"john bates" <jbates31@tiscali.co.uk>
Re: Is this true or not? 2.
Is this true or not?
Please think, would such a god so powerful be so naive as to believe
his words could be transferred to the minds of his followers through
the use of books? Would a God so powerful, be so stupid as to trust
his words to ignorant men, knowing of the inevitable confusion that
must accompany such a medium?
Hello,
You are underestimating God's abilities. If God really did choose the
written medium to convey His commands etc, then would not such an
all-powerful God easily be able to make sure that the main doctrinal
ideas would be preserved, even among imperfect humans, so as to be
reliable and trustworthy to live one's life by?
And according to scholars who have studied Scriptural texts, that
appears to be the case. The Bible that we have today apparently mostly
represents the original words penned. (if you want the scholarly
references concerning this, just ask) And that is amazing in itself,
considering the amount of copies that have been made, and over so long
a time, and all of this being done by mistake-ridden humans.
Before men wrote the bible less than 2000 years ago there was no
Christian god. Yet humans have been here for a few million years.
Actually, there is no conclusive proof that humans have been around
for "a few million years." The more they seem to study those meager
amounts of fossil evidence of those alleged 'apemen', the more many of
them do not actually appear to be human at all, but rather some type
of ape etc.
For example, even decades ago such 'apemen' were questionable. One
such example were some fossil remains that came to be called
Ramapithecus. And at first it was thought to be the foundation of the
evolution of man. As the New York Times then reported, Ramapithecus
"sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary
tree."*
Then later, more recent fossil finds showed that it more closely
resembles a member of the ape family, than the human family. As the
"New Scientist" said,
"Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line".
Thus most of the early so-called 'apemen' fossil leave a lot for
speculation. But if you find writings, and buildings of some kind, and
art and paintings etc, then there is no question as to the human
aspect of things. And when do all of these types of human evidences
show up in recorded history? Not millions of years BUT SEVERAL
THOUSANDS of years ago. And that is just what the Bible shows the age
of humans to be. Is that just a coincidence? You decide. But it is
clear that human civilization is only thousands of years old. As one
Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W.F. Libby once stated in the
publication "Science":
“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of
two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical
epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock
when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000
years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a
society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather
abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known
accurately.”
Yes, the Bible had it right all along!
*some of the above statements taken from the publication: "Life- How
did it get here? By evolution or by creation?"
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
