Is Islam an insult to Christianity?

[molika]

Dear Berter...no Molika is not my real name. It is actually a pine tree indigenous to the area where I am from.
I am an engineer... with mathematics you can prove just about anything you like. I've had just enough math to make me dangerous...

I don't think believing the bible is illogical if this was your game to get me to admit this. I believe that what we do know about the Bible should aligns itself with what we'd expect from a message whose source is God. Pretend for a moment to accept the premise that God exists and He created humanity with a desire to know Him. If you don't believe this then we are arguing another point entirely. In the book 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict', the author states that "if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties: (1)

It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
It would be preserved through time without corruption
It would be completely accurate historically.
It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life."

I agree with Lenny Esposito when he says "The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria. "

[Berter]

I read the two books; Did you read the Coran !?... Believe me, again; When compared, the Bible is to Coran like what the STR is to the GTR*.
-----------
*STR, GTR: Special and General Theories of Relativity

[Adam]

Dear molika

First of all, I hope u appreciate that my intention in speaking about Christianity in the way that I did was not to attack/belittle your beliefs but only in response to false claims of certain pseudo-scholars who, as jews, generally hold very wicked beliefs about people (i.e. Jesus, Mary, the disciples) whom both Muslims and Christians revere greatly.

As for your comments re. Muhammad's prophecies, miracles or an alleged lack thereof, the absence of hate and murder (I think u mean killing as murder is a crime) in Jesus' teachings, etc, then I'm afraid u'r very much mistaken. As for claiming the lack of corruption of the bible then I know all evangelicals believe this as a matter of blind faith but it is certainly disproven by reality.

Evidence can be presented if requested but before I respond with the relevant biblical verses and the like, I'd urge u to carefully consider these two articles linked to below. If u still have any issues after reading them, let me know.

In the meantime, i too wish u success in your search for the truth.

Adam

quran.nu/pdf/PDF.asp?id=Who_is_Allah

quran.nu/pdf/PDF.asp?id=Muhammad_Messenger_of_Allah

[molika]

Adam, I would love to see your answer to my previous question.

And to answer both you and Berter:
"As people who believe in "the Book of God" as the Qur'an calls it, we accept these teachings. Even the Qur'an teaches that one should accept the New Testament teachings. In sura 10:95 it states "If thou wert in doubt As to what We have revealed Unto thee, then ask those Who have been reading The Book from before thee; The truth hath indeed come To thee from thy Lord.7quot; Also, in suras 4:171 and 5:78, the Qur'an states that one should believe the words of Jesus, as He was God's prophet. So I believe Jesus' teachings on His deity."

[alex221166]

First of all, I hope u appreciate that my intention in speaking about Christianity in the way that I did was not to attack/belittle your beliefs but only in response to false claims of certain pseudo-scholars who, as jews, generally hold very wicked beliefs about people (i.e. Jesus, Mary, the disciples) whom both Muslims and Christians revere greatly.

Your "divide and conquer" strategy is so obvious that it becomes completely ridiculous. In case you have been asleep for the past 4 years, most people don't buy that shit anymore. If people like you were more auto-critical and resorted less to the of scapegoats, the world would be a much better place.

Let me guess: to you, the Holocaust was also a Jewish conspiracy, right?

Here: learn with this guy.

bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/

He isn't 100% objective (I saw him make a huge error of judgement concerning the NJ murders, but what the hell), but at least he makes the effort.

If people like you (who accuse people like me of hatemongering) hated others less and worried more about making your own life better and more prosperous, then there would be a lot less bloodshed in the world.

Hey, blame the Jew. By the way, I am not Jewish and I don't have any Jewish ancestors that I know of - but by all means, accuse me or any other person that doesn't buy your fascist propaganda of "Zionism", "racism" or "Islamophobia". We'll take that as a complement.

Incidentally, when you single Jews out to blame them for something, that makes you a racist.

Not to mention that you don't know ANYTHING about the history and the foundations of the Church. If you knew, you would know that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect that wanted solely to reform Judaism and unite Jews. The Church only became anti-semitic AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem when the early Christians wanted to fall on the good side of the Romans and distance themselves from the Jewish rebellion. That is how much (or should I say little) you know.

Less propaganda and more objectivity.

[Brasidas]

Molika, you are either blinded by religion or know very little about the history of Christianity. Only one of those four prerequisites you have posted are true about Christianity today. The one that holds true is the one that says it "needs to be widely distributed". This is so only because of modern technology, but this also holds true for any religion today.

Next, "It would be preserved through time without corruption." There is no form of Christianity that is exactly the same as Christianity when it was first forming in the 1st and 2nd century. The closest 2 would be Greek Orthodoxy and the Egyptian Coptics. These are only somewhat similiar at best. Here are just a few examples of how Christianity has changed continuously over the centuries. Catholocism, Prodestantism, Lutheranism, Evangelicalism, Menenites, Amish, Mormons, Presbyterianism, Methodism, Baptist(a wide variety), Church of Christ, the list goes on and on. Having this many different beliefs in Christianity shows just how many ways the Old and New Testaments have been interpreted(Thus showing how little Christianity has remained the same). If it was "preserved through time" then we wouldn't have all these hundreds of different Christian faiths.

Next, "It would be completely accurate historically." There are many examples that show their are inaccuracies in the stories of the bible. Of course there are examples that have been shown to be accurate, but these are easily explainable as being "stories of the past". This is not something that was divinely inspired. Everyone knows of a story or two about a historical event, and can easily take those stories and turn them into a moral lesson.

Next, "It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time." This one becomes just laughable. Do you mean to tell us that you believe the earth is only 6400 years old(Because that is what many biblical scholars beleive!). Also there were many different religious beleifs at the time the Bible was written. Scientific experimentation, theory and observation were being practiced by the ancient (Pagan) Greeks for 800 years before the advent of Christianity. Also, how is the Bible scientifically accurate and without error?

Next, "It would present true unified answers to the difficult questions of life." True and unified according to whom?? It only gives answers to those people who have devout faith in the Bible, no one else. At the time the Bible was written it was trying to explain things(how things worked and why they happened) to a people who had very little knowledge of science. Today we know much of what it states is scientifically innacurate and impossible, due to our advancement in technology and science. Also if it was truely unifying then there wouldn't be so many religions close to 2000 years later.

Now that this is said, the same goes for Islam and Judaism. We have Sunnis and Shiites and several other sects of Muslims. In Judaism we have the Orthodox and the Reform sects and several others. No religion is exactly the same as it was when it first formed and none ever will. This is just part of human nature. Our minds keep advancing(or at least many do) and our technology improves, etc, etc, so we are always wanting and needing new answers to the old questions, thus providing avenues for religions to be interpreted differently and evolve. After all if you believe in the Old Testament(as all three main religions believe) then you know that God created us in his own image and gave us a mind to question things. He also gave us the ability to advance technologically, thus allowing us to question religion.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a religion, but you do need to question things every now and then. (Which is exactly what God wanted us to do and why he gave us free will and thought).

Once again, we should be more understanding of everyone no matter what they believe.

[Adam]

Alex!

u resurfaced! This is what u do is it: throw out some accusations and when they're refuted/exposed as lies, u throw out some more.

So I guess this is some kind of therapy 4 u? OK. Let us begin (sigh).

Let me guess: to you, the Holocaust was also a Jewish conspiracy, right?

Wrong. the holocaust was a Nazi conspiracy. Mind u, many jews did use the occasion of the attempted genocide of their kinsmen to make great political and monetary gain (see The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein).

If people like you (who accuse people like me of hatemongering) hated others less and worried more about making your own life better and more prosperous, then there would be a lot less bloodshed in the world.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. U'r whole vibe has been about pitting the Christian west against Islam while I have been advocating the exact opposite. And now, all of a sudden, u r pretending to care about the world. Thats cute. But people aren't that stupid u know.

Hey, blame the Jew. By the way, I am not Jewish and I don't have any Jewish ancestors that I know of - but by all means, accuse me or any other person that doesn't buy your fascist propaganda of "Zionism", "racism" or "Islamophobia". We'll take that as a complement.

Incidentally, when you single Jews out to blame them for something, that makes you a racist.

Now heres a case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was!

It was u, not me, who singled out the most right-wing, insular, xenophobic, intolerant, bigoted, racist branch of Jewry for your Islamophobic polemic.

You could have used Russian Communists, Chinese Capitalists, Muslim apologists, Irish Budhhists. You could have used moderate Zionists like Jonathan Sachs, the chief Rabbi of Britain's Jews who is a strong advocate of Jewish-Muslim-Christian understanding and interfaith dialogue. You could have used human-rights advocating Jews from the Left like Noam Chomski.

But instead, YOU singled out the internationally renowned and reviled Spencer-Pipes-L'or-Dershowitz clique of Greater Israelists who advocate the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the persecution of those who oppose them (Muslims, Jews and Christians alike), fanatically support neo-con wars of booty and plunder, and who consistently lie, manipulate and distort the truth to further their own highly-politicised (as opposed to genuinely academic and scholarly) agenda.

So if anyone is guilty of representing the Jews as a homogenous group of "Zionists", "racists" and "Islamophobes", then its U pal. All I'm guilty of is classifying (and hopefully sweeping up) the garbage that u yourself threw out on their behalf.

Not to mention that you don't know ANYTHING about the history and the foundations of the Church.

This bit is really worrisome. I think our friend alex is suffering from scizophrenia. He starts by telling me that I don't know anything about the Church's foundations, proceeds to tell me what HE knows – which ain't all that impressive – and then, when hes done telling us what HE knows, he says:

That is how much (or should I say little) you know.

Err.. no alex. That how much YOU know. I have yet to speak on the matter!

Anyway, as usual, u'r a bit confused. Neither the words "Christianity", "Trinity", or "Bible" are found in the bible.

The first Christians who faithfully followed the disciples of Jesus who were led by his brother, James, were known as Ebionites and Nazarenes. They did not hold Jesus to be divine in anyway shape or form, and saw him as no more than their Messiah and Prophet confirming the Law of Moses (or 'mosaic laws') already with them.

According to Prof. Robert Eisenman (who's a Jew, don't u know?), the man who brought the Dead Sea Scrolls to the masses whilst the Church tried to keep a lid on them, Islam is the heir to that first expression of Christianity.

As for the belief in salvation of mankind through a redeeming Crucifixion of a divine man-God, then this has its origins in the pagan Mithraic tri-god blood-sacrifice cults popular in the Roman Empire of that time. The first to propose such a belief was St Paul who never met Jesus but claimed to be his apostle all the same due to a "vision".

Paul was a persecutor of the first Christians and was hated by Jesus' leading disciples (see Acts). Paul's 'salvation through redemption and belief in the divine christ' theory flew right in the face of the salvation through following the Mosaic law advocated by Jesus and his disciples.

Furthermore, Paul wanted to take his Christianity to the Gentiles while the leading disciples saw this as a deviation from Jesus' way (remember Jesus said: "I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Matthew 15:24)

The only way Paul succeeded in spreading his message to the Gentiles was to incorporate their own polytheistic beliefs into his. As he said: "To the Jew, I became as a Jew. To the Greek, I became as a Greek. I have become all things to all men." (can't remember the ref. off hand but as u claim to know so much…)

As for the Trinity, it was the invention of St Tertullian. The verse which claims that Jesus said: "Go and preach unto all nations; baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-16th century manuscript and thus considered "a pious fraud" (see Peake's commentry of the bible).

I hope u'r paying attention Molika. This is but one verse amongst many thousands that proves the deliberate human distortion of the bible in order to make it read a belief that didn't exist. A real case of "The lying pen of the scribes…" (again, the ref. escapes me)

As for the New Testament bible you have with u now, this was largely the result of the Council of Nicea (325AD as I recall) where those gospels/writings that could have the Greco-Roman inspired sacrificial man-God trinity concept more easily read into them were hailed to be the true Word of God.

Actually, what happened is that there was a great debate raging between the Arians – those who most accurately reflected the monotheistic, mosaic, messianic religion of the first christians - and the polytheistic, crucifixion-centred, man-God believing St Paul loyalists.

The Romans stepped into the fray because the dispute was threatening the unity of their empire with the Arians predominating the Near East (Palestine, Syria and Egypt, etc – precisely where the Prophets, incl. Jesus hailed from and where his disciples lived, taught and died, and now the heartland of Islam – no coincidence at all) and the Trinitarians dominating the classically pagan European part of the Empire.

Overnight the debate was ended as most of the two-thousand different Gospels that the various parties were fighting to have canonized had been burnt while the four we have today (matthew, mark, luke and john) were "miraculously" left unscorched on the table.

Thereafter, the Arians were systematically and brutally persecuted - until the coming of islam, whereupon they became Muslims (not that they weren't following a pre-Muhammadan Islam in the first place).

Incidentally, the Gospel acc. to Luke was first canonized by Marcion and even then only after he seriously edited it. Marcion believed the Old Testament was the work of the Devil while the New Test. he was helping to shape was the true word of God. His belief was based upon the contradictory nature of the two books. The God of the Old Testament, he argued, was a hateful, violent, vengeful God while the God of the New Test. was a human God of love.

Now molika, are u telling me that u believe the Gospel of Luke u have before u, that which was brought to u by Marcion, is the unadulterated Word of God?

Or that the Gospel acc. to John doesn't include a rework of the Aristotelian (or should that be Plato? please correct) theory of the "Logos"?

All four gospels contradict each other and collectively contradict the Old Test. Mathhew, Mark, Luke and John were anonymous names that were later ascribed to the works. The oldest complete bible we have is from the fourth century, the Codes Sianaticus, and that has an extra gospel, the Shepheard of Hermes, which the modern bible does not have - amongst many other serious textual differences.

Remember also that Jesus spoke Aramaic, while the gospels acc. to so and so were written in Greek by men who never once met Jesus and probably wouldn't understand what he saying anyway.

That, in brief, is how the Church was founded.

Less propaganda and more objectivity.

Good boy. The therapy is working at last.

[alex221166]

Dear Adam, you should learn a little something about not boring other posters to death with your long diatribes. When your answer to a line is a whole book, then you make it impossible for anyone with a life outside the internet to respond in a proper manner. Here we go:

u resurfaced! This is what u do is it: throw out some accusations and when they're refuted/exposed as lies, u throw out some more.

Some of your stuff is not worth refuting, it is self-defeating. And time is of the essence.

Wrong. the holocaust was a Nazi conspiracy. Mind u, many jews did use the occasion of the attempted genocide of their kinsmen to make great political and monetary gain (see The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein).

Yes, I know that some Jews made monetary gain. I also know that several Arab leaders had close ties with the Nazis before, during and AFTER WWII. In any case, it is good to see that you are not as delusional as Mahmood Abas who wrote a book about how the Holocaust was a zionist invention.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. U'r whole vibe has been about pitting the Christian west against Islam while I have been advocating the exact opposite. And now, all of a sudden, u r pretending to care about the world. Thats cute. But people aren't that stupid u know.

Unfortunately, people ARE that stupid. That is why it took a war to finish off the Nazis and that is why it will take several wars to finish off militant Islam - and I am not that sure that that will work. I didn't pit the West against Islam. I am not the onespreading hatred and intolerance, calling western women prostitutes ready for the taking or calling western men "the brothers of pigs and apes". I am however, very keen in exposing this sort of behaviour wherever I see it, particularly if it affects in any way my way of life.

It was u, not me, who singled out the most right-wing, insular, xenophobic, intolerant, bigoted, racist branch of Jewry for your Islamophobic polemic.

If have never witnessed any sign of racism or intolerance on the part of Robert Spencer, although the same cannot be said of those who comment on his blog. He has condemned some of those who post extreme views.

Now, as I do have a life, I lack the time to comment on everything you mentioned. I did however, already know about most of what you said thanks to a little book called "The fundamental lies of the Catholic Church" which addresses most - not to say all - of the inconsistencies of the Christian faith (including how Paul perverted most of Christ's teachings).

You are wrong about the Gospels. Luke was Paul's scribe (not an apostle), John was a Greek who met a Jewish rabbi called John the elder (the later met Jesus in person, but was not the same John as John the apostle), Mathew (or Mark, I am not totally sure) was the only one that was an apostle (his original name was Levi).

Yes, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the Gospels (Jesus had at least 7 brothers and sisters and he was probably married with children, like all Jewish males of his days). There are also a lot of inconsistencies in the Old Testament, but guess what? There are even more inconsistencies in the Koran. Frankly I have a bit of a problem trusting a guy who claims to be sent by God, and while divinely inspired, he maintains sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl, rapes several women after having their husbands executed, commands the torture and execution of apostates and the execution of poets who made fun of him. In my book that is not very Godly.

PS: During the Niceia council there was a voting which decided which were the true Gospels. That voting was quite disputed. The stuff about the Holy Ghost inspiring the bishops is obviously folklore, but then again so is the Koran. The issue is that the Gospels teach peace and tolerance while the Koran teaches hatred and aggression.

[Springa]

Oh come on...

molika said:

It would be preserved through time without corruption
It would be completely accurate historically.
It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.

I agree with Lenny Esposito when he says "The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria. "

[molika]

Brasidas, that is faith. Sorry you don't approve.

Adam I am still waiting for an explaination to :"As for your comments re. Muhammad's prophecies, miracles or an alleged lack thereof, the absence of hate and murder (I think u mean killing as murder is a crime) in Jesus' teachings, etc, then I'm afraid u'r very much mistaken."

As for your cut and paste from Muslim apologetics here is my reply...I will extend the same courtesy to you.

For the rest of the forum members I extend my apologies upfront for this long post.

'Trinity' as a word does not appear in the bible, but the concept does: First, we need to know who God is. The Father is called God in the Bible in Matthew 6:26,30. Jesus is called God in Hebrews 1:6 and John 1:1, 14. The Spirit is called God in Acts 5:3-4. All three are classified as God, but we know there is only one God-being. In order for both to be true, He must exist in three persons.

We also look at the attributes that God alone possesses. God is the creator (Genesis 1:1, Job 33:4, Isaiah 40:28). Jesus is called the creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:13,16), and the Spirit is called the creator (Genesis 1:2, Psa. 104:30). We know only God is eternal and the Father is called eternal (Psalm 90:2) Jesus is called eternal (John 1:1-2, John 8:58) and the Spirit is called eternal (Hebrews 9:14).

All the other attributes of God are ascribed to each of the Trinity. They are all considered omnipresent and omniscient. Each has the unique ability to forgive sins; a power that is possessed by God alone. Each is considered sovereign. Each is considered completely righteous. These are God's inherent attributes. They are part of the nature of God, as all humans have a natural desire to survive etc.

Mithraism borrowed from Christianity..."The origin of the cult of Mithra dates from the time that the Hindus and Persians still formed one people, for the god Mithra occurs in the religion and the sacred books of both races, i.e. in the Vedas and in the Avesta. In Vedic hymns he is frequently mentioned and is nearly always coupled with Varuna, but beyond the bare occurrence of his name, little is known of him (Rigveda, III, 59)."1

Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas."2

"Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west (cf. M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God, 1963, p. 76)."3

In fact, Mithraism seems to change drastically from its Persian roots when it becomes a Roman cult. Romans adapted the military cult into something much more comfortable and understandable for their form of worship. Scholars Beard, North and Price agree stating, "The form of the cult most familiar to us, the initiatory cult, does not seem to derive from Persia at all. It is found first in the west, has no significant resemblance to its supposed Persian 'origins', and seems largely to be a western construct." 4

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth - at least during its early stages.... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook.... Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."5

Given all the evidence, the claims that Christianity somehow borrowed from Mithraic beliefs is shown to be unsupported by fact. Many scholars now believe that it is Christianity's increasing popularity that caused a late form of Mithraism to change in order to sound more mainstream. However, at its core, Mithraism remains a pagan form of worship based on a superstitious and primitive worldview.

1 - Arendzen, J.P. . "Mithraism." www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm.

2 - Ulansey, David. "The Cosmic Mysteries of Mithras." revised 1991. www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html.

3 - Yamauchi, Edwin M. . "Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?." March 29, 1974. www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html.

4 - Beard, Mary, John North and Simon Price. Religions of Rome Volume I.
Cambridge university Press. New York NY. 1998 p.279

5 - Yamauchi, loc cit.

[Springa]

If that's faith and therefore not to be argued logically, then ok. It's your legitimate right to believe in it and follow it.
But then do not claim the bible is scientifically and historically accurate, because it isn't. If faith is good enough for you, ok. But you can't really have both. It's either faith or science. Specially in this case.
Also, if faith is enough, what do you need science for, right?

molika said:

Brasidas, that is faith. Sorry you don't approve.

[molika]

Springa,
I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive.
My belief is that the bible is both scientifically and historically accurate. You can have many an arguement with regards to this. Also, there are two ways to look at the bible. Through the world's eyes and through God's, I simply choose the latter. It's your prerogative.

In the world's view a day is a day, to God a day maybe be a day, or a year, or thousands of years. My perception is that the measuring stick the world uses to validate the correctness of the bible is primitive. I believe in a Creator God that is almighty and all-powerful, not one who can or should be judged by man's worldy view.

I would never force you to believe what I believe, just that in everything seek the truth.
Or should I say 'veritas' for my brother Berter.

[Springa]

Molika, the essence of the scientific method is doubt, which is the opposite of faith. Science is based on the fact that it can be changed and proved wrong at any time. Religion is the opposite, it's based on beliefs written in stone and unchangeable, eternal, absolute truth.
The thing about looking through "gods eyes", the way you put it, can justify and just about anything. That's not really compatible with science.
Why not just admit that the people who wrote the bible had no clue about many things but had interesting perspectives on other things?
You whole method of defending your views is anti-scientific. In science, nothing is true "for me", because "I think so" or because "I believe in it". You can't really argue like that. A thesis will be considered true, scientifically speaking, if there's proof to it, or at least substantial evidence to back it up.
Faith and religion, on the other hand, can only be defended subjectively, precisely the opposite. You can't really prove god exists, but you can say you believe in it, that for you it's true, and base it on personal internal experience and feeling. And that's good enough. For religion, but not for science.
So, the two things shouldn't be mixed.

"I believe in a Creator God that is almighty and all-powerful, not one who can or should be judged by man's worldy view."
Exactly, and science is exactly that, the worldly way men has developed throughout the centuries to understand and transform nature and himself. That's why you can't have both. I mean, I can see how you can believe in god and in science (as separate things). But what I don't understand, and frankly, don't believe to be possible is believing the bible is 100% true and believing in science. Also, nowadays nobody gets expelled from Cristendom for not believing in some parts of the bible. You don't have to believe everything to be a Cristian anymore. Just like, as I assume, you don't really believe in the public stoning of prostitutes and disobedient children, you don't really have to believe the world is 6000 years old and so on.

molika said:

Springa,
I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive.
My belief is that the bible is both scientifically and historically accurate. You can have many an arguement with regards to this. Also, there are two ways to look at the bible. Through the world's eyes and through God's, I simply choose the latter. It's your prerogative.

In the world's view a day is a day, to God a day maybe be a day, or a year, or thousands of years. My perception is that the measuring stick the world uses to validate the correctness of the bible is primitive. I believe in a Creator God that is almighty and all-powerful, not one who can or should be judged by man's worldy view.

I would never force you to believe what I believe, just that in everything seek the truth.
Or should I say 'veritas' for my brother Berter.

[molika]

Springa, you might find this paper worth reading...

www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/MethNatHumanBehave.html

[Springa]

Instead of that, please prove me wrong yourself. And I'm not saying this just to dare you, or to compete or anything. I'm just curious about what you have to say.

molika said:

Springa, you might find this paper worth reading...

www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/MethNatHumanBehave.html