Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    World population

    I was thinking that we are 7 billion people pluss now on earth, and that we was around 1 billion in 1804, but before that must be just guessing and calculation of free fantasy.
    How can we grow so much now, when i think it was more important before when the earth was without property, and men just wandered here and there. You would probably want to create a big family for protection and help to care of each other, maybe you already would have been born into a big family, it looks like this in the bible history.

    I wonder how much we would be if there wasnt 60 million people dead in the 2. world war.
    In 50 year we have grown 5 billion more people, and on this website, http://geography.about.com/od/obtain...population.htm
    they that the growth will slow down, why, from 2011 til 2083, that is 70 year pluss, we will only grow 3 billion more?

    Im holding on to that Noahs story is true, and that world population comes from them, it would be a more correct graph of population growth.

    Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

    10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
    000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
    000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
    000,000,000.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ions-of-people

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,618

    OK Roberto, but the dinosaurs had to be fed, and that may have cut down on the numbers. You think?
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Hello Roberto

    You raise an interesting point and this will lead to many questions. The same problem will arise for any species of animals and plants and we might ask the question why have we not been overrun by any one species. I expect all manner of explanations will be given to explain why population growth among species has not expanded following growth trends shown by human population.

    The population growth curve follows roughly and exponential curve. This means that for a long period time the population levels remain low but eventually a time limit is reached whereby the population grows exceedingly fast and theoretically the population would have grown to infinity before the time limit was reached. We can come up with all forms of statistics such as you could fit all the people that have ever lived on the Isle of White which goes to show that the earth is quite clearly a very large place for the present amount of people but eventually based on exponential growth there will come a limit to when the earth could not fit the number of people on it and well before that point. the earth would not be able to sustain such a large population. It begs the question, what will happen to the human population if left unchecked?

    I will stay on topic of human population, but in thinking about this subject, a similar consideration might be given to the population of trees during the history of the earth.

    All the best,

    David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,164
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post

    OK Roberto, but the dinosaurs had to be fed, and that may have cut down on the numbers. You think?
    It is beliefved by evolutionists that dinosaurs were extinct by the time humans appeared on earth a few millions years ago. Anyway, I dont believe in the nonsense of human evolution.

    God Blessed.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    I was thinking that we are 7 billion people pluss now on earth, and that we was around 1 billion in 1804, but before that must be just guessing and calculation of free fantasy.
    How can we grow so much now, when i think it was more important before when the earth was without property, and men just wandered here and there. You would probably want to create a big family for protection and help to care of each other, maybe you already would have been born into a big family, it looks like this in the bible history.

    I wonder how much we would be if there wasnt 60 million people dead in the 2. world war.
    In 50 year we have grown 5 billion more people, and on this website, http://geography.about.com/od/obtain...population.htm
    they that the growth will slow down, why, from 2011 til 2083, that is 70 year pluss, we will only grow 3 billion more?

    Im holding on to that Noahs story is true, and that world population comes from them, it would be a more correct graph of population growth.


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ions-of-people
    Hey there Roberto,

    The population growth would slow down if there are massive famines, diseases, natural disasters ... or if people started using birth control more (a much better solution, I would say!).

    The reason the population remained small for so long was because people used to die much more frequently. Things like the industrial revolution, medical revolution, and availability of food are why the population is growing so fast now.

    As for the story of Noah's flood - there are lot's of problems with thinking that really happened. First, there has been no massive extincting of animal life in the last 6000 years. So the story is simply false. Second, it makes no sense to think that the kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the Middle East, rode the ark, and then hopped back. And this is confirmed by the fossil record which shows that the animals all over the planet lived in their present locations for hundreds of thousands of years. And the idea that each species could have repopulated the planet from just one pair is very unlikely. And where did the 40,000 species of ants come from? And all the other species of insects? The story of the flood is pure myth. I can't see any way to avoid this conclusion.

    So are you a Young Earth Creationist? Do you know anything about the science that indicates the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old, the earth about 4.5 billion, and life about 3.5 billion?

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    It is beliefved by evolutionists that dinosaurs were extinct by the time humans appeared on earth a few millions years ago. Anyway, I dont believe in the nonsense of human evolution.

    God Blessed.
    You don't "believe" it because you don't understand a word of it. It's like saying that you don't "believe" in the equations of Einstein's General Relativity:

    Name:  df4.gif
Views: 23
Size:  19.5 KB
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Roberto,

    The population growth would slow down if there are massive famines, diseases, natural disasters ... or if people started using birth control more (a much better solution, I would say!).

    The reason the population remained small for so long was because people used to die much more frequently. Things like the industrial revolution, medical revolution, and availability of food are why the population is growing so fast now.

    As for the story of Noah's flood - there are lot's of problems with thinking that really happened. First, there has been no massive extincting of animal life in the last 6000 years. So the story is simply false. Second, it makes no sense to think that the kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the Middle East, rode the ark, and then hopped back. And this is confirmed by the fossil record which shows that the animals all over the planet lived in their present locations for hundreds of thousands of years. And the idea that each species could have repopulated the planet from just one pair is very unlikely. And where did the 40,000 species of ants come from? And all the other species of insects? The story of the flood is pure myth. I can't see any way to avoid this conclusion.

    So are you a Young Earth Creationist? Do you know anything about the science that indicates the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old, the earth about 4.5 billion, and life about 3.5 billion?

    All the best,

    Richard
    Die much more frequentley, yes, maybe they didnt live their whole life, but most of them would live till they are 30, and till they are 30 they can get maybe up till 15 children that can reproduce again, i would think they have the whole earth for themselves that there wouldnt be lack of food, and that reproducing would be helpful so they can be many to help eachother, this dosent add up if humans lived for even 50,000 years ago, why, do animals survive most of their lifetime, and humans shouldnt?
    At the time humans supposedley was like animals, but they werent animals.
    They had a big earth where they could reproduce and not get affected of others diseases.

    And if you believe the bible, Noah and the people there would live very long to reproduce very many people, the animals would be around and reproduce like a big farm, and they would take many animals with them and spread around the earth.
    It would be harder to understand a 6000 year without the flood when we can find sea fossils on mount everest now, but with a global flood its easy to carv out even grand canyon.
    You say there is no massinstinction 4400 years ago as you lived at that time, but ther was definetly a mass instinction, it just needs to be million of years ago, as you can imagine millions of years ago better and the see the fish crawl from the ocean to be another animal, for so go to the sea again and be a seacreature again.

    The 40000 ants, many insects can survive this global flood thats described in the bible without being in the ark. And put all different dogs in one place, and those different dogs will become way more number of different dogs, thats how animals can be so rich in difference.
    But take the animals that clearley is not related to eachother in looks, a bear and a horse, then that wouldnt be much animals, thats why i can think that bible story can stand, and about 13,7 billion lightyears out, God is clearley a force that is faster then light.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Die much more frequentley, yes, maybe they didnt live their whole life, but most of them would live till they are 30, and till they are 30 they can get maybe up till 15 children that can reproduce again, i would think they have the whole earth for themselves that there wouldnt be lack of food, and that reproducing would be helpful so they can be many to help eachother, this dosent add up if humans lived for even 50,000 years ago, why, do animals survive most of their lifetime, and humans shouldnt?
    At the time humans supposedley was like animals, but they werent animals.
    They had a big earth where they could reproduce and not get affected of others diseases.
    It seems that you have forgotten the many factors that limit population growth. Throughout all history, till just a hundred years ago, there were many diseases that would kill massive numbers of people. Smallpox, the plague (Black Death), tuberculosis, malaria, etc., etc., etc. And there were infectious diseases that we now cure with antibiotics that were quite deadly. And both child and mother often died in childbirth. And famines were much worse because there was no mass food production and distribution like our modern times. The list goes on and on. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the current population indicates a young earth. Your argument fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    And if you believe the bible, Noah and the people there would live very long to reproduce very many people, the animals would be around and reproduce like a big farm, and they would take many animals with them and spread around the earth.
    It would be harder to understand a 6000 year without the flood when we can find sea fossils on mount everest now, but with a global flood its easy to carv out even grand canyon.
    You say there is no massinstinction 4400 years ago as you lived at that time, but ther was definetly a mass instinction, it just needs to be million of years ago, as you can imagine millions of years ago better and the see the fish crawl from the ocean to be another animal, for so go to the sea again and be a seacreature again.
    The sea fossils on the mountain tops are from plate tectonics which pushes the mountains up over a span of millions of years. That's why the fossils are millions of years old.

    And a global flood is impossible because the ice-cores from the poles prove the snow layers go back hundreds of thousands of years. This proves two things. 1) The earth is at least 150,000 years old (though of course we know it is really about 4.5 billion years old) and 2) the poles were never covered by a flood. Therefore, both Young Earth Creationism and the story of Noah's Flood are false.

    As for the Grand Canyon - why would you think it wasn't formed by natural slow erosion?

    There were many mass extinctions. But none in recent history required by the flood story. There are many ways to prove this. The most obvious is this: Where did all the animals on the little islands found in all the oceans come from? Many are unique to the island on which they live. How did they get there after the flood? And why are they unique to their own island?

    The real question is "If evolution is false, why did God make it look like everything evolved?"

    The age of the fossils is not determined by "need." That's how religious people think. They begin with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and then look for facts to support their preconceived notions. This is the opposite of science which begins with the facts and seeks to find the best conclusion.

    Name:  science-vs-religion1.png
Views: 23
Size:  117.8 KB


    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    The 40000 ants, many insects can survive this global flood thats described in the bible without being in the ark. And put all different dogs in one place, and those different dogs will become way more number of different dogs, thats how animals can be so rich in difference.
    But take the animals that clearley is not related to eachother in looks, a bear and a horse, then that wouldnt be much animals, thats why i can think that bible story can stand, and about 13,7 billion lightyears out, God is clearley a force that is faster then light.
    So you think ants could survive the flood? Where did you get that idea? I thought it was a little more "catastrophic" than that. You need to be a little more scientific. Go outside and find a bunch of ants. Put them in a jar and fill the jar with water. Keep them in the jar for a couple days and report how many survived. I'm pretty sure the answer will be zero. Then consider that the flood lasted over a year. Your solution will not work.

    Your solutions would never convince anyone who knows about the real history and workings of the physical world. Sorry.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It seems that you have forgotten the many factors that limit population growth. Throughout all history, till just a hundred years ago, there were many diseases that would kill massive numbers of people. Smallpox, the plague (Black Death), tuberculosis, malaria, etc., etc., etc. And there were infectious diseases that we now cure with antibiotics that were quite deadly. And both child and mother often died in childbirth. And famines were much worse because there was no mass food production and distribution like our modern times. The list goes on and on. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the current population indicates a young earth. Your argument fails.
    Oh, so my argument fails mr.god? Stupid saying, thats all. It seems that you are thinking from now and 1000 years back of famines, you cant think more back than that? They were living over all earth, they had massive places to fill the earth, if diseases happened, they would simply leave those who were infected to not spread to the whole community, So that humans have lived for 50,000 years or more is an argument that fails, because population growth factors that just put in so much death that population grows only 1,0000000000000000001% for 100,000 years is plain stupid. This is an assumption from the theory that life is 4 billion years old, and we are accused for using the words of the bible to come up with our assumptions, you are just the same.
    You say that God kills so many in the bible, well, your theory of evolution kills 300 billion in diseases and childbirths and so on
    The evolutionist may object and say that the rate has drastically accelerated only in recent centuries. So, let us consider that the "normal" growth was such as to produce only the earth's population as it was at the time of Christ, about 200 million people. This is the oldest date for which anyone has even a reasonable guess as to the population.

    The value of c necessary to give 200 million people in 25,000 generations can be calculated as 1.0007 and the corresponding number of people who had lived and died in that period would still be over 300 billion.
    http://www.ldolphin.org/morris.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The sea fossils on the mountain tops are from plate tectonics which pushes the mountains up over a span of millions of years. That's why the fossils are millions of years old.

    And a global flood is impossible because the ice-cores from the poles prove the snow layers go back hundreds of thousands of years. This proves two things. 1) The earth is at least 150,000 years old (though of course we know it is really about 4.5 billion years old) and 2) the poles were never covered by a flood. Therefore, both Young Earth Creationism and the story of Noah's Flood are false.

    As for the Grand Canyon - why would you think it wasn't formed by natural slow erosion?

    There were many mass extinctions. But none in recent history required by the flood story. There are many ways to prove this. The most obvious is this: Where did all the animals on the little islands found in all the oceans come from? Many are unique to the island on which they live. How did they get there after the flood? And why are they unique to their own island?

    The real question is "If evolution is false, why did God make it look like everything evolved?"

    The age of the fossils is not determined by "need." That's how religious people think. They begin with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and then look for facts to support their preconceived notions. This is the opposite of science which begins with the facts and seeks to find the best conclusion.
    You say there were many mass instiction like you lived at that time, you cant even think 2000 year back, you think that this femines and diseases that we had from now and 1000 years back, happened all the time before 1000 years ago.

    I know about plate tectonics, its only just movement thats still shakes from the global flood, and we have a big scar tissue from when the fountains burst from underneath, the mid atlantic ocean rigde.

    This ice core dating i think is a failed theory of dating, they have page up and page down when you read about it in creationist sites, you would think that somewhere they would not have answers.
    They even found a 2.world war plane so deep in the ice core, that it looks like it chrased there many thousand years ago. And even now scientist are stumbled over the fast melting of the poles, it is because they dont know the right equilibrium. Its not that evolution looks 4 billion years old, that is just mens thinking. Evolution happens, but it happened faster 4400 years ago untill species that couldnt mate with eachother gathered in places far from species that could. A early species of animals that looks like eachother, for example the donkey and the horse, when those species lived close toghether for example after the flood, And humans took them with them on their journey the fill the earth again, and the animals adapted from there on, for example that animal in Australia that only feeds from the eucalyptus tree. Evene a human being can be so addicted to something like smoke, that when they smoke that everyday, and one day decides to quit, they die.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So you think ants could survive the flood? Where did you get that idea? I thought it was a little more "catastrophic" than that. You need to be a little more scientific. Go outside and find a bunch of ants. Put them in a jar and fill the jar with water. Keep them in the jar for a couple days and report how many survived. I'm pretty sure the answer will be zero. Then consider that the flood lasted over a year. Your solution will not work.

    Your solutions would never convince anyone who knows about the real history and workings of the physical world. Sorry.
    Why can insects survive a local flood, in the middle of the flood?
    So many ants and insects colony that could have been, they could have been rescued by something silly as a big rock landing over their colony, protecting them from being drown, some insect can go so low underground that a flood wont reach them. You must think that God exists so that he could had have his hands over animals and insects he wanted to survive and evolve. He even shut the door to the ark, its so good symbolic bulilding of the ark to be their saviour, like Jesus, but you never heard such preaching. I suggest you buy some Joseph Prince teachings.
    Since creationist have for my logical thinking, many answers against evolution of 4 billion years, putting God in the equation, something people believing in 4 billion years dosent do to come up with their answers.
    It works for me to still believe the bible and the most important as God told Peter on the mount of transfiguration when Peter wanted to make Jesus equal to the law and the prophets, God said Hear Him, and you know what Him means.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Oh, so my argument fails mr.god? Stupid saying, thats all. It seems that you are thinking from now and 1000 years back of famines, you cant think more back than that? They were living over all earth, they had massive places to fill the earth, if diseases happened, they would simply leave those who were infected to not spread to the whole community, So that humans have lived for 50,000 years or more is an argument that fails, because population growth factors that just put in so much death that population grows only 1,0000000000000000001% for 100,000 years is plain stupid. This is an assumption from the theory that life is 4 billion years old, and we are accused for using the words of the bible to come up with our assumptions, you are just the same.
    Hey there Roberto,

    It's pretty silly for you to imply that I think I am "god" merely because I said that your argument failed. Such an assertion is blatantly irrational because you said the same thing about my argument. Does this mean that you think you are "god." Let's drop the silly talk, shall we?

    And where did you get the idea I was thinking only about the last 1000 years? The reasons for slow population growth in history is easy to understand. It was always a big struggle to survive before the huge advances made in the last century. The fact that you don't understand this makes your arguments look "plain stupid" (to use your words).

    And people were not "living over all the earth." Humans migrated to the Americas only about 20,000 years ago.

    And the fact that there were natural limitations on human populations is not an "assumption from the theory that life is 4 billion years old." It is based on logic and facts. This is the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists base their conclusions on evidence whereas creationists base their conclusions on highly questionable interpretations of an ancient religious text which devout believers can't even agree upon! And there's no way for your to know if your interpretations are correct because all you have to work with are words, words, and more words. This is why there have been fundamental disagreements amongst Christians that have lasted for 2000 years with no resolution. For you to suggest there is any kind of equivalence between science and religious dogma is absurd in the extreme.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    You say that God kills so many in the bible, well, your theory of evolution kills 300 billion in diseases and childbirths and so on
    A scientific theory is not an agent that goes about "doing" things. Your comparison is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    You've got to quit reading creationist literature. It will ruin your mind. The argument on that page is easy to refute. If it were true, there should be quadrillions of rabbits on the planet after only 4000 years since they reproduce much more quickly than humans. Why aren't there quadrillions of rabbits? Because there are natural forces that balance the rabbit population (predation, disease, famine). Pretty simple stuff. The fact that they missed such an elementary point demonstrates (yet again) how religious dogmas destroy rationality.

    And worse, the OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE contradicts the idea of a young earth. Most creationists won't admit this, but the fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson, a professor of Science and Religion at Biola University, did admit the truth when he wrote this in J.P. Moreland’s “Three Views on Creation and Evolution”:
    “Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidence for a recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns.”
    So why would you choose to believe things that are obviously false? Doesn't this contradict the idea that Christ is the truth? If you can't get your facts straight about simple things that can be strongly supported by evidence like the age of the earth, how could you have any confidence in the Biblical dogmas (like faith) that cannot be proven by anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    You say there were many mass instiction like you lived at that time, you cant even think 2000 year back, you think that this femines and diseases that we had from now and 1000 years back, happened all the time before 1000 years ago.
    Again, where did you get the idea I wasn't thinking further back than a 1000 years? I never said anything like that.

    But you are correct that I think famines and diseases go back as far as the history of humanity. And why do I think that? It's what logic and facts tell me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    I know about plate tectonics, its only just movement thats still shakes from the global flood, and we have a big scar tissue from when the fountains burst from underneath, the mid atlantic ocean rigde.

    This ice core dating i think is a failed theory of dating, they have page up and page down when you read about it in creationist sites, you would think that somewhere they would not have answers.
    They even found a 2.world war plane so deep in the ice core, that it looks like it chrased there many thousand years ago. And even now scientist are stumbled over the fast melting of the poles, it is because they dont know the right equilibrium. Its not that evolution looks 4 billion years old, that is just mens thinking. Evolution happens, but it happened faster 4400 years ago untill species that couldnt mate with eachother gathered in places far from species that could. A early species of animals that looks like eachother, for example the donkey and the horse, when those species lived close toghether for example after the flood, And humans took them with them on their journey the fill the earth again, and the animals adapted from there on, for example that animal in Australia that only feeds from the eucalyptus tree. Evene a human being can be so addicted to something like smoke, that when they smoke that everyday, and one day decides to quit, they die.
    If the things you said were true, they could be proven with evidence and scientists would agree.

    And where did you get the idea that people who quit smoking die? I've never heard that. Please provide a link supporting that idea.

    Your assertion that the age of the earth is not really 4 billion years contradicts a massive amount of evidence. Merely saying "it ain't so" doesn't work. Do you actually know any REAL SCIENCE supporting that idea or do you just read the creationist propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Why can insects survive a local flood, in the middle of the flood?
    I thought you were talking about a global flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    So many ants and insects colony that could have been, they could have been rescued by something silly as a big rock landing over their colony, protecting them from being drown, some insect can go so low underground that a flood wont reach them. You must think that God exists so that he could had have his hands over animals and insects he wanted to survive and evolve.
    The BIBLE says:
    Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
    The words "every living substance" and "creeping things" includes the ants. This is what blows my mind. Your entire anti-science world view is based on your private interpretation of the Bible and when I prove it contradicts reality you ignore what the Bible says and make up ridiculous ideas that directly contradict what the Bible actually says. This is what all creationists do and this is one of the many reasons why creationists claims are so obviously false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    He even shut the door to the ark, its so good symbolic bulilding of the ark to be their saviour, like Jesus, but you never heard such preaching. I suggest you buy some Joseph Prince teachings.
    I have heard such preaching for years. Why would you so freely make such false assertions about me? You don't know what I've heard or not heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Since creationist have for my logical thinking, many answers against evolution of 4 billion years, putting God in the equation, something people believing in 4 billion years dosent do to come up with their answers.
    Your "logical thinking" is far from logical. The creationist arguments have all been refuted long ago. They are, for the most part, simply ridiculous. You can easily confirm this by checking the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    It works for me to still believe the bible and the most important as God told Peter on the mount of transfiguration when Peter wanted to make Jesus equal to the law and the prophets, God said Hear Him, and you know what Him means.
    It's fine if you want to believe the Bible. The only problem is if it causes you to believe things about reality that are obviously false.

    As for Peter - he was not trying to make Jesus equal to the law and the prophets. On the contrary, Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) appeared to bear witness of Christ, just like Paul said:
    Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God (Christ) without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
    And this is confirmed in John:
    John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
    And again by Christ himself:
    Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •