  |
ZackH
Known Associate
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Mike wrote: | | exton wrote: | | Mike wrote: | | I don't believe in evolution in the sense that I believe we cannot accurately measure the time on earth or that animals evolve. |
Explain why you believe this. |
I believe that God created all creatures. Not a basic blueprint that evolved into a superior being. However, mutations and abnormalities could have certainly led to a "new" species. Take the tiger. I believe that in the time of Noah, there were no Bengal Tigers, no Siberian Tigers, no White Tigers, etc. Rather, there were just tigers. Through the thousands of years since then, mutations have created new "species", not through gradual Darwinian evolution, but through rapid mutations. Now, this is just my belief, there is no documented science to back it up, but, frankly, evolutionary theories are not documented either, hence the term "theory". Also, look at the common dog. Greyhounds and Chihuauas are the same "species" despite very different appearances. As for carbon dating, this is yet another theoretical science. I'm not saying that the earth is absolutely not billions of years old, as it very well could be, but it could be millions or thousands of years old too. Nobody knows how much time is between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, I just am skeptical of science that claims to know exactly how old the earth is. I don't believe in the accuracy of any theoretical science.
I also like my personal theory on mutation because it helps to explain how Noah could fit every animal onto a boat, without every modern variation of tiger, or elephant, or zebra, or canine, it leaves room for more animals. |
Meh it's difficult to say how old the earth is, we have scientists that want the truth and we have creationists that want to fit the world into their idea of the truth. I'd go with the scientists being more accurate since the many different ways they have used starts to push the age back all the way to 4.6 billion.
But in reality why would a God create an earth with 6 billion retarded humans running around? What is the purpose of it and wouldn't the amount of our flaws be his responsibility? If we were created in his image then isn't his image flawed?
And what about the other shit in the universe? You do know the universe is quite big right? In fact there probably isn't a word to describe how big it is, i believe the farthest we have seen through the Hubble is 78 Billion lightyears away. We are observing light that is 78 Billion years old. And the amount of galaxies there are is unbelievable. In 2003 NASA pointed the Hubble at seemingly blank spot into space, a spot that looks like there is nothing and had it stay there for 11 days. As it scanned deeper into space it saw 10's of thousands of galaxies. There are 10's of thousands of galaxies in each nothingness. Each galaxy has roughly 100 million stars. We have only observed about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. And there are probably 100 times more stars that we can't see because of our position in the universe. Each star could possibly have planets, and many do. So what makes us so special? Why did God pick this planet to make? Or did he make them all?
We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system powered by an insignificant star which lies in an insignificant galaxy. There are many more interesting stars out there. Take VY Canis Majoris for example, this star is so big that numbers wouldn't give it justice. Here is the best possible scaling of VY and our sun http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....joris.png.
Earth is not 7,000 years old, it's not 14 million, it's not 70 million, it's 4.6 billion years old. We aren't special, god doesn't love us nor does he even exist. We exist that is all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
Not a Newbie
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 143
Location: Roanoke, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ZackH wrote: | | Mike wrote: | | exton wrote: | | Mike wrote: | | I don't believe in evolution in the sense that I believe we cannot accurately measure the time on earth or that animals evolve. |
Explain why you believe this. |
I believe that God created all creatures. Not a basic blueprint that evolved into a superior being. However, mutations and abnormalities could have certainly led to a "new" species. Take the tiger. I believe that in the time of Noah, there were no Bengal Tigers, no Siberian Tigers, no White Tigers, etc. Rather, there were just tigers. Through the thousands of years since then, mutations have created new "species", not through gradual Darwinian evolution, but through rapid mutations. Now, this is just my belief, there is no documented science to back it up, but, frankly, evolutionary theories are not documented either, hence the term "theory". Also, look at the common dog. Greyhounds and Chihuauas are the same "species" despite very different appearances. As for carbon dating, this is yet another theoretical science. I'm not saying that the earth is absolutely not billions of years old, as it very well could be, but it could be millions or thousands of years old too. Nobody knows how much time is between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, I just am skeptical of science that claims to know exactly how old the earth is. I don't believe in the accuracy of any theoretical science.
I also like my personal theory on mutation because it helps to explain how Noah could fit every animal onto a boat, without every modern variation of tiger, or elephant, or zebra, or canine, it leaves room for more animals. |
Meh it's difficult to say how old the earth is, we have scientists that want the truth and we have creationists that want to fit the world into their idea of the truth. I'd go with the scientists being more accurate since the many different ways they have used starts to push the age back all the way to 4.6 billion.
But in reality why would a God create an earth with 6 billion retarded humans running around? What is the purpose of it and wouldn't the amount of our flaws be his responsibility? If we were created in his image then isn't his image flawed?
And what about the other shit in the universe? You do know the universe is quite big right? In fact there probably isn't a word to describe how big it is, i believe the farthest we have seen through the Hubble is 78 Billion lightyears away. We are observing light that is 78 Billion years old. And the amount of galaxies there are is unbelievable. In 2003 NASA pointed the Hubble at seemingly blank spot into space, a spot that looks like there is nothing and had it stay there for 11 days. As it scanned deeper into space it saw 10's of thousands of galaxies. There are 10's of thousands of galaxies in each nothingness. Each galaxy has roughly 100 million stars. We have only observed about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. And there are probably 100 times more stars that we can't see because of our position in the universe. Each star could possibly have planets, and many do. So what makes us so special? Why did God pick this planet to make? Or did he make them all?
We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system powered by an insignificant star which lies in an insignificant galaxy. There are many more interesting stars out there. Take VY Canis Majoris for example, this star is so big that numbers wouldn't give it justice. Here is the best possible scaling of VY and our sun http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....joris.png.
Earth is not 7,000 years old, it's not 14 million, it's not 70 million, it's 4.6 billion years old. We aren't special, god doesn't love us nor does he even exist. We exist that is all. |
My, what a bleak outlook on life. How depressing. To feel that we have no purpose other than to exist, then why bother even existing? Well, you can live in your dreary, pointless, lonely world, but I will strive now and forever to find my purpose and accomplish it. Have fun just existing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZackH
Known Associate
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Mike wrote: | | ZackH wrote: | | Mike wrote: | | exton wrote: | | Mike wrote: | | I don't believe in evolution in the sense that I believe we cannot accurately measure the time on earth or that animals evolve. |
Explain why you believe this. |
I believe that God created all creatures. Not a basic blueprint that evolved into a superior being. However, mutations and abnormalities could have certainly led to a "new" species. Take the tiger. I believe that in the time of Noah, there were no Bengal Tigers, no Siberian Tigers, no White Tigers, etc. Rather, there were just tigers. Through the thousands of years since then, mutations have created new "species", not through gradual Darwinian evolution, but through rapid mutations. Now, this is just my belief, there is no documented science to back it up, but, frankly, evolutionary theories are not documented either, hence the term "theory". Also, look at the common dog. Greyhounds and Chihuauas are the same "species" despite very different appearances. As for carbon dating, this is yet another theoretical science. I'm not saying that the earth is absolutely not billions of years old, as it very well could be, but it could be millions or thousands of years old too. Nobody knows how much time is between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, I just am skeptical of science that claims to know exactly how old the earth is. I don't believe in the accuracy of any theoretical science.
I also like my personal theory on mutation because it helps to explain how Noah could fit every animal onto a boat, without every modern variation of tiger, or elephant, or zebra, or canine, it leaves room for more animals. |
Meh it's difficult to say how old the earth is, we have scientists that want the truth and we have creationists that want to fit the world into their idea of the truth. I'd go with the scientists being more accurate since the many different ways they have used starts to push the age back all the way to 4.6 billion.
But in reality why would a God create an earth with 6 billion retarded humans running around? What is the purpose of it and wouldn't the amount of our flaws be his responsibility? If we were created in his image then isn't his image flawed?
And what about the other shit in the universe? You do know the universe is quite big right? In fact there probably isn't a word to describe how big it is, i believe the farthest we have seen through the Hubble is 78 Billion lightyears away. We are observing light that is 78 Billion years old. And the amount of galaxies there are is unbelievable. In 2003 NASA pointed the Hubble at seemingly blank spot into space, a spot that looks like there is nothing and had it stay there for 11 days. As it scanned deeper into space it saw 10's of thousands of galaxies. There are 10's of thousands of galaxies in each nothingness. Each galaxy has roughly 100 million stars. We have only observed about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. And there are probably 100 times more stars that we can't see because of our position in the universe. Each star could possibly have planets, and many do. So what makes us so special? Why did God pick this planet to make? Or did he make them all?
We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system powered by an insignificant star which lies in an insignificant galaxy. There are many more interesting stars out there. Take VY Canis Majoris for example, this star is so big that numbers wouldn't give it justice. Here is the best possible scaling of VY and our sun http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....joris.png.
Earth is not 7,000 years old, it's not 14 million, it's not 70 million, it's 4.6 billion years old. We aren't special, god doesn't love us nor does he even exist. We exist that is all. |
My, what a bleak outlook on life. How depressing. To feel that we have no purpose other than to exist, then why bother even existing? Well, you can live in your dreary, pointless, lonely world, but I will strive now and forever to find my purpose and accomplish it. Have fun just existing. |
What is so depressing about that? Why is it bleak? We live because we exist, that's all, that doesn't mean it's sad or anything. Enjoy your life but remember that life is not forever. Even our own galaxy is not immune to decay and destruction. It's going to collide with the andromeda galaxy eventually (billions and billions of years from now) and the giant black holes that fuel each galaxy will merg and the Milky Way and Andromeda will fuse together. Good ol entrepy. But entrepy spawns life. Funny how destruction and termoil also creates. I like living and i try to live my life as enjoyable as humanly possible. Just because an invisible man isn't involved doesn't make it sad, it actually makes it more enjoyable. We don't have divine restrictions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Freddie wrote: | | Ok so let’s look at how some of these "age tests" are done. Mostly they use carbon 14 testing. Do a little research on it and you'll find that carbon 14 testing is useless. It's not accurate at all and takes a lot of assumption. |
Which is exactly the same argument that can be applied to religion. Except with the science, there is a medium in which you can scrutinize the evidence. Ther is no such medium for religion. Religion does, however, cite carbon 14 dating when it is pro-christian.
| Freddie wrote: | | The bible has stood the test of time, it has been the most scrutinized book every printed. Every atheist on the planet from hacks to scholars have done there best to disprove the existence of God and the creation of the world by his hand. In the end they take it on their own misguided faith because it's all they have. |
The Christian bible has not stood the test of time. A lot of the tales in there are borrowed from earlier, pre- diluvial tales i.e.:
The Epic of Gilgamesh http://www.ancienttexts.org/li.....gilgamesh/
The Enuma Elish http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm
....and a whole host of Sumerian cylinder seals. Not to mention the fact that Constantine slaughtered most of the Gnostic tribes, while maintaining piety. Or the banning 26 of the 30 original gospels and keeping Matt, Mark, John and Luke only? This carries right throught to the question "Is it a sin to sleep with your sister or fam. member"? Yes? Then where do we come from if the "Adama and the Adapa" were the first 2 humans? And don't even get me started on Lot banging his own daughters. All of this carries right through to the modern day Father Sneakafeel scandal. Is homosexuality a sin? The bible constantly puts it's foot in it's mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Freddie wrote: |
Had it been written during the time of Macabees as some suggest it would have had much more Greek and much less Aramaic as the language.
I'll let you crunch this for now tell me when you ready for some more....  |
So, in other words, you consider it less likely that daniel was written earlier, becuase of the likelihood of the use of particular languages?
I'm not familiar with the original languages of the old testament, and i'm skeptical about your claims regarding such. But, assuming that what you say is true...why do you not apply such clear reasoning to the content of the bible? That is to say, comparing the likelihoods of varioues explanations for the text written therein. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Mike wrote: |
I believe that God created all creatures. Not a basic blueprint that evolved into a superior being. However, mutations and abnormalities could have certainly led to a "new" species. Take the tiger. I believe that in the time of Noah, there were no Bengal Tigers, no Siberian Tigers, no White Tigers, etc. Rather, there were just tigers. Through the thousands of years since then, mutations have created new "species", not through gradual Darwinian evolution, but through rapid mutations. Now, this is just my belief, there is no documented science to back it up, but, frankly, evolutionary theories are not documented either, hence the term "theory". |
No, that's not how it works.
A "theory" in science is similar to a "confirmed fact". It does not mean "guess". In science, a "guess" is called a "hypothesis".
| Quote: | | As for carbon dating, this is yet another theoretical science. I'm not saying that the earth is absolutely not billions of years old, as it very well could be, but it could be millions or thousands of years old too. Nobody knows how much time is between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, I just am skeptical of science that claims to know exactly how old the earth is. I don't believe in the accuracy of any theoretical science. |
Well, like i said, "theory" does not mean "guess". It's more like a "confirmed fact".
Don't confuse "theoretical physics" with the rest of science; the use of the word theory there is somewhat improper.
Things like radioisotope dating techniques are called "theories" because we have empirically proven (that is, confirmed by observing) that they work.
And no, carbon 14 dating is not used to determine the age of the earth. It is used to date things that are 60,000 years old or less. It is other types of radioactive dating that are used for determining the age of the earth.
| Quote: |
I also like my personal theory on mutation because it helps to explain how Noah could fit every animal onto a boat, without every modern variation of tiger, or elephant, or zebra, or canine, it leaves room for more animals. |
Except for a few problems:
-The time span between noah's ark and confirmed, recorded history is not long enough for the developement of the diversity of life that we see today.
-Two members of a species cannot restart the whole species. If you only have two animals left, the species is doomed. Inbreeding of that sort cannot lead to a viable reproducing population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Mike wrote: |
My, what a bleak outlook on life. How depressing. To feel that we have no purpose other than to exist, then why bother even existing? Well, you can live in your dreary, pointless, lonely world, but I will strive now and forever to find my purpose and accomplish it. Have fun just existing. |
Haha, no, our lives are not bleak or purposeless. We just take a lot more responsibility for ourselves. We decide our own purpose, rather than trying to have someone assign it to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Besides, there can be a specific purpose for everyone without there being a specific purpose-maker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freddie
Not a Newbie
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | Freddie wrote: | | Ok so let’s look at how some of these "age tests" are done. Mostly they use carbon 14 testing. Do a little research on it and you'll find that carbon 14 testing is useless. It's not accurate at all and takes a lot of assumption. |
Which is exactly the same argument that can be applied to religion. Except with the science, there is a medium in which you can scrutinize the evidence. Ther is no such medium for religion. Religion does, however, cite carbon 14 dating when it is pro-christian.
| Freddie wrote: | | The bible has stood the test of time, it has been the most scrutinized book every printed. Every atheist on the planet from hacks to scholars have done there best to disprove the existence of God and the creation of the world by his hand. In the end they take it on their own misguided faith because it's all they have. |
The Christian bible has not stood the test of time. A lot of the tales in there are borrowed from earlier, pre- diluvial tales i.e.:
The Epic of Gilgamesh http://www.ancienttexts.org/li.....gilgamesh/
The Enuma Elish http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm
....and a whole host of Sumerian cylinder seals. Not to mention the fact that Constantine slaughtered most of the Gnostic tribes, while maintaining piety. Or the banning 26 of the 30 original gospels and keeping Matt, Mark, John and Luke only? This carries right throught to the question "Is it a sin to sleep with your sister or fam. member"? Yes? Then where do we come from if the "Adama and the Adapa" were the first 2 humans? And don't even get me started on Lot banging his own daughters. All of this carries right through to the modern day Father Sneakafeel scandal. Is homosexuality a sin? The bible constantly puts it's foot in it's mouth. |
The reason the Christian bible is still in exhistance is that it has passed test after test and scrutiney after scrutiney.
These conversation have gone on and on from the time the first ink was put to parchment.
The bible does not but it's foot in its mouth but sometimes men do there best to get to make it seem so and yes homosexuality is a sin.
If you want to see know first hand pick up your bible and turn to the book of Judges and read the last 3 chapters and you'll see what sexual immorality costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freddie
Not a Newbie
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Freddie wrote: |
Had it been written during the time of Macabees as some suggest it would have had much more Greek and much less Aramaic as the language.
I'll let you crunch this for now tell me when you ready for some more.... |
So, in other words, you consider it less likely that daniel was written earlier, becuase of the likelihood of the use of particular languages?
I'm not familiar with the original languages of the old testament, and i'm skeptical about your claims regarding such. But, assuming that what you say is true...why do you not apply such clear reasoning to the content of the bible? That is to say, comparing the likelihoods of varioues explanations for the text written therein. |
Just out of curiosity why would you be skeptical until you research it? I don't mean that in a flipent way or anything. What I mean is you seem to want to doubt anything I say. Which is fine but give youself a chance to understand what I'm showing you before you dismiss me as crazy or errent.
It's all taken as a whole. The clear reasoning is there in everthing. People dismiss things right from the start because they dismiss the supernatural. They dismiss the spiritual things of life. When someone understands the things of the spirit better then those things that seem illogical become logical.
That takes the work of God in your life. One can not simple read the scriptures with the natural mind and recieve all that God intends you to have from them. It takes revelation given by God through the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me that many here have not really done much study on the subject and hey I was the same way. I made comments not unlike these you all have been making to me.
So when it comes down to it. Throw out everything. All of history all of the scholars for and against the existance of God. Throw out testimonies and through our what we call logic. I know what's real, I know what God has done in my life to turn me from someone who was drinking just to get through my day, my marriage was going down the drain because I hated; I hated myself, I hated the world around me( I could go on and on about my personal addiction but what's the point) into the man I am today.
He can do it and does do it for anyone who asks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Freddie wrote: | The reason the Christian bible is still in exhistance is that it has passed test after test and scrutiney after scrutiney.
These conversation have gone on and on from the time the first ink was put to parchment.
The bible does not but it's foot in its mouth but sometimes men do there best to get to make it seem so and yes homosexuality is a sin. |
I am still in contention with what you say ....it is not entirely correct. You are right, these conversations have gone on since the year 0.(A date I also hold in contention).Only they were done in dimly lit rooms behind closed doors. Because if it came to light that you were in fact, having these conversation, you would be burned, tortured and mutilated for heresy.
Same rule for science, religion has done nothing but tried to stifle it from the beginning. It was labeled as heresy.
What I am saying is that the bible does not even disclose the fact that from the ages of 17 to his mid-30's, Jeshua went to the far east to study under Hindu Masters. There are more Hindu writings on Jesus Christ the man than there are Christian ones. His message is a Hindu/Buddhist one. The Judeo/Christian bibles are borrowed from earlier texts and heavily edited.
Gospels of Thomas (Gnostic)
An unnamed man once asked Jesus: "How do we find eternal peace in the Kingdom of Heaven, how do we find salvation?"
Jesus wept.
The man asked Jesus "Why do you weep"?
Jesus said nothing
The man asked Jesus again "Why is it that you weep"?
Jesus said "I weep because Man shall never find Heaven, he knows not where to look, for Heaven is right here on Earth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freddie
Not a Newbie
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
There are many writtings about Jesus outside our Bible some are histories most are Gnostic. The reason they are not encluded is that they are not "inspired text" or just down right fiction.
I contend with the validity of these hindu text. I'll not make a statement on them though until I've done my homework so to say.
Many Blessings.
Freddie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Freddie wrote: | There are many writtings about Jesus outside our Bible some are histories most are Gnostic. The reason they are not encluded is that they are not "inspired text" or just down right fiction.
I contend with the validity of these hindu text. I'll not make a statement on them though until I've done my homework so to say.
Many Blessings.
Freddie |
Yes I completely understand your dilemma. You have 26 whole new gospels to read! You can thank Constantine and the council at Nicea for that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freddie
Not a Newbie
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | Freddie wrote: | There are many writtings about Jesus outside our Bible some are histories most are Gnostic. The reason they are not encluded is that they are not "inspired text" or just down right fiction.
I contend with the validity of these hindu text. I'll not make a statement on them though until I've done my homework so to say.
Many Blessings.
Freddie |
Yes I completely understand your dilemma. You have 26 whole new gospels to read! You can thank Constantine and the council at Nicea for that! |
I have no love for Constantine either LOL. I have no need of reading the Gnostic gospels though so I won't need to waste my time with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZackH
Known Associate
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Freddie wrote: | | Xerxes wrote: | | Freddie wrote: | There are many writtings about Jesus outside our Bible some are histories most are Gnostic. The reason they are not encluded is that they are not "inspired text" or just down right fiction.
I contend with the validity of these hindu text. I'll not make a statement on them though until I've done my homework so to say.
Many Blessings.
Freddie |
Yes I completely understand your dilemma. You have 26 whole new gospels to read! You can thank Constantine and the council at Nicea for that! |
I have no love for Constantine either LOL. I have no need of reading the Gnostic gospels though so I won't need to waste my time with that. |
Ugh i argued with a woman about that. I gave her examples of different passages from the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilee, the Book of Thomas, the Book of Mary Magdeline, and she just threw them aside thinking they mean nothing. Why are John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke considered to be divine inspired writings and the others are not? Can you prove that they are? Just because they are in the Holy Bible doesn't make them not irrelevent. Open your mind to the other books because they are just as relevent as the ones in the bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
