Now. This is what YOUR scientific Brain men says. Are you smarter than both Newton and Anderson?
In II Peter 2, verses 1 and 2, it says that there are going to be teachers who mock the teaching of Jesus Christ dying for our sins. I Corinthians 15, verses 3 and 4 says Christ died for our sins, he was buried and he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. Now, if the resurrection is just symbolical, then the death must be symbolical. His death was literal. His resurrection is literal. If you don't keep the resurrection, you cannot go to heaven and that is Romans chapter 10, verses 9 and 10. You must accept the literal bodily resurrection of Christ.
Taking the bible literally, it was Sir Isaac Newton and today he's claimed by the scientists of the world to be the greatest mind scientifically to ever exist in history, said just before Christ returns, ministers will mock the idea of a literal Bible. And Sir Anderson who did the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 said the same thing. They will mock the literal interpretation of the Holy Word of God. Stick to it and believe what it says literally.
2006-07-19 17:49:50 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
We all do agree. Right?
2006-07-19 18:03:53 · update #1
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Stay away from the people who push science over God creating the world etc.
2006-07-19 17:54:29 · answer #1 · answered by Carol M 5 · 2⤊ 10⤋
Actually the Bible backs science quite a bit, things like "God hung the Earth upon Nothing" and "He made the Earth a circle" and "He placed the Earth around the Sun" and "the flood waters fell upon the earth and came out of the depths" and so so many others. In no way does the Bible disrespect science. Also in the first 5 books of the Bible, 3,000 years ahead of the 20th century, God laid out to the nation of Israel, while they were still wandering in the Desert the laws of hygiene, like move the sick away from the healthy, wash your hands after dealing with unhealthy and unclean animals, do not touch food after touching something dead, etc. THESE RULES WOULD NOT BE PASSED AGAIN UNTIL THE 1950'S AND 1960'S and then in America where Hygiene in Hospitals was becoming paramount.
Think on this ONE THING for your symbol of resurrection. Christ resurrected 2 people BEFORE he died, right? Lazarus' and the daughter of the man who came out to meet him. Now both of these people had been dead for some time and were smelling and the people of the house did not want him contaminated with their corpses and their oders, yet Christ said they were "only sleeping" and went in and "woke" them up and said to "feed" them. (John 11 and Luke 8:41-56). Right?
Okay, here's the question! At (Acts 26:23) it says: "that the Christ was to suffer and as the first to be resurrected from the dead, etc." and at (Colossians 1:18 it says, "and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things." So if Jesus WAS THE FIRST RAISED FROM THE DEAD, WHERE WERE LAZARUS AND THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS?
Easy, they were in the 'common grave of mankind' asleep until gods kingdom returns to earth. As it says "Hallowed be thy name, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven" HOWEVER, Christ was resurrected to HEAVEN, the FIRST to be done so as the Bible tells us above!
2006-07-20 01:13:48 · answer #2 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He was religious because he was raised in a world where it was frowned upon to not believe that. Also so what? Newton was a genious beyond comparison, but that was still just the belief of one man, no scientific analysis (even by Newton) could prove there is a God. And I'd still use his research as a reason to not believe in God, what he discovered is FACT, if an atheist had discovered it it would be the same FACT, that's what a fact is, always the same no matter who discovered or believed it.
2006-07-20 00:57:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's clear to me that you're trying to preach us here. This is not a Sunday Service Mr.Mister. It's Yahoo! Answers.
And you have to keep in mind that Sir Anderson and Newton might've said all of this because of the time period they were in. If they refuted the Bible, THE BIBLE for heaven's sakes, especially when THEY were alive, God knows what could've happened to them.
And the Bible says that it's okay for fathers to sell their daughters into slavery, along with a few other nonsensical, outdated things. If you want to take that statement literally, be my guest.
2006-07-20 01:09:37 · answer #4 · answered by Prodigy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YOU must accept that the bible was written over and over again and scribes re-wrote parts, not all is entirely true.
Many people on here can and will prove you wrong, but how can you blame them? They like to think for themselves rather than obey a book. Dont get all preachy, I'm a catholic, but i still have a mind of my own. God gave it to me for a reason, same for you.
Dont try to push your religion upon faceless names on Yahoo! Answers. You are only making yourself, and your religion, look ignorant. If someone wants to read the bible, they will.... they WONT bother to read your long & boring question, which isnt actually a question rather a pointless rant that will in the end get you nowhere.
Thank you, have a pleasant day.. You have made mind such, for reading this, made me laugh. I wish you well and i hope that ignorance you bestow does not get you introuble.
2006-07-20 00:58:00 · answer #5 · answered by dapperflapper 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this is not a question, if you want to preach or prove some point which is no matter what in
able to be proved in philosophy, which is what religion is primarily based on then you need to preach to an audience who asked for it. this is not the place. besides, the literal interpretation of the word of god is just that an interpretation, what someone interpreted it to be, which alot of this interpretation was lost in translation from Hebrew to English. ask a real question
2006-07-20 01:00:21 · answer #6 · answered by kknpz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religion has it's beliefs and Science has it's beliefs.
The difference is, Science constantly tries to find out the truth, disproving itself if needed, in order to find the truth. Hence we have scientific innovations.
Religion, on the other hand, believes it already knows the truth, and is no longer set on validating or refuting what it presently believes. Just look at what happened to Galileo.
Because of this difference, Religion is much slower in changing it's views, although it slowly and eventually does.
2006-07-20 01:00:12 · answer #7 · answered by dinocruz53 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well yea that what science is. Its crap loaded onto more crap to make crap make more sense. Sorta like religion except a better version that doesn't require the sacrificing of lives of innocents. I don't think definition says science is the perfect religion or even a religion. It just data being passed down over time and, it gets more improved also. It doesn't require kneelism either.
2006-07-20 01:50:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Didn't scientists once believe that the earth was flat? The Bible disagreed with them- Isaiah 40:22
2006-07-20 00:51:41 · answer #9 · answered by johnusmaximus1 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
God uses the very ones who we don't notice to predict the future-A scientist. Great info!
Shalom
2006-07-21 01:39:14 · answer #10 · answered by Pashur 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes and if you stick to what it says literally in the bible plant life existed on earth before the sun.
the fact is I have read what you have posted before you dont take the Bible literally you slant it to suit what you want
2006-07-20 01:02:37 · answer #11 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋