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]

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?

---

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?

[Tiberius]

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]

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]

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.

[Tiberius]

[lukec]

[leo-rcc]

[CoxRox]

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.