness of living in sin. Tribal peoples worship before an idol or god, that THEY JUST FASHIONED WITH THEIR OWN HANDS!!!! Read that again... They just made an idol out of a rock, then suddenly bow down and basically declare: THIS THING "I" JUST MADE WITH MY OWN HANDS... IS NOW ABOVE ME. I WILL WORSHIP IT AND SACRIFICE TO IT, AND SERVE IT!!! How foolish is that? How can something I CREATED... now become MY CREATOR? This shows the blinding stupidity of sin.

What you should understand, is that this has NOTHING to do with whether someone knows the name "Jesus" or not, or that He was a carpenter, born of a virgin, or even that He was God in the flesh.

It has to do with the ROOT of sin. The ORIGIN OF SIN.

And that very sin, was rejecting God as Lord, and replacing His Lordship over my life with MY OWN LORDSHIP OVER MYSELF.

The original sin, is NOT disobedience: i.e. "Do not eat"

The original sin, is WANTING TO BE GOD!

The first sin, according to the Bible, ever committed in HISTORY was the archangel Lucifer's rising against God to ascend to His throne. Lucifer wanted to be God himself. This reverses the TRUE ORDER. Lucifer is a CREATED BEING and he can NEVER be the Creator. In trying to reverse this order, Lucifer committed the FIRST SIN in history. The first sin ever committed. It was a sin by an angel. And consequently Lucifer was thrown down to the Earth, and CAST OUT of Heaven.

What happens next, on the sin timeline?

Lucifer tempts Eve.

He asks her whether God had said she could not eat of the trees in the garden, and she responds that of all the trees they may freely eat, but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they may not eat, or they will die. Lucifer tells her that SHE WILL NOT DIE. (This is only a partial lie, because the death God spoke of was NOT a physical death, but a SPIRITUAL one) and Lucifer tells her, that not only will she NOT DIE, but when she eats that fruit, she will BECOME AS A GOD, knowing good and evil.

What does Eve do?

She eats!

She eats ONLY AFTER Lucifer (now satan) tells her that SHE WILL BECOME A GOD if she does,

THAT IS WHEN SHE EATS,

THAT (To be a god) IS WHAT SHE WANTED.

Lucifer spreads HIS OWN SIN (The desire to be god) to MANKIND, which then creates THE FIRST SIN by humans.

The angels FIRST SIN: "Trying to be God"
Humans FIRST SIN: "Trying to be God"

THIS IS SIN.

This is...

THE OLDEST SIN
THE FIRST SIN
THE ORIGINAL SIN
THE SIN ALL CREATED BEINGS HAVE THE MOST PRACTICE WITH
THE HARDEST SIN TO OVERCOME

This is why we are fallen. And the path to restoration is the REVERSAL of this very sin. Namely, to STOP being gods of our own lives, and humble ourselves, and accept God as our Lord, and director of our path and owner of our hearts.

And as an aside... What happens to Adam and Eve? They are CAST OUT of the Garden. This WAS NOT a physical Garden my friend. Like Lucifer, they were CAST OUT of Heaven itself (a state of being). And this is also eloquent language being used to desribe this event. God did not LITERALLY cast them out. Their SIN cast them out. Sin IMMEDIATELY removes us from God's presence.

But regarding the desire to make God a created being, and making the created being into the Creator... this reversal of the true order....

It is not coincidence that some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, have JUSTIFIED this very sin.

The original sin.

Two of the great "advancements" (or major changes of thought) in the 20th century were:

1) Marxist/Lenninist theory
2) Sigmund Freud and the birth of psychoanalysis

Not coincidentally, they BOTH had something to say about God, and they both arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION: That "Man created God", and yet they have different rationales for WHY man allegedly created God.

Marxist theory states that the rich or ruling class, holds the wealth, and the poor and lowly working class, the masses, accumulate that wealth for them through their labor. But the ruling class has a problem. They are FEW in number, and could therefore be overrun potentially at any time by a rebellion. There are only so many armed soldiers to defend the castles and the ruling class. By sheer numbers, they could be defeated by the working class.

The solution?

Create a God, and a religion, that teaches PASSIVITY. "Turn the other cheek" "Serve your masters" "You will be rewarded in the next life" etc...

Marxist thought says "Religion is the OPIATE of the masses"

In other words, religion is the DRUG that keeps them calm and in check, and prevents them from over-taking the ruling class. Therefore MAN (rich ruling class) CREATED GOD!!!

AGAIN AND AGAIN...

The original sin. God is not Creator: "I AM" - The created being, proposes to be the Creator, a reversal of the true order.

And yet, Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis, makes the EXACT SAME CLAIM yet for supposedly different reasons.

Freud claims, like Marx did, that THERE IS NO GOD. That: MAN CREATED GOD. But why does Freud say man created God? Because primitive peoples, ignorant of modern scientific understanding, had no way of explaining massive acts of nature, like hurricanes or volcanoes erupting, and so to ASSIGN an understanding to them, they created the idea of a "god" or "gods" that were in control of these natural events, because of anger or whatever other reasons. They did this to find some semblance of order, or understanding of somthing that was BEYOND their primitive knowledge.

The bottom line however, once again...

MAN CREATED GOD

Not the other way around.

Funny, how two brilliant men, come to consensus that MAN CREATED GOD, and yet have different theories on WHY this allegedly occurred.

At it's root, these men are simply RECREATING the very first sin of both angels and mankind, namely, REVERSING the true order. God did not create me. I CREATED GOD!

When you understand this truth well.

When you understand it's heart, and that it is the ROOT and ORIGIN of sin itself. Then you will begin to understand why, salvation is NOT about blood atonement, or about READING WRITTEN WORDS, or PRAYING A SALAVATION PRAYER, or anything else, but what it truly is...

A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP gone WRONG. (Creator and YOU)

A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP needing to be RESTORED! (God is Lord of my life. I am NOT Lord of my own life)

The Bible is CLEAR that people were saved BEFORE Jesus death on the cross, and people were saved WITHOUT KNOWING THE GOSPEL. Paul himself is one such case.

If you accept Paul's statement, that ALL PEOPLES understand their need to worship God, and yet many CHOOSE to worship a false God, then by default, we should accept that some people WHO KNOW THEIR NEED TO WORSHIP A GOD, will in fact, worship the TRUE GOD. Whether they prayed or not, whether they understood the Gospel or not, whether they read a Bible or not.

NO HUMAN ON EARTH WITNESSED TO PAUL. Yet he was SAVED on the Road to Damascus. Jesus himself witnessed to Paul in the form of a blinding light. Paul was not at first even aware this was Jesus. He simply bowed down in the presence of the blinding light and said "Lord what will you have me do"

That was it.

You should therefore understand and acceot, that if Christ can witness to Paul DIRECTLY, without a missionary interpreting, without scripture, without even praying, then Christ can witness to ANYONE. Directly. He can witness to others: HIMSELF - THROUGH HIS SPIRIT.

Many of you love to WORSHIP text, that was "INSPIRED" by God, as if that text WAS GOD. When you watch a movie "INSPIRED" by true events, you are not confused in the least, that this does not necessarily mean every element is flawless and without any possibility of error or elaboration, but you expect that THE HEART of the story is true. THE BASICS of the story are there. What is ESSENTIAL will be there, and you won't get lost worrying about details. And yet when, you yourselves, admit that the Bible is "INSPIRED" by God, and use that VERY WORD: "INSPIRED" you suddenly give it new meaning, and act as if God penned it Himself, as clearly as if he were speaking, WORD FOR WORD.

THE ONLY instance that even THE BIBLE ITSELF claims as a moment where God penned scripture with His own hand, was God's carving of the 10 Commandments in stone.

Everything else, was INSPIRED of God, filtered through the minds, hearts and understanding of his prophets, of which the Bible is FULL of their errors and mistakes. If God was going to CONTROL absolutely, how His inspiration was to be transcribed, and how it would then be TRANSLATED into hundreds of other languages, he WOULD NOT NEED Prophets. He could write the words on our faces, where they could not be ignored or changed or mistranslated.

If you worship a religious book, even one INSPIRED by God, you will make THE VERY SAME MISTAKE that the Jews made, in worshipping the law, the very law God gave, right? In worshipping the law, the Jews MISSED the coming of THEIR OWN MESSIAH!!! If you are not careful, then in worshipping a book of text, you also, may MISS WORSHIPPING God Himself. Why listen to God? Why listen to the instructions of an invisible Creator, when you have something printed in China (or somewhere else) that you can TOUCH and hold in your own hands?

God is SPIRIT.

He does not relate to us PHYSICALLY.

He relates to us SPIRITUALLY.

If you plan on worshipping a book, I hope that you are absolutely convinced that there could not be, even the slightest error in the information FILTERED through the minds of ancient Prophets and that you are also convinced that the TRANSLATION into your own language of that earlier text, was ACCURATE and WITHOUT ERROR in any place as well.

Just remember that the Bible is REPLETE with mistakes the prophets of God have made through the centuries. They have disobeyed Him. They have misunderstood Him. They have taken it upon themselves to EXPAND upon the original vision or instruction God gave them. Men are imperfect. It is likely that their understanding of God's inspirations to them, could have, at times, also have been imperfect.

The Bible is inspired of God.

It is profound.

In my opinion, it is the most important book ever composed.

But perfect in every respect?

Only God Himself is perfect in every respect.

God gives us tools...

Prophets
Visions
Holy Text

NONE of them are flawless. They are aids. Helps. Guides to bring us to a RELATIONSHIP with God - HIMSELF.

If you are having a relationship with God, primarily through a BOOK ABOUT HIM, then I am sorry to tell you, that your relationship is SORELY LACKING. I would venture that NONE OF YOU would be satisfied with such a relationship with your own wife, or your own children, and feel satisfied to just read books about them, but somehow, this is not a problem when it comes to your FATHER God?

That is tragic.

That is NOT the close relationship that God, YOUR FATHER, desires with you.


.

Way to write a novel, Craig

I voted none since I'm Agnostic but I lean towards Buddhism.

For those of you wondering, an Agnostic believes that there's not enough information to decide if there is a supreme being. It is possible, but it's also possible there's not.

Do you really think a Monarch Butterfly happened by chance as a result of the juxtaposition of some molecules in primordial ooze that eventually evolved into the Monarch Butterfly? Do you think that Sir Isaac Newton descended from a virus which formed at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean? I personally find it almost mathematically impossible that there is NO God. Even some of the most ardent agnostic scientists believe the existence of a supreme being based on the math. Life almost surely has its roots in a supreme being. Just because there is no scientific proof one exists, the magnificence and immeasurable complexities of the universe almost makes the BELIEF in a supreme being a given. I've seen things in nature that are too wondrous not to have been created by God (IMO)

Actually Bob the Monarch Butterfly didn't just happen by chance, it evolved from simpler forms over the course of millions of years. Complex life forms have been evolving for over 550 million years, since the Cambrian explosion, but life began long before that. I personally don't believe life is common in the universe but most likely arises wherever the conditions are right (liquid water being the most important condition). Again, it is possible that a Supreme Being created the universe, but even if that is true he/she didn't necessarily engineer life. Take the eye for example; eyes have evolved at least 11 different times in the course of evolution. If there was a designer, wouldn't he/she have engineered them one time and given them to all creatures who needed to see?

I understand the theory of evolution fairly well. I studied biology in college. I'm not convinced that life happened by chance. I'm almost 100% sure there is a supreme being. I'm also almost 100% sure that when we die our souls do go somewhere. Life probably was designed by a supreme being and then possibly evolved. The entire process of evolution was simply part of a master plan. I find it impossible to believe that molecules by chance get together and then form into simple cells, then evolve into more and more complex cells and then multi-celled creatures, and then eventually the modern creatures of today. No, we are guided by a supreme being. I have little doubt...

I put no limitations on the power of my God in His universe.
Nor do I entertain any concept of our ability to understand His creation.
We oft consider our science and knowlege vast.
It is but foolish ranting of dust.

VERY agreed. Our scientific "knowledge" is infinitesimally minute. For example, I can say with almost utmost certainty that I know less than half of all things...

I suppose in many ways I am a bit of an inigma.
I wont / dont promote my belief at the point of a gun.
But if one would attempt to stop me from my practice of my beliefs, that includes the sharing of said belief, I, in my imperfect human form, may be inclined to smoke your ass.

I don't own a gun. I may someday wish I did, but I think it would give me a false sense of security. Your only security is God. You can arm yourself all you want. When it's your turn to go you're gone. And be very careful that you have the wisdom to know for sure who is actually attempting to stop you from practicing your beliefs. Pray for the wisdom to know that the ass you smoke was really IN FACT worthy of the smoking. Many people (millions) have fought wars with the idea that somebody was attempting to stop them from something when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. World War I was such a war. Ten million people died because ONE man was assassinated. Be careful whose ass you smoke. It could start a domino effect that could end up like WWI which by the way led directly to WWII which by the way led directly to many other large and small conflicts. One ass smoked resulted in umpteen millions of asses smoked.

I don't have a brand of Christianity.

You belong to the Church of Christ don't you? That particular brand of Christianity teaches that instruments are NOT to be used in worship services, merely because there is not a record of the early Christian churches doing this, although mimicking a human voice by use of an electronic microphone is apparently acceptable, even though the early disciples didn't have those either. Seventh Day Adventists apparently believe the Disciples of Jesus were wrong to worship on Sunday as the Christian sabbath, and that Saturday is still the sabbath for Christians as well as Jews. Southern Baptists don't accept baptism by sprinkling. Church of God will accuse you of a lack of spirit if you don't speak in tongues.

All these denominations claim Christ as their savior.

All of them find it necessary to separate themselves from other Christians because the trivial tenets of their particular brand is more important to them than unity in the body of Christ.

.

According to the Bible, the act of creation was a literal 6 days.
(snip)
You can either believe the biblical account on its own terms, or you can reject it.

I reject it.

Just like I reject the myth that also got included in the Bible of a Rainbow being created AFTER the flood of Noah, as a promise that God would not destroy mankind through a flood again. Clearly this is myth, being handed down through successive generations and ultimately incorporated into the Bible. A rainbow is not a promise from God, it is merely a fact of physics. Rainbows are visible whenever there are water droplets in the sky, and the sun is shining from BEHIND the observer, and shining at a low angled altitude. This phenomena can also be observed in waterfalls, and spraying a waterhose from your garden in the air. The fact that this phenomena can be REPLICATED in numerous ways, would already immediately dispute the Bible's claim that God personally "sets his bow in the sky".

In the first place, God does not "set" a rainbow anywhere, because rainbows DO NOT EXIST anywhere. They are optical illusions, and do not exist in any actual space or real estate. The myth of "gold at the end of the rainbow" understands this fact, which is why it promises gold at the end of the rainbow, because THERE IS NO END OF THE RAINBOW. When one travels to where the rainbow "appeared" to be, it would then "appear" to be the same distance away, at another location.

Another way we can know this is myth, is that the Bible expresses part of the purpose of God's creating a rainbow, as so HE CAN REMEMBER that He made a promise, not to kill us with water again. Do you believe God has a memory problem? I don't. I think He remembers perfectly, and does not need to look at a rainbow so He can say to Himself "Oops, man, I was just about to destroy those sorry sinners with another flood, but I saw that rainbow just in time, and REMEMBERED that promise I made to them!"

Do you really believe this? Seriously?

Well, if you believe that the Earth was created in 6 LITERAL days, then you very well may believe also, that God has trouble remembering His promises, without visual aids. But that would put the Earth at less than 10,000 years old, rather than over 4 Billion. So, you believe that Dinosaurs appeared and then became extinct, all within a span of 10,000 years or less? And that T-Rex's cohabitted the Earth along with humans? Why is there no record of this I wonder? Why no cave drawings of T-Rex's? Why no geological evidence at all, to support that humans dwelled with dinosaurs?

And while we are at it...

Why 6 days? Let's see... God is powerful. So He doesn't need billions of years to create the conditions He desires in the physical universe, and yet He is NOT powerful enough to create everything INSTANTLY and SIMULTANEOUSLY within say, a SINGLE SECOND? He doesn't need BILLIONS of years to create, but He does need 6 FULL 24 hour periods? He is really, really powerful, but still has that little tiny bit of room for improvement? In other words, can't you see the ridiculousness of arguing against the cosmos being BILLIONS of years old, and yet accepting that a smaller time frame... "6 days" is a perfectly reasonable amount of time? Provided of course, that He rested on the seventh day, cause he sweats alot when he creates BILLIONS of GALAXIES in only 6 - 24 hour time periods, and even God gets sleepy from all that work. When God "rests", what do you think? Does he have a bed for this? An easy chair?


But furthermore, when the Bible also claims that "a day, to the Lord, is as a thousand years" why then do you get hung up on a "day" being a literal 24 hour period? A day, is the time that it takes the Earth to rotate the Sun. And yet, the Bible states that NOT UNTIL THE 4th DAY of Creation were lights set into the sky "to mark days, and seasons, and years"

So, if we are going to state that God uses the same time as an Earth bound human, with a literal 24 hours being a day, as a method of God's keeping His own schedule, then, a day could not even begin to be recorded, until the 4th Day of Creation. How do you make that work? God was keeping track of the seconds and minutes BEFORE he put the Sun in the sky as a means of counting days? This would mean that God started some cosmic clock, BEFORE creating the Sun it is based upon, but then had to throw the Sun up there in the sky, at just the right time, to keep the 24 hours going undisturbed. And this makes more sense to you, then the fact that early creation myths found their way into the Bible?

And of course this also leads to the conclusion that the Earth was created BEFORE the Sun. Do you believe that the Earth rotates around the Sun, or like early Christians, are your views still Earth centric? This is an important point, because you are implying that the Earth was created BEFORE the Sun, meaning it had nothing to rotate around. You believe that the Earth was created first, presumably not rotating, but just being held off to the side somewhere , since there was no Sun to rotate around yet. And then God created the Sun, and quickly threw the already existing Earth, into a rotation around the Sun?

Am I correct in this assessment?

The point at which you start re-defining God's words to mean what you want them to mean, because you think you have contrary evidence to the Bible's account, is the point at which you call God a liar and are on dangerous ground, theologically.

Well, since language is an invention of men, the Bible does not contain "God's words" it contains Inspiration from God, filtered through the minds of imperfect men, and expressed using limiting languages that were created by men for the purposes of communicating.

Secondly, I am not calling "God" a liar, I am calling "YOU" misinformed.

.

Craig, I am always impressed how you question the very things that most Christian people accept as fact. You have obviously thought a lot about this and I commend you for your efforts.

As an agent of science, I too question everything. Science questions itself and revises the facts as new evidence is uncovered. I do not accept any premise without evidence. The mere fact that the universe exists and I am alive is not sufficient evidence of the existence of God, but it does allow the possibility. People who think they know the truth without considering all of the evidence amuse me.

Bob:

Though I disagree with your assessment of the reasoning behind the instigation of the two world wars. The point itself is still relevent.
I understand and appreciate your veiw and concerns.
God forbid I ever have to use deadly force in defense of myself or others.
But if it were your family being raped in broad daylight in a parking lot while others ignore or watch.
I feel certain you would be glad that I was the one there, unwilling to tolerate the act as if it was just a floor show.

Christ Jesus is my salvation at the end of my earthly life.
God may or may not grant me grace to survive a fatal accident or act of violence. That is his decision. May his will be done.

Pocket: LOL I had to do a double take to make sure I did not post that.

Thanks for the props bro!

Well, since language is an invention of men, the Bible does not contain "God's words" it contains Inspiration from God, filtered through the minds of imperfect men, and expressed using limiting languages that were created by men for the purposes of communicating.

Secondly, I am not calling "God" a liar, I am calling "YOU" misinformed.

Craig, just to be clear, the "you" in the following statement was not "you-Craig" in particular, but "you" meaning people in general. "The point at which you start re-defining God's words to mean what you want them to mean...". Your reply seems to be reactionary like I was trying to insult you, which I was not.

Secondly, the point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between accepting, rejecting and misrepresenting something. The person that reads the bible using non-biblical definitions is misrpresenting the Bible.

For instance. Let's say Craig writes a book in the year 2009. In this book he uses the term "hot" to mean beatiful in the sentence "many of his fans are hot".

Now let's say, 10 years later, the common parlance meaning of "hot" changes to mean "illegal aliens".

Would you want people ten years from now to read your book using 2019 language to define what you intended your book to mean? Or do want people to read your book the way YOU intended your book to mean?

That's the difference. It is dangerous to import scientific meaning and OUR current language into the Bible and then say what WE mean today by these words is what God meant by these words. That is called Isogeses and is the misrepresentation of God's word to which I was referring.

Whether you believe evolution and long-age theory is not relevant to this discussion. What IS relevant is what God means by six days, not what Craig or Chris or anyone else thinks God ought to mean simply because we have a theory or can't see why God would do the things He did in the manner in which He says He did.

The term Day "Yom" used in the creation account is the same term used in the command 6 days you shall labor and do all your work. It is not the same word, nor the same context as "in the day of our Lord", an era.

I'm still reading through your other post. I'll reply to that one soon, but I'll say this here - if a person rejects a literal six days because it doesn't make sense, or goes against their test for truth (science), then for the same reason that person should reject the Trinity, the notion of resurrection, healing and the like. If a person rejects the Trinity and the resurrection, then that person is not a Christian almost by definition.

regards,
Chris

Well, after reading your lengthy post Craig, all I can say is that it is apparent that you do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God. You pick and choose what you consider to be true in the Bible, and dismiss what you think can't be true because of current theories or because you can't understand why God would do something the way He chose to do it.

In that way, haven't you set yourself up as judge over God's word?

I agree with your sentiment that "The original sin, is WANTING TO BE GOD!" and that people tend towards this.

They either accept God's word on faith (do not eat the fruit thereof), or they attempt to usurp God's word by calling it into question (did God really say?).

Anyways, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, though I reject it outright and encourage you to lean on faith that the Bible is the inspired and infalible Word of God, and not on your own understanding.

Chris

Well, after reading your lengthy post Craig, all I can say is that it is apparent that you do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God. You pick and choose what you consider to be true in the Bible, and dismiss what you think can't be true because of current theories or because you can't understand why God would do something the way He chose to do it.

In that way, haven't you set yourself up as judge over God's word?

I agree with your sentiment that "The original sin, is WANTING TO BE GOD!" and that people tend towards this.

They either accept God's word on faith (do not eat the fruit thereof), or they attempt to usurp God's word by calling it into question (did God really say?).

Anyways, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, though I reject it outright and encourage you to lean on faith that the Bible is the inspired and infalible Word of God, and not on your own understanding.

Chris

I agree with Chris. Furthermore if God has the power to create the earth, the solar system with it's carefully planned dance, the water cycle, the inner ear, the social order of a pride of lions, the love of a child.....
How hard would it be for God to maintain his will for us in written form. I accept that God created everything and that he gave us enough information to please him, be happy, and obtain salvation.

I believe the continuity proves the bible to be from God. I believe John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That rules out Buddha, Mohammad, etc etc etc