What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell

[lukec]

Daystar, could you just clarify- do you believe that the creation myth in the bible is a historical event?

[Daystar]

(1st December 2008 20:50)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(1st December 2008 16:02)Daystar Wrote:  

(1st December 2008 11:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(30th November 2008 16:03)Daystar Wrote:  We are all sinners ...

I'm not.

The Hebrew word for sin is chattath and the Greek is hamartia, in verb form (chatta and hamartano) it means to miss, in the sense of missing a goal, way or mark. At Judges 20:16 chatta is used with a negative to describe the Benjamites who were 'slingers of stones to a hairbreadth and would not miss.' Greek writers often used hamartano referring to spearmen missing his target.

So sin means to miss the mark set by someone. If you are late for work you have sinned against your boss. If you miss your son's birthday party you have sinned against your son.

Given the definition of what sin is and what it means to sin, how is it that you are not a sinner?

I haven't missed anything ... as such I cannot be a sinner.

Kyu

You could have missed the mark . . . Speeding tickets, parking violations, late fees?

---

(1st December 2008 21:10)lukec Wrote:  Daystar, could you just clarify- do you believe that the creation myth in the bible is a historical event?

Do I believe that a myth is an historical event?! Is that what you are asking me?!

Have a little respect for history, sir!

No. Yes.

I believe the Bible's hostorical accuracy is beyond historical reproach and the Genesis account is therefore historical fact!

[CoxRox]

Daystar, I used to think that for all the 'problems' with the Genesis account at least 'the order' of things appearing (created) tallied with science. [/i]Adrian raised an interesting point which til now I've not found an explanation:

Why does the Genesis account have birds appearing BEFORE land animals? Have you any info on this?

[Adrian Hayter]

(1st December 2008 22:50)CoxRox Wrote:  Why does the Genesis account have birds appearing BEFORE land animals? Have you any info on this?

Because it's an inaccurate account that isn't historical. Why is that so hard to accept?

[Daystar]

(1st December 2008 23:45)Adrian Hayter Wrote:  

(1st December 2008 22:50)CoxRox Wrote:  Why does the Genesis account have birds appearing BEFORE land animals? Have you any info on this?

Because it's an inaccurate account that isn't historical. Why is that so hard to accept?

Sorry. I was goofing a bit there for a while because it seems to me such a silly concept. The history of creation! The sequel to prehistory. Am I the only one that sees that as odd?

Lets put it this way. The Bible is the only 'history' on the subject. How you going to argue with that? To say modern science doesn't agree? It is just really too odd for me.

[Daystar]

(1st December 2008 22:50)CoxRox Wrote:  Daystar, I used to think that for all the 'problems' with the Genesis account at least 'the order' of things appearing (created) tallied with science. [/i]Adrian raised an interesting point which til now I've not found an explanation:

Why does the Genesis account have birds appearing BEFORE land animals? Have you any info on this?

The Bible and science just don't agree. I think the problem is that in evolution the scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings and that is a baseless assertion. The fossils of what science calls birde, the Archaeopteryx and Archaeornis showed teeth and a long vertebrated tail but also they were completely feathered, had fully developed wings and feet equipped for perching.

The fact is that there were no intermediate specimens exhibiting scales that developed into feathers of front legs into wings which would support the evolutionary theory.

Reptiles are cold blooded and sluggish, birds are warm blooded and active. As far as I know Dinosaurs are still genrally thought to have
been cold blooded but not as much as before.

For a while it was a puzzle to evolutionist like Lecomte du Noüy as to how warm blooded birds could have come from cold blooded reptiles. He called it "one of the greatest puzzles of evolution" going so far as to say that birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation."

Both reptiles and birds lay eggs but only birds must incubate theirs. They seem to be designed for it. The brood spot in some. For birds to have evolved this instictual building of nests for hatching eggs and feeding the young would have been an impressive task.

For the feather, with its rows of barbs each with barbules and each of thise with hundreds of barbicels and hooklets all coming from the reptilian scales, would also be an amazing task. A cold blooded reptile with scales to a warm blooded bird with remarkable feathers as an insulator? Science fiction.

The gland at the base of the tail which produces oil to condition each feather for some birds and others have special feathers that fray at the tips in order to produce a fine talc like powder for conditioning

The hollow bones of the bird from the solid bones of the reptile, air sacs over the body for cooling, the eyesight of the birds compared to that of reptiles, the four chambered heart compared to the three chambered heart all sounds a bit much for me.

Once not so long ago evolutionists thought Archaeopteryx was a link between reptile and bird but now there are many who don't. Fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow and its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. Not only that but fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period.

[Adrian Hayter]

(2nd December 2008 03:53)Daystar Wrote:  Sorry. I was goofing a bit there for a while because it seems to me such a silly concept. The history of creation! The sequel to prehistory. Am I the only one that sees that as odd?

Lets put it this way. The Bible is the only 'history' on the subject. How you going to argue with that? To say modern science doesn't agree? It is just really too odd for me.

The Bible isn't the only history on the subject. The fossils left behind are also pretty conclusive history of what used to dwell on the planet. I'm also going to argue with the Bible because it was written by men who thought they were writing God's word. It is a faith based account and nothing more. Science doesn't work like that any more; we gather evidence and interpret it the best way we can.

(2nd December 2008 05:19)Daystar Wrote:  The Bible and science just don't agree. I think the problem is that in evolution the scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings and that is a baseless assertion. The fossils of what science calls birde, the Archaeopteryx and Archaeornis showed teeth and a long vertebrated tail but also they were completely feathered, had fully developed wings and feet equipped for perching.

The fact is that there were no intermediate specimens exhibiting scales that developed into feathers of front legs into wings which would support the evolutionary theory.

I agree with you: the Bible and science don't agree. However, to say that the evolution of feathers from scale is a "baseless assertion" is ridiculous. Scientific theories make predictions; it is one of the criteria for proving them. This is a prediction for how feathers might have evolved, and it is based on the fossil record, showing early emergence of feathers on reptiles: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

It might not be the answer, I agree, and that is why there are several other predictions about the feathers, such as dinosaurs developing them for insulation, and then having them later adapt for flight.

Quote:For the feather, with its rows of barbs each with barbules and each of thise with hundreds of barbicels and hooklets all coming from the reptilian scales, would also be an amazing task. A cold blooded reptile with scales to a warm blooded bird with remarkable feathers as an insulator? Science fiction.

If you look at it like that then you are going to call it science fiction. It would be like saying "A single cell to a chimp? Impossible!". Of course, nobody is saying that a single cell turned into a chimp, or that a reptile turned into a bird. We are saying that it was a very very long process (taking hundreds of millions of years) through countless billions of transitional forms.

Quote:Once not so long ago evolutionists thought Archaeopteryx was a link between reptile and bird but now there are many who don't. Fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow and its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. Not only that but fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period.

Indeed, and this is an excellent example of science at work. It made a prediction about a certain feature, and it found out it was wrong, and then corrected it. When was the last time you saw dogma being corrected because it was proved wrong? Never. Science evolves, Dogma "adapts".

[lukec]

Dinosaurs were not reptiles. The common idea in the first half+ or so of the last century is that they were cold blooded, but for the majority that has changed. They are thought to have been at least somewhat social, for example the wrongly named Oviraptor (egg thief) was actually found entombed in a brooding position on her nest, caught in a sandstorm.

As for transitional forms? Archaeopteryx, which you mentioned, is a beautiful one. Like you said, it is dinosaurian in some ways and bird-like in others. Feathers (as you might imagine, don't fossilize all that well, and one of the earliest fossils found of Archaeopteryx was classified as Compsognathus. It had feathers, though, and along with that, only a few features unique to birds; (ie) a reversed big toe, unserrated teeth, and long limbs. Other features which are somewhat bird like have also been found in other theropod dinosaurs (I'm talking about things like the mesotarsal joint, which is shared by pterosaurs, dinosaurs and birds). Truly dinosaurian features are things like teeth, the bony tail etc. Feathers, however, which Archaeopteryx had, have been found on other theropods, as well as the "wishbone," which serves in flight. **Fun fact- birds can be induced to produce teeth- they still have the genes for it.**

Looking at the fossil record, it is actually amazing how many transitional forms we have. Looking at the limbs of (in order) Ornithosuchus, Deinonychus, Ornitholestes, Archaeopteryx, and then a pigeon, there is a clear transition from stocky fingered limbs to wings (This is not the image I’m thinking of but this one here does the same job).

It’s important to remember that fossils are not necessarily directly ancestral, since the fossil record is not perfect (though we are lucky in how much has been, and is being, recovered). They are more often thought of as “cousins” of the actual ancestors. So what is actually believed by most palaeontologists is that archaeopteryx shares a common ancestry with birds. Your claim, though, that evolutionists do not see archaeopteryx in this way is unfounded. Further, I have never once heard of any fossil birds being found in the same strata as Archaeopteryx, do you have any evidence of this?

[leo-rcc]

Daystar: That is pure nonsense.

The first specimen of Archaeopteryx was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany, and it was studied by scientists throughout Europe. Early writers, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, immediately noticed that Archaeopteryx was an intermediate form.

* It had bird characters, feathers and wings.
* It also had reptilian characters, the skeleton of a small theropod (flesh-eating) dinosaur, with a long bony tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.

The role of Archaeopteryx has been debated ever since 1861. Is it really a missing link between reptiles and birds, or is it just a bird and not a missing link at all?

A further seven skeletons have come to light, and all of them confirm that Huxley was correct.


In addition, fantastic new specimens of birds have been found in Spain and China, which are some 30 or 40 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, and they are more bird-like, exactly as an evolutionist predicts.

The new Spanish and Chinese birds have short bony tails, and their hand claws are reduced - they are becoming more bird-like.

The Chinese localities have not only produced amazing new birds, but also new dinosaur specimens with feathers!


These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds. Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird.

Also a nice one to read:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...140418.htm

Quote:Putting more meat on the theory that dinosaurs' closest living relatives are modern-day birds, molecular analysis of a shred of 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex protein -- along with that of 21 modern species -- confirms that dinosaurs share common ancestry with chickens, ostriches, and to a lesser extent, alligators.

[CoxRox]

(1st December 2008 23:45)Adrian Hayter Wrote:  

(1st December 2008 22:50)CoxRox Wrote:  Why does the Genesis account have birds appearing BEFORE land animals? Have you any info on this?

Because it's an inaccurate account that isn't historical. Why is that so hard to accept?

I'm not disagreeing with you Adrian, hence why I asked Daystar.