Thread: Does God want to be worshipped?

Originally Posted by sectionOne

exactly, Genesis is about evolution. in terms that the people of the day could understand.

Nonsense. The men that wrote Genesis didn't understand anything about evolution.

Gensis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gensis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gensis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

"After his kind" means God made them as they were seen by the primitives of the day. Nowhere does it mention that God made eo hippus and that evolved into equus, or that God created australopithicene and that species evolved into the humans of the day.

Go ahead, quote where it says that homo sapiens evolved from an earlier form of life, say like trilobites or something.

Originally Posted by lakeman

At this point wwe have not been speaking about any of the extraordinary claims. just whether or not a man named Moses ever existed.

If we found a receipt that was from the right time and some Jesish guy named Moses was buying a herd of cattle from a guy named john in Egypt it would evidence that both Moses and John lived. Even if the receipt said that Moses paid for the cattle by performing a miracle for John it would still not negate the existence of the receipt and the existence of the men.

And it wouldn't be proof that the guy called Moses in the Bible bought cattle.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Real people wrote the bible. We can debte whether or not they embelleshed by adding miraculouss events but the writers were real and all the facts that have been documented have been verified rather than nullified.

Right. And just because we can see the moon doesn't mean that Dr. Don Cosgrove and his crew of teenagers battled Nazis on a secret base there just because it's described in Rocketship Galileo.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the Play Free Online games at King.com and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

Is King.com a properly accredited institution of study and learning?

Originally Posted by lakeman

Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the Play Free Online games at King.com and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

Is King.com a properly accredited institution of study and learning?

Originally Posted by Idletime

Yes, it is.

They deal with 2 completely different issues, each in 2 different fields of science.

No. One of the concepts of abiogenesis is that the chemical processes and molecules involved established selection pressures that increased the efficiency and complexity of the reactions they were involved in, and thus one can say that evolution of a sorts played a role in the origin of life.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Nonsense. The men that wrote Genesis didn't understand anything about evolution.







"After his kind" means God made them as they were seen by the primitives of the day. Nowhere does it mention that God made eo hippus and that evolved into equus, or that God created australopithicene and that species evolved into the humans of the day.

Go ahead, quote where it says that homo sapiens evolved from an earlier form of life, say like trilobites or something.

Nonsense, "after their kind" meant that each animal looked like it's parent. And eo hippus and equus are the same species to anyone who can look at them and see that they are both horses. Just like Australopithicus is still human or at least a species very much like humans (and the bible does speak of other peoples).

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Is King.com a properly accredited institution of study and learning?

It was not the link I provided. It was a bad link within it.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Nonsense, "after their kind" meant that each animal looked like it's parent.

Bingo! No evolution in Genesis.

Thank you.

http://king/And eo hippus and equus are the same species to anyone who can look at them and see that they are both horses.[/quote]

Right.

And a gecko is a crocodile.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Just like Australopithicus is still human or at least a species very much like humans (and the bible does speak of other peoples).

And a rat is an elephant, too.

Originally Posted by Idletime

Alas, what you are witnessing above, is a fundamental way of trying to create evidence where none can be found.

Wadi Sidri is not recognized as evidence for anything among scholars. A quick check of Google Scholar returns 4 hits with "Wadi Sidri exodus" and it is obvuious that any "evidence" from Wadi Sidti is not considered seriously.

If all you have are fundamentalist blogs, you really have nothing!

Check for yourself:in academia
Wadi Sidri exodus - Google Scholar

I had to respond to this one, so please forgive the trolling.

There is more here than you give credit. I am a Master's degree student at Clemson University and this is the subject of my Master's thesis. It is my contention that the site at Wadi Sidri was dismissed because of a paradigm shift in Biblical Scholarship away from supporting the Bible as history at the turn of the 20th century.

Following the Scopes trial, Biblical history was as subject to the political whims of academia as any other discipline. As scholarship that supported the Bible as accurate history was reinterpreted to support the new political climate, Wadi Sidri was reinterpreted as well, in a manner that dismisses it out of hand in a way that is not supported by any facts.

While Grant Jeffrys is far from a reliable source, it is because of his cheerleading on the subject rather than any false statements. The site at Wadi Sidri needs to be reevaluated in light of recent archeological findings, particularly the work of David Rohl on the Egyptian timelines.