The Genesis Enigma - Dr Andrew Parker:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-Darwin.html

Just now people are finding out the scriptures are true???? Can't people see the wonders God has created on a daily basis??...It dosen't take a genius to figure out, that the bible is true, ..lol.
And while the bible is mysterious, it's also and most definitely an accurate book...I believe 100% in the scriptures, for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ...sigh..

Originally Posted by sky2979

Just now people are finding out the scriptures are true???? Can't people see the wonders God has created on a daily basis??...It dosen't take a genius to figure out, that the bible is true, ..lol.
And while the bible is mysterious, it's also and most definitely an accurate book...I believe 100% in the scriptures, for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ...sigh..

Which version do you believe?

Old testament, New testament, The King James Version, The New American Standard Version, The American Standard Version, The New King James Version, The New International Version or The New World Translation.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

The Genesis Enigma - Dr Andrew Parker:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-Darwin.html

On the whole I find his arguments rather weak and his logic flawed. You can not use some historical fact in other parts of the Bible to conclude the Bible describes real events therefore my translation is correct, this is simply circular logic based on a faulty assumption.

Further to this his take on atheism is at best a stereotypical one and at worst only accurate of uneducated atheists which I notice he got through without referencing any "known" atheists, I can't think of a single quotable atheists that regards Darwin as a source of knowledge because even they realise that Darwinism does not disprove God it only disproves religious literalism.

Basically it is a good example of how to make money by saying nothing at all and that any one can fill a couple of hundred pages if they pack the book with irrelevant tangents.

Many fairy stories could be shown to be "Scientifically" accurate, but other than that they are very short on a few minor things, like facts, proof and logic. Funnily enough I don't believe them either,... but then again, I guess I'm just a sceptic at heart. Sorry Dr. Andrew Parker,.... FAIL!!

If god made everything, who or what made god?

The Bible itself is something I have some serious questions about. It's pretty clear that it has been edited, books added and books taken out over time. But thousands of years later, how are we even certain that this is what Jesus wanted people to read?

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The Bible itself is something I have some serious questions about. It's pretty clear that it has been edited, books added and books taken out over time. But thousands of years later, how are we even certain that this is what Jesus wanted people to read?

The problem with the bible is that it is an old book that shows it's age badly and as such it has been continually interpreted, "modernised" and politicised to give it some relevance in the modern world.

Guys - as this guy is a scientist, I want you all to obtain his book and give us your critiques.

Meanwhile - did you actually read the article ; nothing to do with the new testament of course?

Answers on a post-card.

[QUOTE=MontyB;527050]Which version do you believe?

Old testament, New testament, The King James Version, The New American Standard Version, The American Standard Version, The New King James Version, The New International Version or The New World Translation.



QUOTE]


All the versions basically give one same message, in diffrent wording of course...I understand any version...Some are more difficult to read than others, but I personally like the King James Version..It's easier to read,

Originally Posted by MontyB

-snip-

On the whole I find his arguments rather weak and his logic flawed. You can not use some historical fact in other parts of the Bible to conclude the Bible describes real events therefore my translation is correct, this is simply circular logic based on a faulty assumption.

Further to this his take on atheism is at best a stereotypical one and at worst only accurate of uneducated atheists which I notice he got through without referencing any "known" atheists, I can't think of a single quotable atheists that regards Darwin as a source of knowledge because even they realise that Darwinism does not disprove God it only disproves religious literalism.

Basically it is a good example of how to make money by saying nothing at all and that any one can fill a couple of hundred pages if they pack the book with irrelevant tangents.

I had planned to stay out of this discussion as they usually turn irrational and in the hope topic would simply go unnoticed, but I have to give you a sincere "Indeed!".

Rattler

P.S.: (no time atm except for a quick summary of my take, but ppl who are impressed by his arguments maybe would want to research what the symbols, names, etc in the bible mean, who introduced them when, and where they come from, you will realize they were - more or less in the same form - used for the past 3-5000 years by many religions). R.

The word of the Lord is one thing; the word of a book compiled over 500 years after Christ's death is another.