Science shows that humans are only 6,000 years old (mtDNA)

[Twohandsondeck]

View: https://youtu.be/iWshBFUXYNs


At the timestamp 8:04 (8 minutes and 4 seconds) the presentation is given that based on the evolutionary rate of the mitochondrial clock of women, the first woman lived about 6,000 years ago, which aligns with the written words of the King James Bible.

The first estimation based on the mutation rate of chimpanzees spit out a number between 100,000 and 200,000 years... but later this calculation was corrected using hundreds of human data pieces to bring that number down to 6,000.

Of note, the mitochondrial DNA is only passed down by women, and as it is written in Genesis, the seed of the woman is at war with the seed of the serpent [depopulation agenda anyone?] as ordained by God:

Genesis 3:15
[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
_______________________
God is coming back soon. I pray that we're all on the ark before He does.

Acts 4:10-12
[10] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[11] This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[Blaze]

View: https://youtu.be/iWshBFUXYNs


At the timestamp 8:04 (8 minutes and 4 seconds) the presentation is given that based on the evolutionary rate of the mitochondrial clock of women, the first woman lived about 6,000 years ago, which aligns with the written words of the King James Bible.

The first estimation based on the mutation rate of chimpanzees spit out a number between 100,000 and 200,000 years... but later this calculation was corrected using hundreds of human data pieces to bring that number down to 6,000.

Of note, the mitochondrial DNA is only passed down by women, and as it is written in Genesis, the seed of the woman is at war with the seed of the serpent [depopulation agenda anyone?] as ordained by God:

Genesis 3:15
[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
_______________________
God is coming back soon. I pray that we're all on the ark before He does.

Acts 4:10-12
[10] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[11] This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Waste of time and dubious science from Mattman. While I hesitate to comment in a way that might be mistaken as argumentative, it seems like Christianity which has always rightly been based in faith, is not good enough for many, and so the trap of needing proof through data and human reason is required by those harboring fears and doubt about whether God is real. So we look to prove our preference, a pre existing idea that God and the bible are true, and achieved by selecting only data points that will reinforce our desired view.

The German intellectuals of the 1700's and 1800's loved the Greek philosophers and drawing from that foundation, Emmanuel Kant was a big proponent of this viewpoint, basically teaching that we can only know God through logic and reason. The trap of the old philosophical notion of the Apollonian over the Dionysian or more simply put, reason trumps all , thus invalidating instinct, passion and emotion or any other non reason based human quality which you might employ to understand this existence and God.

Augustine responded saying by just trusting in God, that faith and faith alone was sufficient. My advice to you would be don't get lost in the need to prove or disprove those things. They are unproveable by their very nature. It is enough to pray to a God you can only barely know within your tiny human limits to understand, and trust that he cares and will help you. Data will not satisfy you or comfort you. Nor will apologetics. Never does. Never will. Just pray.

 

[JudiBlueHen]

View: https://youtu.be/iWshBFUXYNs


At the timestamp 8:04 (8 minutes and 4 seconds) the presentation is given that based on the evolutionary rate of the mitochondrial clock of women, the first woman lived about 6,000 years ago, which aligns with the written words of the King James Bible.

The first estimation based on the mutation rate of chimpanzees spit out a number between 100,000 and 200,000 years... but later this calculation was corrected using hundreds of human data pieces to bring that number down to 6,000.

Of note, the mitochondrial DNA is only passed down by women, and as it is written in Genesis, the seed of the woman is at war with the seed of the serpent [depopulation agenda anyone?] as ordained by God:

Genesis 3:15
[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
_______________________
God is coming back soon. I pray that we're all on the ark before He does.

Acts 4:10-12
[10] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[11] This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Than\ks for this. Those who won't or can't believe will always find fault with any of these findings.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

Waste of time and dubious science from Mattman. While I hesitate to comment in a way that might be mistaken as argumentative, it seems like Christianity which has always rightly been based in faith, is not good enough for many, and so the trap of needing proof through data and human reason is required by those harboring fears and doubt about whether God is real. So we look to prove our preference, a pre existing idea that God and the bible are true, and achieved by selecting only data points that will reinforce our desired view.

The German intellectuals of the 1700's and 1800's loved the Greek philosophers and drawing from that foundation, Emmanuel Kant was a big proponent of this viewpoint, basically teaching that we can only know God through logic and reason. The trap of the old philosophical notion of the Apollonian over the Dionysian or more simply put, reason trumps all , thus invalidating instinct, passion and emotion or any other non reason based human quality which you might employ to understand this existence and God.

Augustine responded saying by just trusting in God, that faith and faith alone was sufficient. My advice to you would be don't get lost in the need to prove or disprove those things. They are unproveable by their very nature. It is enough to pray to a God you can only barely know within your tiny human limits to understand, and trust that he cares and will help you. Data will not satisfy you or comfort you. Nor will apologetics. Never does. Never will. Just pray.

1) this post isn't for me, it's for you and everyone else. It's certainly easier for my flesh to sit on my blessed assurance and wait in a cave until God does what He's going to do. It's tragic but understandable that an unbeliever thinks that everything a person does begins and ends with their own self satisfaction. It's not fun to be hissed at, which is a common response of things of this nature.

2) does science suddenly not matter in regard to pointing towards the notion of truth? You're dismissing science here, calling it "selected" on a forum that is chiefly based around interpreting science as a means of improving health aka life aka human experiential consciousness. Flat data about the mutation rates of the mitochondrial clock are "selected" in this instance, but lowering serotonin which leads to less depression isn't? Talk about choosing battles. It's not 66 books of philosophy that were written over several hundred years so that we can just develop a mindset and not interact with our physical world to facilitate life.

Satan would love for you to have a positive outlook of living in a prison cell, by the way. Because logically you're alive and reasonably you have space to walk around.

This is why we are repeatedly warned not to think high-minded of ourselves.

Ecclesiastes 7:16
[16] Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?

Proverbs 16:25-26
[25] There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
[26] He that laboureth laboureth for himself; for his mouth craveth it of him.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
[18] Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
[19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
[20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

1 Corinthians 10:12
[12] Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

 

[Blaze]

1) this post isn't for me, it's for you and everyone else. It's certainly easier for my flesh to sit on my blessed assurance and wait in a cave until God does what He's going to do. It's tragic but understandable that an unbeliever thinks that everything a person does begins and ends with their own self satisfaction. It's not fun to be hissed at, which is a common response of things of this nature.

2) does science suddenly not matter in regard to pointing towards the notion of truth? You're dismissing science here, calling it "selected" on a forum that is chiefly based around interpreting science as a means of improving health aka life aka human experiential consciousness. Flat data about the mutation rates of the mitochondrial clock are "selected" in this instance, but lowering serotonin which leads to less depression isn't? Talk about choosing battles. It's not 66 books of philosophy that were written over several hundred years so that we can just develop a mindset and not interact with our physical world to facilitate life.

Satan would love for you to have a positive outlook of living in a prison cell, by the way. Because logically you're alive and reasonably you have space to walk around.

This is why we are repeatedly warned not to think high-minded of ourselves.

Ecclesiastes 7:16
[16] Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?

Proverbs 16:25-26
[25] There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
[26] He that laboureth laboureth for himself; for his mouth craveth it of him.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
[18] Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
[19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
[20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

1 Corinthians 10:12
[12] Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

That's why I hesitate to respond at all in these matters brother. I worry it will be interpreted as offensive or anti God which I am certainly not. I don't mistreat others, want to build your faith not tear it down, and would never disrespect or hiss at you, I just wanted to make an important point that faith alone is all that is needed and as to your question "does science suddenly not matter in regard to pointing towards the notion of truth?" -it has some very limited value---- these metaphysical things that comprise the mysteries of a faith in God who is completely impossible for any of us to comprehend and know fully and equally impossible to prove or disprove with science. Always will be. These are matters of faith. The early Christian church fathers and then later Luther and Calvin and numerous others, already had ad nauseum, those dialectic battles about using reason and the science of man to augment scripture for those ends, as if scripture some how needs that assist.

I've been down the long road in apologetics and using history and science and whatever else to argue in favor of faith. I found it had limited value and you cannot use science to argue a believer out of his faith and cannot argue someone into faith with science. God has to soften the heart and open it to his ideas. All else is vanity. Been there done that. I do applaud the efforts you make to reach others. It reveals you have a good heart. Be encouraged ,bless your efforts. May you bear much fruit.

 

[Jonnie]

.

 

[sjatte]

why do muricans say "king james bible"
it's called just the bible

 

[Blaze]

why do muricans say "king james bible"
it's called just the bible

Nothing wrong with that. The King James is pretty good. It's just a very popular translation of the many assembled ancient texts they call the "Bible"( which just means the books) and a version that many have a preference for. You must select some translation in your preferred language, though. Unless you are one of those rare gifted individuals who can read the original texts which they were translated from instead. That would be a better option and give you an even better understanding than the translations since translating a word can have a slightly altered contextual meaning or flavor.

 

[Perry Staltic]

why do muricans say "king james bible"
it's called just the bible

There is a mindset that the KJV is more accurate than newer liberalized translations, and therefore the only real bible. Realistically, it has its good and bad qualities. I've gotten to the point where I can't rely on any translation and have to use an interlinear version with dictionaries and concordance in order to understand what it is really saying.

 

[Blaze]

There is a mindset that the KJV is more accurate than newer liberalized translations, and therefore the only real bible. Realistically, it has its good and bad qualities. I've gotten to the point where I can't rely on any translation and have to use an interlinear version with dictionaries and concordance in order to understand what it is really saying.

Well worth the time and effort for the deeper level of understanding you can achieve.

 

[rei]

There is a mindset that the KJV is more accurate than newer liberalized translations, and therefore the only real bible. Realistically, it has its good and bad qualities. I've gotten to the point where I can't rely on any translation and have to use an interlinear version with dictionaries and concordance in order to understand what it is really saying.

You got any example where the KJV is worse than the modern versions?

 

[Blaze]

You got any example where the KJV is worse than the modern versions?

I think his point was that while there is a pre existing possibly even erroneous mindset that the KJV is a more accurate version than newer version translations, all of the translations including the KJV are good, but that for a deeper level of study he feels he cannot rely completely on any of the translations and must explore word meanings further. I don't believe he was speaking ill of any translations.

I am sure that the KJV is probably now as accurate as any translation and that biblical scholars over many years have constantly updated the KJV increasing it's translation accuracy. Most claims about any less than accurate verse translations that people claim are no longer true due to updates.

 

[Perry Staltic]

You got any example where the KJV is worse than the modern versions?

I don't keep up with it, and haven't considered the matter in a very long time, to be able to spout something off the top of my head, but I can show you where the KJV is obviously wrong, i.e., all of the old testament verse quotations in the apostles' new testament writings that don't match the OT KJV, but do match what is written in the septuagint. Another example is Zechariah 14:5 that differs widely in the KJV and septuagint. An abundance of historical, linguistic, geologic, cartographic and other evidence indicates that the septuagint version is authentic.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

Here's a long-winded compilation of why the KJV is the only preserved word of God:

There is only one true, perfect, preserved, living word of God in the English language: the 1611 Authorized King James version.

As a proof, I'll list a few points followed by scripture comparisons between the KJV and the NIV.

> I'm picking on the NIV because it's the most widely used modern translation, carries all the usual flaws, and also selectively calls Paul the Apostle Aramaic (instead of Hebrew) which is a specific nod towards the Catholic church.
__________________________
Point #1 - the KJV is the only English Bible translation which has NO COPYRIGHT on it. That means NO MONEY IS MADE on a King James Bible and also that ANYONE CAN PRINT ONE.

Point #2 - the KJV is the longest standing English translation which has been in print for over 400 years.

Point #3 - there are 2 lines of manuscripts from which all Bible translations come from.

The 1st line is from the region of Syria. There are a total of 5,321 manuscripts which make up 99% of all known manuscripts. All of these manuscripts agree with each other and confirm the same words.

The 2nd line is from the region of Alexandria. There are a mere 45 manuscripts here... And not only do they not agree with the Syrian texts, but they don't even agree with each other. Only a few of these manuscripts are more than a couple of verses in length. Moreover, over 1/3rd of the entire Old Testament in addition to a couple dozen verses from the New Testament are COMPLETELY MISSING from these Alexandrian manuscripts.

*Importantly, the ONLY TRANSLATION THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE today which is translated solely from the Syrian (99%) line is the King James version.
In other words, every other version comes from that line of 45 Alexandrian manuscripts, including the New King James version (NKJV).

Point #4 - it took 54 scholars 7 years to translate the KJV as their full time occupation.
___________________
DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION
God tells us that He will preserve His word and that where the word of a king is, there's power:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV)
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Ecclesiastes 8:4 (KJV)
[4] Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

*This is known as the doctrine of preservation. We have faith that God will preserve His word just like we have faith in everything else, i.e. the virgin birth, miracles that were performed, that every word is inspired by God, etc.
____________________
SATAN'S FIRST WORDS

The first words of the devil were to question what God said:

Genesis 3:1
[1] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
____________________
COMPARING VERSIONS

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)
[12] How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

*This is the only verse in the Bible which names Lucifer. The word, "Lucifer" is not able to be found in most modern translations.

*Secondly, as it is written in the NIV, Lucifer (Satan) is given the title of God by being called "morning star." See:

Revelation 22:16 (KJV)
[16] I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
____________________
1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
[20] O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

1 Timothy 6:20 (NIV)
[20] Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

*"Science" is replaced by "knowledge" in modern translations.
____________________
Mark 9:29 (KJV)
[29] And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Mark 9:29 (NIV)
[29] He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer."

*This is Jesus Christ speaking of a particularly strong demon which His disciples could not cast out. The word "fasting" is omitted from modern translations. I wonder why modern translations don't want people to know how to cast out strong demons?
__________________
Acts 8:37 (KJV)
[37] And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 8:37 (NIV)
-MISSING-

*Believing in Jesus Christ is the most important part of salvation.
___________________
1 John 5:7-8 (KJV)
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:7-8 (NIV)
[7] For there are three that testify:
[8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

*The NIV omits the Holy trinity in verse 7 completely.
__________________
Luke 23:33 (KJV)
[33] And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

Luke 23:33 (NIV)
[33] When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left.

*Modern translations call the place of Christ's crucifixion "the skull" instead of "Calvary".
__________________
Luke 16:23 (KJV)
[23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luke 16:23 (NIV)
[23] In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

*"Hades" replaces "hell" in nearly all modern translations.
__________________
Luke 14:5 (KJV)
[5] And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an **** or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?

Luke 14:5 (NIV)
[5] Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child[a] or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?”

*Is a child a donkey? What happened to the "****" and where did this child come from?
__________________
1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV)
[22] Abstain from all appearance of evil.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (NIV)
[22] reject every kind of evil.

*"Form" or "kind" replace "appearance" in modern translations.
__________________
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV)
[15] Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

*Modern translations replace "study" with phrases like, "be diligent," "make every effort," "hasten to present yourself," or "do your best."
> God wants us to STUDY and RIGHTLY DIVIDE His word.
__________________
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV)
[10] For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV)
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

*"all kinds" replaces "all" in modern translations.
*"a root" replaces "THE root" in modern translations. Maybe it has something to do with the publishers making money on their copyright of their Bible translation?
__________________
1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV)
[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (NIV)
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

*Are we in the process of being saved (NIV) or are we already saved (KJV)?
__________________
2 Timothy 3:3 (KJV)
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

*"Without natural affection" is another way of saying homosexuality and abortion.

> It is natural to lie, smoke, or drink. We tell lies as children and tobacco and liquor are made of natural materials... But it is an act of unnatural affection for the same sex to love one another or for a mother to want to kill her child.

Here is what some other translations replace the words, "without natural affection" with:

NIV - "without love"
NKJV - "unloving"
NLT - "they will be unloving and unforgiving"
NASB - "unloving"
GNT - "they will be unkind"
ESV - "heartless"

This is a 180 degree turn against someone who preaches against homosexuality or abortion. Even though this is one crucial verse which should be used to preach against these heinous actions, when using one of these translations, it is then used against the person who is using the proper translation... Now the proper translation is called 'insensitive, unkind, cold-hearted, unloving,' etc.
___________________
1 Corinthians 13:13 (KJV)
[13] And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

*Modern translations replace "charity" with "love."
The difference is that charity demands action whereas love doesn't. There can be love without charity but not charity without love.
___________________
Acts 26:14 (KJV)
[14] And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Acts 26:14 (NIV)
[14] We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

*"Hebrew" is changed to "Aramaic" in the NIV translation only. The Greek transliteration for this is, "Hebrais," which is unmistakably, "Hebrew," yet the NIV has placed Aramaic.

The NIV replaces "Hebrew" with "Aramaic" in other parts of the New Testament... But the evidence that this was intentional is found in Philippians 3:5 in which Paul states himself to be Hebrew. As you can see, this verse is translated appropriately in the NIV despite the use of "Aramaic" everywhere else:

Philippians 3:5 (KJV)
[5] Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Philippians 3:5 (NIV)
[5] circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;

The reason for this is to underscore an allegiance to the Catholic church.

Matthew 16:18 is where Catholics base their faith that Peter was the first pope, interpreting that Peter is the rock:

Matthew 16:18 (KJV)
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As Christians, we believe that the rock is Jesus Christ, not Peter.

In the Greek, there is a difference between the two words "Peter," and "rock." They are transliterated to Petros and petra, respectively.

However in Aramaic, "Peter" and "rock" are both the same word, "cephas."

Therefore if an Aramaic translation is used, it validates the Catholic belief that Peter is the rock and not Jesus Christ.
____________________
1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV)
[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

*Anyone who is an advocate of modern translations is (almost) never an advocate of just one translation being the unifier of the flock. If someone prefers one modern translation, almost without fail, they will also say that it's acceptable to use any and all translations as they see fit as a means of finding the 'truth' of God.

Yet using multiple translations is the opposite of unity. If God wants us to be unified as one body in Him, we must have faith that His word has been perfectly preserved as He promised it to be (refer to Psalms 12:6-7).
____________________
Proverbs 30:5 (KJV)
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

All books are made up of words. What's pure about the Bible is every word. Every single word.
> Not the intent, ideas, concepts, or anything left to interpretation... The words are pure themselves, not whatever generalized, big picture that is put forth. Every word is perfect because it's God's word.

Psalms 119:89 (KJV)
[89] For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

John 17:17 (KJV)
[17] Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
_____________________
Matthew 5:18 (KJV) [Jesus Christ speaking]
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus Christ is meticulous about His work. Every jot & tittle shall be accounted for. Why would His word be separate from this exactness?
_____________________
John 19:30 (KJV)
[30] When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus Christ finished His work on the cross, which is His testimony, which is written in the Bible. His finished work ought to include the writing of His word as well. Why would we think otherwise? It is finished, He still lives.
_____________________
1 Kings 8:56 (KJV)
[56] Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.

Not one word has failed of His good promise. Seeing as how His word is different across many translations, this means that the different words make different promises. If every single word hasn't failed, then this can only be true of one translation... Because His words (and thereby promises) are not the same from one translation to the next.
_____________________
Revelation 20:12 (KJV)
[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Could you imagine if the words of these accounts by which souls are judged were mistakenly written? For instance, what if someone else murdered a person, but those words were mistakenly written into your account instead of the person who committed murder? If we trust that God keeps a perfect record of the account (book) of our individual lives, why would we think that He would allow the words of His book to be incorrectly written or preserved?
_____________________
There is only one living word of God. To use any other is to use a dead book.

Proverbs 21:16 (KJV)
[16] The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.

Have faith that you are reading THE (not 'a') word of God, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin:

Romans 14:22-23
[22] Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
[23] And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
_____________________
"It's faith that comes up with the idea that God's word has been preserved. It's unbelief that comes up with the idea that we have to reconstruct it. " - Rick Flanders

"...and I am done! [Looks at watch]
And I've got 8:16-- well, no, I've got 8:20... But I've got 8:16... But I've got 8:20--
You know what the problem is?
A man with two watches never really knows what time it is...
And a man with two Bibles never really knows where the word of God is." - Sam Gipp
____________________
Esther 8:8 (KJV)
[8] Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh you, in the king's name, and seal it with the king's ring: for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse.

 

[rei]

I don't keep up with it, and haven't considered the matter in a very long time, to be able to spout something off the top of my head, but I can show you where the KJV is obviously wrong, i.e., all of the old testament verse quotations in the apostles' new testament writings that don't match the OT KJV, but do match what is written in the septuagint. Another example is Zechariah 14:5 that differs widely in the KJV and septuagint. An abundance of historical, linguistic, geologic, cartographic and other evidence indicates that the septuagint version is authentic.

i would love to see that evidence, considering the translation you refer to is for jews. Those are the true christians, right?

Septuagint, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community

Twohandsondeck​

thank you for your effort!

 

[Soren]

So what about the cave paintings that are 44,000 years old? How do you explain that?

 

[Perry Staltic]

i would love to see that evidence, considering the translation you refer to is for jews. Those are the true christians, right?

The whole old testament, no matter the version, was written for the jews. All you have to do is compare the many old testament quotes in the new testamaent that don't match up with the KJV old testament, but do match up with the septuagint.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

I just wanted to make an important point that faith alone is all that is needed

Of course, of course. No debate here.

and as to your question "does science suddenly not matter in regard to pointing towards the notion of truth?" -it has some very limited value-

But it does have value, you understand.

Luke 15:4-7
[4] What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[5] And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
[6] And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
[7] I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

these metaphysical things that comprise the mysteries of a faith in God who is completely impossible for any of us to comprehend and know fully and equally impossible to prove or disprove with science.

Hence proving here and proving there for a notion of faith in the unbeliever. God is not opposed to science, just science falsely so called:

1 Timothy 6:20-21
[20] O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
[21] Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.)

The Webster's 1828 dictionary entry of "science" reads as:

SCI'ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.
A principle in science is a rule in art.
3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.
Science perfects genius.
4. Any art or species of knowledge.
No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.
5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.
[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]

_________________
I also feel compelled to point out my own anecdote of great skepticism for a great length of years. The man who I deem most responsible for leading me to Christ did so by making points from scripture that can be affirmed in modern day. For instance, the Wormwood asteroid (Apophis, MN99942), red heifers being born in Israel, orthodox Jews discussing rebuilding the third temple, Israel miraculously becoming a nation again in 1948 and the fig tree generation, the moving of the capital back to Jerusalem, the number '666' being all over the place + the Microsoft patent with the same signature etc etc... without those things being real and being brought to my attention, there's a high chance that I would have never taken that original leap of faith to give myself wholly to God and discover the Holy Spirit to be not only real, but operant in all of the ways that it has been written He is.

I guess a sign is different than science, but they're both knowledge, right?

I've been down the long road in apologetics and using history and science and whatever else to argue in favor of faith. I found it had limited value and you cannot use science to argue a believer out of his faith and cannot argue someone into faith with science. God has to soften the heart and open it to his ideas. All else is vanity. Been there done that. I do applaud the efforts you make to reach others. It reveals you have a good heart. Be encouraged ,bless your efforts. May you bear much fruit.

I understand your sentiment so deeply it's just about visceral.

Yet, the flesh is weak but the spirit is willing:

Matthew 26:41
[41] Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

May God work fruit out of you, brother!

 

[rei]

The whole old testament, no matter the version, was written for the jews. All you have to do is compare the many old testament quotes in the new testamaent that don't match up with the KJV old testament, but do match up with the septuagint.

i thought they only picked parts from it

 

[Blaze]

[41] Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

May God work fruit out of you, brother!

Thank you brother.