The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True

[Knicks4lyfe]

Even though I live my life to God's standards, but just don't believe in him, I am not righteous and will therefore not recieve everlasting paradise? That is the definition of an egomaniac. I must worship him in order to live to his standards. So, I will therefore not worship an egomaniac.

And again, 75% of the world is not living to his standards, because they do not worship the same God you talk about. Very arrogant.

You cannot be living according to Gods will if you refuse to worship him. That is part of living and doing Gods will. Recognizing him as God alone. Since he is the very reason for your existence. Do you recognize your parents for them being your parents? Or do you ignore them? Do you give them their due respect for being your parents? Or do you ignore them? If you respect them as I suspect you do, why not the same for God? Is he asking to much for you to respect him for him creating you?

No they worship the God of this system of things. The one who mislead Eve and the one who has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.


You either worship God, or you unknowingly (or even worse, knowingly) worship the adversary. God has fitted the adversary and his followers for death for good reason. But the adversaries followers more than likely choose to do so. Some have done so out of ignorance which God has granted a reprieve for them. But those who just refuse out of choice....

[Paul1355]

If God wants us to worship him, why does he make it so convienent and easy to disprove his existence? There has been nothing said in support of the existence of God that is factual. It is all quotes from the Bible.

god gave free will to choose so it's not a forced belief. and the quotes from the bible are proven to historical events bro stop denying it historians even think so wether they believe in god or not there is evidence in the bible stating historical fact...how do you think our history classes came to be...from quotes.

[LJ4ptplay]

You still have not told me how these guys could write that the earth was a sphere that hangs on nothing. How could they know this? We know it's true because we have the technology now to see it is. How did they know it?

It's simple. In the ancient city of Alexanderia, a merchant noticed a shadow from a pole at a certain time of the day was always the same length. But when he traveled to another city about 300 miles away, at the same time of day, a pole of equal length did not cast any shadow. Through deduction he concluded that this was only possible if the earth was round.

It's interesting that you bring up this example. Much of the knowledge gained by astronomers (Kepler, Gallileo, Coprenicus, etc.) was destroyed by the church. Or they were labeled heretics because they proved the earth was not the center of the universe. This knowledge contradicted the church and the belief that we are the most important lifeform created by God.

The church, and religion in general, do not like science because the more knowledge science provides us, the less significant we seem, and the less important God is. God has always been used to explain the unknown. The more we know, the smaller God becomes. Many people feel threatned by this. That is why you see the fundamentalists fighting to eliminate evolution from biology classes. It threatens their belief system.

[LJ4ptplay]

You cannot be living according to Gods will if you refuse to worship him. That is part of living and doing Gods will. Recognizing him as God alone. Since he is the very reason for your existence.

Again, a very egotistical and arrogant being.

Do you recognize your parents for them being your parents? Or do you ignore them? Do you give them their due respect for being your parents? Or do you ignore them? If you respect them as I suspect you do, why not the same for God? Is he asking to much for you to respect him for him creating you?

Interesting example. I know my parents exist. So yes, I give them much respect.

But what about this example. This is just hypothetical, say when you were born, your father abandoned you. But throughout your entire life, your mother told you that your father loves you and if you don't obey his wishes, he will punish you. For most of your childhood, you would probably believe this, and you would love him and obey his wishes. But eventually, probably around the time you became a teenager, you would start to doubt these claims. That's how I feel about the human race. We are a very young species. Probably just starting to hit our teenager years, relatively speaking. So, that is why you are starting to see more and more disbelievers. We are beginning to understand that there is no God, or atleast one that loves us and punishes us for not following his wishes.

[LJ4ptplay]

god gave free will to choose so it's not a forced belief. and the quotes from the bible are proven to historical events bro stop denying it historians even think so wether they believe in god or not there is evidence in the bible stating historical fact...how do you think our history classes came to be...from quotes.

I am not denying the bible provides some historic accuracy. I was simply arguing the claim that the bible is perfect and that all of its claims are true.

So God gave me free will to choose to not worship him, yet he will punish me for not worshipping him. This is illogical.

[Knicks4lyfe]

It's simple. In the ancient city of Alexanderia, a merchant noticed a shadow from a pole at a certain time of the day was always the same length. But when he traveled to another city about 300 miles away, at the same time of day, a pole of equal length did not cast any shadow. Through deduction he concluded that this was only possible if the earth was round.

It's interesting that you bring up this example. Much of the knowledge gained by astronomers (Kepler, Gallileo, Coprenicus, etc.) was destroyed by the church. Or they were labeled heretics because they proved the earth was not the center of the universe. This knowledge contradicted the church and the belief that we are the most important lifeform created by God.

The church, and religion in general, do not like science because the more knowledge science provides us, the less significant we seem, and the less important God is. God has always been used to explain the unknown. The more we know, the smaller God becomes. Many people feel threatned by this. That is why you see the fundamentalists fighting to eliminate evolution from biology classes. It threatens their belief system.

So that is how Job and Isaiah knew this? You REALLY BUY THAT? A merchant told them? Even though for centuries people thought the earth was held up in many other ways, and even that it was flat! And this was still going on in the 1600's! A merchant? WORD?!!!


You speak of the Church, Im not affiliated with the Church. Chruch itself is very responsible for a lot of why Chritianty is looked down upon the way it is.

I applaud the honest efforts of scientists to help improve our way of living on the things they uncover. But I cannot applaud them for trying to disprove their is a God. The human brain can continue learning forever. Scientists still cannot really explain why we get old and die. In fact they say that technically we should be able to live forever! How could evolution create something that can literally last and learn forever? It is a proven fact that the brain cannot stop learning. But what would be the point for that in evolution which is chaos and constant change?

Ecclesiastes 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.

You say, that you accept that you just live and then we die. That's cool. But lemme ask you, if you were presented with the opportunity to enjoy life without getting old or sick, you and the ones you love, in a global paradise in peace and prosperity, but the catch is, you must choose the day that you die... COULD YOU CHOOSE A DAY?

I can't. Cuz I don't want to die now, let alone under those circumstances. Is that evolution, or a higher being instilling that urge to live in us?

No wonder why most people never wanna die or stop learning! God intended for us to live forever doing Just that!

[Knicks4lyfe]

I am not denying the bible provides some historic accuracy. I was simply arguing the claim that the bible is perfect and that all of its claims are true.

So God gave me free will to choose to not worship him, yet he will punish me for not worshipping him. This is illogical.

So God will sustain your life even though you don't wanna live by his rules?

Would you allow your children to remain in your household if they are of age to obey you by choice , but continue to disregard your rules of conduct in the household? Could your kids say to you, "Dad , I know I should not steal your hard earned money in the house you pay the bills with. I know that I should respect your rules and not have women in and out of the house and in the bed under your roof. I know that I should not disrespect you guys with my mouth, but I can make the choice too and so I should still be able to remain here no matter what?

Would you allow them to stay, or let them do things their own way regardless of the outcome?

[LJ4ptplay]

So God told Job the earth was round and that it wasn't the center of the universe. OK. And the universe is 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs walked the planet at the same time. Keep denying the truth man. If it serves you well, than by all means, live in ignorance.

Why did God make so many appearences and perform so many amazing things (parting the seas and so forth) in prehistoric times. When these things could not be proven or disproven. Seems convienent to me. Why doesn't God do soemthing now? Trust me, I am willing to believe in God and worship him if he would just provide undeniable proof. Part the skies and tell everyone to worship him or something. If he really wants us to worship him, then show us. I would start worshipping him immdeiately. The question is, if science provided undeniable proof that God did not exist, would you stop worshipping him?

[Knicks4lyfe]

So God told Job the earth was round and that it wasn't the center of the universe. OK. And the universe is 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs walked the planet at the same time. Keep denying the truth man. If it serves you well, than by all means, live in ignorance.

Why did God make so many appearences and perform so many amazing things (parting the seas and so forth) in prehistoric times. When these things could not be proven or disproven. Seems convienent to me. Why doesn't God do soemthing now? Trust me, I am willing to believe in God and worship him if he would just provide undeniable proof. Part the skies and tell everyone to worship him or something. If he really wants us to worship him, then show us. I would start worshipping him immdeiately. The question is, if science provided undeniable proof that God did not exist, would you stop worshipping him?

The bible said.. in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Whenever that beginning was it was well before man or animal came into existence. The Universe, heck even the earth could be billions of years old. It does not state how long ago the planets themselves were made. The 6k years the bible refers too speaks of life on the planet and the time ensuing.
Since the time of Adam and eve it has been well over 6000 years.

He made those things happen then to establish his name. He even said so to Pharaoh of Egypt. That he could have been wiped him out, but for the sake of letting his name be known in the earth, he allowed him to continue to grow more and more indignant to prove that he was the only true God.

The prophecies, the scientific facts, the bible principles, all of these things are there for our benefit. He even puts exactly how the world would be down in our time, and the very reason it would be that way in the bible. The bible is God's undeniable proof that he exists. If the things in it were not true, then I could see your point. But you say you've proven them wrong, when in actuality, you have just misunderstood a lot of what you have read or come to know.

Like for instance Hell. Many people actually believe in a fiery hell where bad people go. But in revelations 20:14, death and Hell , or hades is tossed into the lake of fire. And the bible says that the lake of fire has a meaning. It means the second death. Which means ever lasting destruction. How could the lake of fire be a place of death, but also a place of eternal torment? That is an oxymoron. Death always means to cease to exist. It never implies life. If you are burning eternally and know it, then you cannot be dead. You are alive. But the lake of fire is said to mean the second death, which is ever lasting destruction. And also, how can death itself suffer anguish in a fiery place of torment? Death is not a person... it is a state of being. So how can death suffer eternal torment in literal flames? Don't add up. Especially since other parts of the bible say that the dead are conscious of nothing at all. (ecc 9:5) That would be a blatant contradiction.

You looking for a sign right? Well, Mathew 24:14 Jesus says that the Good news of the Kingdom will be preached in the entire inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations... AND THEN THE END WILL COME. That witnessing work is happening right now as we speak. So I posed this question to you once before. Which religious organization lives by the Biblical standards and preaches the good news of the Kingdom in most any language on earth right now? Because it is happening.

[LJ4ptplay]

Again, quotations from scripture are not undeniable proof. These were stories written by many people. They are not fact. Life on earth has existed for much longer than 6,000 years. The first life, single celled organisms began about a billion years ago. The fossil record is undeniable proof. You cannot debate the fossil record. The oldest ones are of simple, single-celled organisms. And as time passed, more complex organisms began to evolve. This is undeniable proof. Quotations from a story book written several hundred years ago are not facts. Humanoid fossils are dated to be younger than the dinosaur fossil records. Single celled organisms are dated to be older than the dinosaurs. God did not create life all at once. Life evolved from other life. These are facts. They cannot be disputed. You cannot prove God spoke to the Pharoah of Egypt. It is heresay and would not hold up under any rational scrutiny. It is a story told many years after it supposedly happened. I'll live my life based on the cold, hard, indisputable facts provided by years of tested data rather than a story.

[TunerAddict]

The Greeks also stated that the earth was round. Its a common misconception that the roundness of the earth is new knowledge.

[Knicks4lyfe]

Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

Is evolution really scientific?

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.

What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.

“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.

Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?

“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”—The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

Wow. Evolution is a fact huh?

[TunerAddict]

Nothing is a fact. I've already gone over it. Nothing can be proved or disproved. There is evidence for every side, it is up to the observer to decide which they believe.

Nothing is proven, only supported.

[Paul1355]

So God told Job the earth was round and that it wasn't the center of the universe. OK. And the universe is 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs walked the planet at the same time. Keep denying the truth man. If it serves you well, than by all means, live in ignorance.

Why did God make so many appearences and perform so many amazing things (parting the seas and so forth) in prehistoric times. When these things could not be proven or disproven. Seems convienent to me. Why doesn't God do soemthing now? Trust me, I am willing to believe in God and worship him if he would just provide undeniable proof. Part the skies and tell everyone to worship him or something. If he really wants us to worship him, then show us. I would start worshipping him immdeiately. The question is, if science provided undeniable proof that God did not exist, would you stop worshipping him?

i was watching tv and carl baugh was on whos a scientist who is christian and he found fossils that showed human and dinosaur footprints together so if you want to discuss that i have all day.

[Paul1355]

Nothing is a fact. I've already gone over it. Nothing can be proved or disproved. There is evidence for every side, it is up to the observer to decide which they believe.

Nothing is proven, only supported.

that doesnt make sense if there is enough evidence then something is proven because no matter what you do it is true...something proven plainly means why it is the truth...do u believe the word proven is not in the dictionary or something...supporting something an proving something is completely different just becuase i support something doesnt mean i can prove it...proof is undenyable truth