On 14 Mar 1999 05:13:08 GMT, "Casey" <casem at pangea.ca> wrote:
>Dear Yang Hu,
> Anyone can make a spelling error in their posting and
>you illustrate this point in your own posting.
> You read the Scriptures too hastily for the verse you cite from
>Deuteronomy says nothing about a rapist marrying the girl that he raped.
>Start back in verse 25, for there God says that the rapist must die.
>Perhaps like most atheists and agnostics so anxious to disprove and
>discredit the Bible, you too treat the Bible too hastily. What or whom
>are you trying to justify?
As I see it, verse 25 talks about killing a rapist of a married woman,
while v.28 says that the rapist of an unmarried female should give her
father $50 silver and marry her "without a possibility of divorce".
Doesn't make too much sense to me! And who is reading "hastily" here?
> If our society headed God's commands in this area and in all others we
>would not have such a sick society where we have little justice, can hardly
>trust our leaders or anyone else, and the list goes on.
> But be careful of your treatment of the Scriptures for Jesus tells you
>that when you stand before him after death you will be judged according to
>every jot and title that He has spoken. False conclusions from hasty
>readings that your friends and colleagues are only too eager to agree with
>will not stand when you meet with God.
Please try to refrain from threats. This discussion is suppose to be
very scientific.
> Be cautious about equating the Bible with Hitler. You are walking on
>thin ice. Hitler's autobiography whose title means' my struggle'was full
>of evolutionary concepts. Hitler seemed to admire the teachings of Ernest
>Haekel. Hitler's campaign to create a superior race and to exterminate
>the Jews was his attempt to help evolution out a bit. The fact that he
>based his theories on evolution has been an embarrassment to evolutionists
>over the years.
>> Also Haekel's theory Ontogeny Recapitulate Phylogeny was
>shown to be a fraud by a jury of his own peers. Some evolutionists today
>including Stephen J. Gould of Harvard point out that this disproven theory
>is still featured in school biology texts. Some abortionists still use
>this discredited theory to justify the torture, mutilation, and murder of
>millions of preborn babies who God says he knew before the world was ever
>created.
Personalities do not really matter. We should leave them alone. No
theory can justify killing people.
> You think that you have discredited the Bible in its claims on
>science such as the supposed 4 legs of locusts. But consider who in the
>past had great respect for the science in the Scriptures:
>Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Kelvin, Faraday, Herschel, and there are countless
>others. One particular case comes to mind in Matthew Maury who is one of
<snap>
What Newton et al has to do with four legged locusts? Is there an
error in Bible or not?
> If there is no evidence for a worldwide flood then ask yourself
>why there are marine fossils at the tops of practically all the major
>mountain ranges around the globe.
As far as I know, mountains were raising throughout the history of
Earth. Therefore, there is no problem with sea fossils on the top of
the mountain.
>Why are their countless numbers of
>fossilized dead things buried all over the world under tons of sedimentary
>rock?
>Why are there many huge densely-packed fossil graveyards, all over the
>world? Why are there countless numbers of mammoths still buried in
>Siberia, some with undigested food in their stomachs.
>If you deal with the data fairly you will have to give some credit to a
>world wide flood. The collection of fossils that lies at the centre of
>the Cambridge U. fossil collection were collected by a creationist
>geologist several centuries ago. Up to one hundred and fifty years ago
>fossils were explained by leading scientists in terms of Noah's flood.
>And God gives us very good details about the flood.
This doesn't contradict the evolution theory, but if you prefer to
invoke the flood to explain it well...
>>But because the evolutionists tell you a story that you agree with and
>doesn't sound like it comes from the Bible you just believe it and don't
>critically think about it. And then like many others you just slam a
>point of view which is a threat to the philosophy that is dear to you.
>>You need to ask yourself why the Egyptian civilization suddenly appeared
>only about five thousand years ago. Why do the major civilizations trace
>their histories back to only three to five thousand years? Why are the
>oldest trees known no more than 4 to 5,000 years old?
Nothing appeared suddenly. Artifacts in Egypt can be traced to 5000
BC. 6000 BC bricks were used in Turkey, primitive agriculture was in
Asia Minor in about 10000 BC. The earliest Japanese pottery is from
10000 BC and Venus of Laussel from 19000 BC.
No trees older than 5000 years, that is before 3000 BC? I do not
believe you! You have to show some evidence!
>One thing that is hardly ever taken into consideration is the age-old
>antipathy to God by mankind that has affected the writing of history, the
>doing of science, and many other cultural activities. Stanley Jaki of
>Chicago U. has said that their is a decided anti-Christian bias among
>historians.
>>Liberal Theologians assert that the Genesis accounts were adapted from the
>Babylonian myths but qualified experts in literature have said that the
>case seems to be the other way around since the Genesis accounts are much
>better written and the Babylonian are very crude. <snap>
Writing skills improve with time. Babylonian's are still older.
>Consider also that the Ancient Chinese have on their pottery symbols
>depicting the Ark of Noah and eight people aboard the Ark. An
>anthropologist has found numerous Chinese symbols depicting numerous
>Biblical concepts. But this is another fact that probably did not make
>its way into your public school education.
Only Ancient Chinese now what they actually depicted on their crocks.
>Consider carefully your sources, Yang. Consider that many theologians
>today do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And many
>evolutionists who are eager to recruit the notions of these theologians are
>themselves atheists and agnostics in the tradition of Darwin, Huxley,
>Lyell, Hutton, and many others.
>>Geoff.
I am not trying to take your beliefs away from you. It is just not a
good idea to mix science and religion together. Try to teach the
facts at school, not your beliefs.
Mikhail
