No, don't throw them all out. Just make sure that you can independently prove whatever claims they make. I hold this true for all books, old and new.

You have one book.

I have a multitude of books that say that the Holocaust happened, that Timothy McVeigh was solely responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, and that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, yet you won't look to them as evidence of anything.

8/28/2006 4:29:37 PM

An obvious, but crucial point...

The Bible is only meant for the descendants of Adam--more specifically, the Israelites, a portion of the descendants of Adam. The Old Testament chiefly concerns the Israelites, as even Judeo-Christians will tell you. But what many fail to realize is that the entire Bible only concerns the Israelites. "Jesus"/Yahshua specifically states that he only came for the Israelites (which makes perfect sense due to the fact that only the Israelites were under the law and needed a "savior").

Matthew 15:22-24: "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Matthew 10:5-6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

The "mainstream" churches try to explain this away by talking about a "spiritual Israel", but this interpretation is incorrrect. From the original scripture, it is clear that these passages (and others using the same original Greek words) are talking about the physical Israelites. By the way, John 3:16 was likely inserted into the Bible much later by a "translator".

8/28/2006 4:39:23 PM

dont start that crap...


"go ye therefore and make disciples"....Jesus died for all people, everywhere...."for God so loved the word....."

and dont go saying that every verse that mentions that jesus came to save the world and all people and that christians should preach the gospel to all people has been misinterpreted

Quote :

"By the way, John 3:16 was likely inserted into the Bible much later by a "translator". "

WHAT!?!?!...come with some proof about that one...not some insane article from thebibleisfalse.com....real proof

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 4:43 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/28/2006 4:42:09 PM

http://www.thebibleisfalse.com haha

8/28/2006 4:48:30 PM

Quote :

"So whatever is the most "mainstream"/popular or has the most "experts" supporting it is correct?"

If you want to know something about a subject, asking the experts in that subject is a good place to start. It's better, anyway, than ignoring them on the basis that they are experts.

8/28/2006 4:51:27 PM

Quote :

"Jesus died for all people, everywhere"

Viewing the Bible in it's entirety, that makes no sense. The Old Testament was all about God's covenant with the physical Israelites. Only the Israelites were under the law and needed a "savior." Using a few fake verses and mistranslated/misinterpreted verses to say otherwise doesn't change that.

8/28/2006 4:52:16 PM

salisburyboy, you are ignoring my challenge. Can you provide any evidence, other than the testimony of an ancient book that the story of Adam and Eve is true?

All of the research that I have done makes it look like a rip off of the Sumerian tale of Enki and Ninti. You could even trace it back to the story of Pandora's Box if you wanted to. Basically every culture has a creation myth that explains where man came from and why there is evil in the world.

8/28/2006 4:54:09 PM

however....the new testement makes in clear that jesus came and died for the entire world....even if you choose to ignore John 3:16


the old testement is, in fact, mostly about the people of israel...however...the new testement is about the redemption of the entire world....

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 4:54 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/28/2006 4:54:20 PM

so salisburyboy let me see if i understand this

you think the bible is absolute truth

yet you dismiss the possibility of things like terrorists causing 9/11, the holocaust happening, man landing on the moon?

8/28/2006 4:55:14 PM

Quote :

"Matthew 28:19a Go therefore and make disciples of all nations"

is that verse false???

Quote :

"Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek"

what about that one??

Quote :

"Psa 117:1 O Praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people"

is that one only speaking to jews??

Quote :

"Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: . . . . {10} And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. "

does this verse say that gentiles will not participate in the salvation that jesus offers??

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 5:03 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/28/2006 4:58:22 PM

He basically picks and chooses the verses that he want to beleive. Otherwise he will chalk it up to being a mistranslation and discard it.

See these gems:

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=389848
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=392028
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=372345

8/28/2006 5:01:58 PM

Quote :

"Rom 4:13-16 KJV) For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. {14} For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: {15} Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. {16} Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all"

doesnt this mean that salvation doesnt just belong to the israelit's?? are you contending that this verse doesnt say that salvation is contingent upon faith and not being jewish??

8/28/2006 5:10:50 PM

Quote :

"Matthew 28:19a Go therefore and make disciples of all nations"

Quote :

"is that verse false???"

Insightful commentary....

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/goyeinto.html

Quote :

"ALL NATIONS The word “nation” is used numerous times in the Bible. At times it is used to identify foreign and/or pagan nations and other times it refers to Israel nations, i.e. the various tribes which had migrated here and there. By the time Jesus began His ministry, Israelites had long since settled areas in Europe, and Asia. ...it will require some in depth study to determine what or who is meant in several instances in which the word is utilized. Just as in the use of the word “world”, we found that it has many meanings and usages. Our challenge is to put the persons or tribes in their proper perspectives with respect to the circumstances under which they are used in the scripture. In Genesis 12:2 we read God’s words to Abram: “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:” And in Genesis 35:11 we find: “And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;”"

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 5:14 PM. Reason : 1]

8/28/2006 5:14:40 PM

salisburyboy, you are ignoring my challenge. Can you provide any evidence, other than the testimony of an ancient book that the story of Adam and Eve is true?

All of the research that I have done makes it look like a rip off of the Sumerian tale of Enki and Ninti. You could even trace it back to the story of Pandora's Box if you wanted to. Basically every culture has a creation myth that explains where man came from and why there is evil in the world.

8/28/2006 5:16:38 PM

this topic is more suitable for verbally debating with Gary the Preacher

8/28/2006 5:16:44 PM

I wonder if salisburyboy consults physicians when he's sick.

8/28/2006 5:31:10 PM

Quote :

" so many vague and half-assed arguments.... My mom is very religious and I obviously am not. I asked that question because whenever she would start preaching God to me- I would just say : "were there dinosaurs in the bible?" "

what do dinosaurs in the Bible have to do with anything? who cares if the Bible mentions dinosaurs?

8/28/2006 5:43:18 PM

ok...salis...respond to the rest of my verses

throughout the bible....the jewish people are referred to the nation of israel...thats "nation"...singular...we all know this

even one of the verses you posted uses the word singularly...

even still...what about my other verses??

8/28/2006 5:56:38 PM

isn't there a tribe in africa that is considered very "pure blooded" and their people have traits of all the races displayed in different people. Some have eyes much like asians, some are very dark others not as dark? I personally think I'm part neanderthal so i'll leave this thread by saying ugh

8/28/2006 6:09:07 PM

well the eithiopians think they have the arch so who knows

8/28/2006 6:18:23 PM

jUrassic Park

8/28/2006 6:32:28 PM

what is a "humans"?

8/28/2006 9:35:55 PM

my religion is better than your religion!!!

8/28/2006 9:57:25 PM

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

8/28/2006 11:29:18 PM

hey salis...what about allllll my other verses?? are those made up too??

8/28/2006 11:39:34 PM

wouldn't the whole race thing be adaptation to climate and what not?

8/29/2006 1:04:20 AM

Quote :

"My point, with respect to Genesis specifically, is not that the original text is incorrect, but rather that the original text has been wrongly translated and wrongly interpreted."

Mainly by you. If a verse says something that supports one of your theories (or more to the point, one from some wacky website) it is 100% undeniably true. You even extend these verses into the arena of speculation where the speculation itself is easily refuted by a myriad of other Bible verses and doctrine. And if someone brings one of these verses or doctrine to your attention? It was a mistranslation or bad interpretation.

I'll take a mistranslation that I can try to interpret myself over your bad interpretation and speculation over things the text don't actually say.

Quote :

"So whatever is the most "mainstream"/popular or has the most "experts" supporting it is correct? Interesting. Never heard that before."

Or contrarily, whatever has the most "radical"/unpopular or has the most "racists" supporting it is correct? Interesting. I've heard that before. Every time you post on here.

8/29/2006 8:08:48 AM

Ok

Look. I know you guys value a level of openness to everything in TWW but this sort of shit really doesnt warrant any sort of discussion. I mean, aside from being rascism vieled behind scientific terminology, the entire post wants to start a discussion about a religous topic which in and of itself is pretty controversial and contrary to scientific belief. If this is ok, then so are discussions about the earth being flat so long as links to random websites talking about the globe-as-a-pancake theory are provided.

Nobody thats a SB regular takes this shit seriously and continued tolerance of this sort of posting will only encourage people to continue writing seizure inducing garbage. If you want to increase the quality of posting in SB, which as of late has actually been pretty decent, then you need to clamp down on posts that clearly belong in sections where assumption reigns over fact.

8/29/2006 10:05:41 AM

All human's did not descend from the first human in ancient greek mythology, or the couple that repopulated the world after the great flood. Why is Noah easier to believe than Deucalion, why is Eve easier than Pandora? The same stories get recycled through older and newer religions than christianity, so why be loyal to 1 version? The great flood is also in the Gilgamesh story and several other religions. You don't need a thread to determine that not everyones descended from Adam or Noah because believing hardline in Noah & Adam doesn't make much sense.

8/29/2006 10:21:17 AM

Quote :

"You don't need a thread to determine that not everyones descended from Adam or Noah because believing hardline in Noah & Adam doesn't make much sense."

Even if you don't believe in the accounts of Adam or Noah, there is still the issue that all "humans" did not descend from ANY common ancestor. That would include the mythical monkeys or missing link or whatever the evolutionists fairy tale believers are saying now. The main point is that the separate human races are not related. They are not family.


On the archeological record and the 2 creation accounts in Genesis...

http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/verboten/vb-02.html

Quote :

"History, science and archeology back up the Bible one hundred percent. Skeletons of Whites, Negroes and Asiatics are far different and easily identifiable. Radioactive tests determine the age of these archeological findings, not to the day or even the year but very close. Skeletons of negroes have been found in the caves of Kilimanjaro and elsewhere dating back some 74,000 years, and Asiatics have been uncovered dating back almost 1,750,000 years ago. However, and this is very important: no trace of a White Man has ever been found over 7,400 years old, which coincides with the Bible and Adam being formed about 5500 B.C."

8/29/2006 12:00:35 PM

I wonder if when his car breaks down he sees a mechanic

I mean, just because their experts doesn't mean they know what they're doing, right?

8/29/2006 12:09:34 PM

Quote :

"That would include the mythical monkeys or missing link or whatever the evolutionists fairy tale believers are saying now."

Can you refute the "fairy tale" of evolution?

Quote :

"On the archeological record and the 2 creation accounts in Genesis..."

You provided one of the worst websites that I have ever seen. It makes scientific claims with no science to back them up. It makes more unsubstantiated claims regrding archeology. It cites nothing except the bible. How can something be scholarly if it is too myopic to look to other sources? I actually clicked your link, read the whole page, and can safely say that it is one of the stupidest websites that you have ever presented as evidence.

By the way:

salisburyboy, you are ignoring my challenge. Can you provide any evidence, other than the testimony of an ancient book that the story of Adam and Eve is true? Why is your theory (supported by one old book) more realistic than the theory of evolution (supported by many books and the entire scientific community)?

8/29/2006 1:07:36 PM

SALIS....please show how all the other verses that i posted are referring only to the ancient israelites...

8/29/2006 1:13:03 PM

This should be posted, nay, embedded in every salisburyboy thread:

http://ccletsitallout.ytmnd.com/

8/31/2006 12:06:29 PM

Back to the central point of the thread....

Does anyone seriously want to argue that the distinct races are all "family", and all came from a common ancestor?

Peddlers of evolution? According to your fairy tale theory, didn't all "humans" come from the same primordial ooze or some monkey? And, therefore, wouldn't you regard all "humans" as related and "family"?

8/31/2006 12:33:06 PM

Quote :

"Does anyone seriously want to argue that the distinct races are all "family", and all came from a common ancestor?"

Not with you.

8/31/2006 12:41:10 PM

Quote :

"Not with you."

If not to me, then why not make your argument to the others reading this thread?

8/31/2006 12:58:30 PM

^ Because doing so would be pointless. The rest of us already know the evidence and found it convincing. It is up to you to present scientific evidence demonstrating that we could not possibly be from the same species. This is your burden of proof, get to it.

And so you realize, your burden of proof is so high only because you are arguing against convention. But indisputable evidence will meet any burden, so don't feel special.

8/31/2006 1:24:18 PM

Quote :

"The rest of us already know the evidence and found it convincing. "

What evidence? The theory of evolution?

8/31/2006 1:54:52 PM

All of science consists of theories as you put it.

The best part is, these theories have much more explanatory power than your worthless Bible (which has zero explanatory power).

8/31/2006 2:06:24 PM

Quote :

"What evidence? "

just shut up and die

99% of all creationists even know the evidence for evolution.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 2:10 PM. Reason : 234]

8/31/2006 2:10:27 PM

Quote :

"just shut up and die"

Why the anger and hostility? Because you have no evidence and cannot support your position?

I ask again, What evidence is there that all humans come from a common ancestor? What evidence?

8/31/2006 2:18:39 PM

Quote :

"Why the anger and hostility?"

becuase youre an idiot.

8/31/2006 2:20:31 PM

What evidence?

8/31/2006 2:32:59 PM

^ Again, you are the oddman out in society. It is up to you to present scientific evidence demonstrating that we could not possibly be from the same species. This is your burden of proof, get to it.

8/31/2006 2:40:34 PM

Quote :

"99% of all creationists even know the evidence for evolution"

Creationists know of the arguments and so-called "evidence" used to support the THEORY of evolution. BUT...they don't believe the theory of evolution is valid. They don't believe there is any genuine and real evidence whatsoever to support the theory.

8/31/2006 2:45:01 PM

So why don't you disprove the theory of evolution and provide some hard evidence for creationism (aside from one really old book)?

Why is creationism more valid a theory than evolution?

8/31/2006 4:07:03 PM

Quote :

"So why don't you disprove the theory of evolution and provide some hard evidence for creationism (aside from one really old book)? Why is creationism more valid a theory than evolution?"

Both of these issues (ie, creationsim/evolution and the issue over the origin of the races) can be sorted out by use of sound logic and reasoning. It only makes logical sense that all of the races could not possilbly have come from a common ancestor (ie, a common set of two parents do not give birth to black, white, and asian babies).

Similarly, it only makes sense that the earth/universe/life was created. Things as complex in design and organization as the universe and living organisms did not appear out of mere chance (just as a watch or an automobile did not come into existance by mere chance but was created/made).

Nevertheless, there is ample evidence in addition to simple logic supporting the creation of the universe. First off, even secular scientists acknowledge that the universe has a certain age (and thus had a "beginning"). This clearly means that something "caused" the universe to come into existance at some point in the past. There is also the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which dictates that the universe tends towards disorder...meaning that the universe could not have existed forever...because if it did it would be at infinite disorder.

8/31/2006 4:32:20 PM

Quote :

"It only makes logical sense that all of the races could not possilbly have come from a common ancestor (ie, a common set of two parents do not give birth to black, white, and asian babies)."

The theory of evolution never states that a common set of two parents gave birth to black, white, and asian babies. You have already demonstrated a clear failure to understand the most basic premises of evolution.

Quote :

"Things as complex in design and organization as the universe and living organisms did not appear out of mere chance (just as a watch or an automobile did not come into existance by mere chance but was created/made)."

Again you have no understanding of evolution. Organisms didn't suddenly come into existance by chance, but slowly formed over millions of years. Watches and automobiles are not biological organisms, so your comparison is useless.

Quote :

"Nevertheless, there is ample evidence in addition to simple logic supporting the creation of the universe."

Regardless, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution versus creationism. Stop trying to sidetrack the discussion after making it apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll ask again:

So why don't you disprove the theory of evolution and provide some hard evidence for creationism (aside from one really old book)?

Why is creationism more valid a theory than evolution?

8/31/2006 4:44:23 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

this should give you some more stuff to argue about.

8/31/2006 6:17:08 PM