The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old
Testament, only controlled and condoned.
Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant with God
the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time he
entered the scene.
One famous scholar once said. "The Old Testament is in the New Testament
revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed."
There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the
completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is really
the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan
Babylon.
Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's
teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old
Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New
Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as
literal truth.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of
his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in
the Old Testament.
From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to
rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those
flaws.
The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.
In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety
violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old
covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age.
Cheers: axil
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Fair enough.
Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it.
There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the retrograde
acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ. That is the
mark of a real teacher.
The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other
than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I think you are
confusing this with how islam treats women.
You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special
circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call these
retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify it.
Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of
studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of
things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith
for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement
that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science.
The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true
scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with
objectivity to see it.
The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim that the
Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts. The
Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of
over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round.
The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet.
In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system
using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will tell that the Bible is
correct again and again.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the
error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually
true and must be believed as written.
You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.
This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in
its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as
property.
Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all
human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.
Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error
exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume
that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like
errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me.
Cheers: Axil
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up "evolution" to preserve
and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone all
the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to
stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in
its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment. And
how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life.
My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called
microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution
theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a
species can "evolve" into another species. It's this whole nonsense of "Tree
of life" that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a
problem with.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”
Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say
what God’s plan of creation is?
Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would
setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and
protect life from the whims of the universe.
Cheers: Axil
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk>
wrote:
My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours
each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA
sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo
sapiens.
This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved'
from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand
as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss
the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process,
and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many
unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible
that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian
Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and
relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture.
Ditto Darwinian evolution.
Nigel
On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Axil, I think you mentioned this before.
The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?
Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.
For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there
are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We
don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.
People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first
assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory
springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We can
not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in
chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of
Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning.
The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called
"Junk DNA" are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.
During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken
changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.
Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always
confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that
automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is
occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo
