Is there a god?

[Humorme]

You want to criticize the Bible and can't even spell the word Ark.

The Bible is true. It's just as accurate as any source you rely on. The problem is, the Bible was limited by the number of words in the Greek and Hebrew language that could not be directly translated directly into another language.

Add to that, the Bible was written to, for, and about a specific people. The Bible only acknowledges preadamites, for example. It gives no details about them. But, science, history and the Bible all agree on their existence.

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

 

[Taz]

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

 

[Humorme]

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

I believe in the Book; I just don't need someone who wants to apply their personal opinions and interpretations as the final say.

One thing is obvious to most who would read this. You are an American and probably not too old. You only speak a single language which tells us the reason you cannot understand that the word day as described in the Bible may not refer to your time reference. Many concepts don't translate well. For example there are no equal equivalents for the movie title Top Gun. The closet they could come in Israel was Love in the Skies.

No goalposts are being changed; nobody is cherry picking. I'm applying common sense, reading the entire Bible and allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. You're attempting to take every word literally when, in fact, not all the words - and even sentences can be directly interpreted word for word as you want to believe.

Even in English, you cannot differentiate between the concept of earth and planet. And your disbelief in a concept fails to prove it.


New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

 

[onefour1]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

 

[Taz]

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

I believe in the Book; I just don't need someone who wants to apply their personal opinions and interpretations as the final say.

One thing is obvious to most who would read this. You are an American and probably not too old. You only speak a single language which tells us the reason you cannot understand that the word day as described in the Bible may not refer to your time reference. Many concepts don't translate well. For example there are no equal equivalents for the movie title Top Gun. The closet they could come in Israel was Love in the Skies.

No goalposts are being changed; nobody is cherry picking. I'm applying common sense, reading the entire Bible and allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. You're attempting to take every word literally when, in fact, not all the words - and even sentences can be directly interpreted word for word as you want to believe.

Even in English, you cannot differentiate between the concept of earth and planet. And your disbelief in a concept fails to prove it.


New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

Yes, I agree that there was no worldwide flood and that it was probably based on a more regional flood, if on anything at all.

"so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh."" People for centuries believed that this was true, and some still do today. But since science has dispelled a lot of these as myths, mostly everyone started to move the goalposts. Which is ok, it has to be done, the world wasn't made in 6 days either... So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

 

[Taz]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

 

[Humorme]

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

I believe in the Book; I just don't need someone who wants to apply their personal opinions and interpretations as the final say.

One thing is obvious to most who would read this. You are an American and probably not too old. You only speak a single language which tells us the reason you cannot understand that the word day as described in the Bible may not refer to your time reference. Many concepts don't translate well. For example there are no equal equivalents for the movie title Top Gun. The closet they could come in Israel was Love in the Skies.

No goalposts are being changed; nobody is cherry picking. I'm applying common sense, reading the entire Bible and allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. You're attempting to take every word literally when, in fact, not all the words - and even sentences can be directly interpreted word for word as you want to believe.

Even in English, you cannot differentiate between the concept of earth and planet. And your disbelief in a concept fails to prove it.


New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

Yes, I agree that there was no worldwide flood and that it was probably based on a more regional flood, if on anything at all.

"so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh."" People for centuries believed that this was true, and some still do today. But since science has dispelled a lot of these as myths, mostly everyone started to move the goalposts. Which is ok, it has to be done, the world wasn't made in 6 days either... So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

You start out with a lot of false presuppositions. Science continues to confirm the stories of the Bible. Science just doesn't confirm the facts as you want to interpret the story. And you are prejudiced against the Bible so that you don't think that the Bible can interpret its own meaning as opposed to the one you want to ascribe to it.

NOBODY moved any goal posts - except you. The Bible most assuredly does not say that the world was created in 6 of the twenty four days as you continue to say.

If you cannot understand that the word day in its original wording was simply an increment of time, that is on you and does not dispel any portion of the Bible.

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Here is an article explaining it (albeit not completely accurate since the author confuses Jews with Israelites.) But, it is great teaching tool for those who refuse to accept the authorship of the Pentateuch:

Did Moses Write Genesis?

 

[hobelim]

So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

Maybe you should try another approach other than punching holes in the stories?

The OT is called the Torah, instruction. When reading it try to learn what the instruction is. The NT is called the Good news. Try to learn what the good news is.

Yes, the bible is just a book of books.

If you were given an assignment by a teacher to write a book report on the story of the Pied Piper, would you submit a report with one sentence that says there is no proof that he ever existed?

If you did you would fail, right?

Any questions?

 

[Humorme]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

What proof do you have that the Bible verses you don't like are inaccurate? What proof do you have that the word "day" is not as has been described, but an increment of time and not a 24 hour day as you insist?

So basically your argument boils down to that the Bible is a lot of myths because some concepts could not be translated from the original languages into literal English as you understand it?

 

[hobelim]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

What proof do you have that the Bible verses you don't like are inaccurate? What proof do you have that the word "day" is not as has been described, but an increment of time and not a 24 hour day as you insist?

So basically your argument boils down to that the Bible is a lot of myths because some concepts could not be translated from the original languages into literal English as you understand it?

The bible is a vast field of wild words under which treasure is buried and hidden.

Every contradiction, every claim the offends the logic and reasoning abilities of a child is intentional like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden..

If a person does not apply their mind to dig deeply at those clearly defined places in that field to find that which was hidden, they will never learn the instruction of the Torah or hear the good news of the Gospels..


The kingdom of heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..


Can you dig it?


The problems with the stories that Taz sees and is stymied by are really there and are there specifically to stymie and divert people like Taz whose only aim is derision


"So he drove the man out and to the east of Eden he placed the cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns in very direction, to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[Humorme]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

What proof do you have that the Bible verses you don't like are inaccurate? What proof do you have that the word "day" is not as has been described, but an increment of time and not a 24 hour day as you insist?

So basically your argument boils down to that the Bible is a lot of myths because some concepts could not be translated from the original languages into literal English as you understand it?

The bible is a vast field of wild words under which treasure is buried and hidden.

Every contradiction, every claim the offends the logic and reasoning abilities of a child is intentional like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden..

If a person does not apply their mind to dig deeply at those clearly defined places in that field to find that which was hidden, they will never learn the instruction of the Torah or hear the good news of the Gospels..


The kingdom of heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..


Can you dig it?


The problems with the stories that Taz sees and is stymied by are really there and there are there specifically to stymie and divert people like Taz whose only aim is derision


"So he drove the man out and to the east of Eden he placed the cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns in very direction, to guard the way to the tree of life.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25 : 2

All I can say is God believes in you even when you don't believe in Him. If skeptics were honest with themselves, they would study the Bible for themselves, without any preconceived opinions, and not taking the word of man until they could prove the Bible by using said Bible to interpret its own meanings.

I've shown (as have others) that the Bible does not make any claim that a day is the same 24 hour day as we know it. And several have used the Bible to prove the point. What about the promises and the prophecies? There is a lot more in the Bible besides the story of Noah.

 

[hobelim]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

What proof do you have that the Bible verses you don't like are inaccurate? What proof do you have that the word "day" is not as has been described, but an increment of time and not a 24 hour day as you insist?

So basically your argument boils down to that the Bible is a lot of myths because some concepts could not be translated from the original languages into literal English as you understand it?

The bible is a vast field of wild words under which treasure is buried and hidden.

Every contradiction, every claim the offends the logic and reasoning abilities of a child is intentional like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden..

If a person does not apply their mind to dig deeply at those clearly defined places in that field to find that which was hidden, they will never learn the instruction of the Torah or hear the good news of the Gospels..


The kingdom of heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..


Can you dig it?


The problems with the stories that Taz sees and is stymied by are really there and there are there specifically to stymie and divert people like Taz whose only aim is derision


"So he drove the man out and to the east of Eden he placed the cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns in very direction, to guard the way to the tree of life.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25 : 2

All I can say is God believes in you even when you don't believe in Him. If skeptics were honest with themselves, they would study the Bible for themselves, without any preconceived opinions, and not taking the word of man until they could prove the Bible by using said Bible to interpret its own meanings.

I've shown (as have others) that the Bible does not make any claim that a day is the same 24 hour day as we know it. And several have used the Bible to prove the point. What about the promises and the prophecies? There is a lot more in the Bible besides the story of Noah.

exactly. Like I said, the problems with the stories that Taz sees and is stymied by are really there and are there specifically to stymie and divert people like Taz whose only aim is derision.

Thats why he can't get past his questions about kangaroos...lol


"So he drove the man out and to the east of Eden he placed the cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns in very direction, to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[Taz]

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

I believe in the Book; I just don't need someone who wants to apply their personal opinions and interpretations as the final say.

One thing is obvious to most who would read this. You are an American and probably not too old. You only speak a single language which tells us the reason you cannot understand that the word day as described in the Bible may not refer to your time reference. Many concepts don't translate well. For example there are no equal equivalents for the movie title Top Gun. The closet they could come in Israel was Love in the Skies.

No goalposts are being changed; nobody is cherry picking. I'm applying common sense, reading the entire Bible and allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. You're attempting to take every word literally when, in fact, not all the words - and even sentences can be directly interpreted word for word as you want to believe.

Even in English, you cannot differentiate between the concept of earth and planet. And your disbelief in a concept fails to prove it.


New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

Yes, I agree that there was no worldwide flood and that it was probably based on a more regional flood, if on anything at all.

"so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh."" People for centuries believed that this was true, and some still do today. But since science has dispelled a lot of these as myths, mostly everyone started to move the goalposts. Which is ok, it has to be done, the world wasn't made in 6 days either... So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

You start out with a lot of false presuppositions. Science continues to confirm the stories of the Bible. Science just doesn't confirm the facts as you want to interpret the story. And you are prejudiced against the Bible so that you don't think that the Bible can interpret its own meaning as opposed to the one you want to ascribe to it.

NOBODY moved any goal posts - except you. The Bible most assuredly does not say that the world was created in 6 of the twenty four days as you continue to say.

If you cannot understand that the word day in its original wording was simply an increment of time, that is on you and does not dispel any portion of the Bible.

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Here is an article explaining it (albeit not completely accurate since the author confuses Jews with Israelites.) But, it is great teaching tool for those who refuse to accept the authorship of the Pentateuch:

Did Moses Write Genesis?

What big events in the bible has science confirmed?

No proof Moses wrote anything, even your link says that.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are you being serious, or just facetious? HOW ELSE WOULD IT EXPRESS ITSELF? Furthermore, it was not God who expressed himself through a book. God expressed himself through men, and commanded men to write an account of said expression. Therefore, the Bible, Koran, Torah, and all other religious documents are, at most, man's interpretation of God's will. Are you really so uneducated as to not understand that?

Is god so lame that he can't express himself directly to me, and that I can only get in touch with him through a 2000 year old book of non-stop nonsense not in evidence written by people who were so primitive that they hadn't even been able to invent toilet paper at that time? Do you understand THAT?

If that is your understanding, then you really do not understand the teachings as I know them. I am not inclined to attempt to explain them to you, as you seem to have utter contempt of the idea, and therefore I see it as an exercise in futility.

I understand the teachings, apparently better than you do. There is no geologic proof for a worldwide flood that lasted 40 days and drowned nearly everyone on earth. How do you explain that?

Media Narrative by Those Who Were Even More Careless About Accuracy

Perhaps the Flood represents the extermination of the subhuman Neanderthal predators. Or the mass destruction caused by the global warming at the end of the Ice Age. "Forty days" probably represents only the tail end of what those who passed on the story actually witnessed.

And 6 days for god means something else... ya, it's hard to discuss god with theists-of-the-bible who don't believe any of the stories of the bible except the ones they want to. Cherry-picking for Jesus!!!

He's Making a List and Checking It Twice

Not exactly "something else." Theists can use Postmodern Quantum Quackery to say that God can accelerate the processes of time. Again, those who want children to believe in Santa Claus would use that Time Is Relative fallacy to account for how he could visit almost a billion children's houses in one night.

 

[hobelim]

Is god so lame that he can't express himself directly to me, and that I can only get in touch with him through a 2000 year old book of non-stop nonsense not in evidence written by people who were so primitive that they hadn't even been able to invent toilet paper at that time? Do you understand THAT?

If that is your understanding, then you really do not understand the teachings as I know them. I am not inclined to attempt to explain them to you, as you seem to have utter contempt of the idea, and therefore I see it as an exercise in futility.

I understand the teachings, apparently better than you do. There is no geologic proof for a worldwide flood that lasted 40 days and drowned nearly everyone on earth. How do you explain that?

Media Narrative by Those Who Were Even More Careless About Accuracy

Perhaps the Flood represents the extermination of the subhuman Neanderthal predators. Or the mass destruction caused by the global warming at the end of the Ice Age. "Forty days" probably represents only the tail end of what those who passed on the story actually witnessed.

And 6 days for god means something else... ya, it's hard to discuss god with theists-of-the-bible who don't believe any of the stories of the bible except the ones they want to. Cherry-picking for Jesus!!!

He's Making a List and Checking It Twice

Not exactly "something else." Theists can use Postmodern Quantum Quackery to say that God can accelerate the processes of time. Again, those who want children to believe in Santa Claus would use that Time Is Relative fallacy to account for how he could visit almost a billion children's houses in one night.

Excuuuse me? How is Time is Relative a fallacy?

Why do you consider the fact that stories intended for instruction convey teaching not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used postmodern quantum quackery? lol..

I agree that to claim that every word is literally true is obstinate stupidity, but isn't claiming that there is nothing of value there the exact same thing?

So scientific facts disprove the stories in scripture. Whoop di doo and congratulations.

Scientific facts only disprove what scripture is not and never was about. Everything from the creation of heaven and earth, to talking serpents, the fall of man, and the resurrection of the dead.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

I believe in the Book; I just don't need someone who wants to apply their personal opinions and interpretations as the final say.

One thing is obvious to most who would read this. You are an American and probably not too old. You only speak a single language which tells us the reason you cannot understand that the word day as described in the Bible may not refer to your time reference. Many concepts don't translate well. For example there are no equal equivalents for the movie title Top Gun. The closet they could come in Israel was Love in the Skies.

No goalposts are being changed; nobody is cherry picking. I'm applying common sense, reading the entire Bible and allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. You're attempting to take every word literally when, in fact, not all the words - and even sentences can be directly interpreted word for word as you want to believe.

Even in English, you cannot differentiate between the concept of earth and planet. And your disbelief in a concept fails to prove it.


New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

Yes, I agree that there was no worldwide flood and that it was probably based on a more regional flood, if on anything at all.

"so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh."" People for centuries believed that this was true, and some still do today. But since science has dispelled a lot of these as myths, mostly everyone started to move the goalposts. Which is ok, it has to be done, the world wasn't made in 6 days either... So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

You start out with a lot of false presuppositions. Science continues to confirm the stories of the Bible. Science just doesn't confirm the facts as you want to interpret the story. And you are prejudiced against the Bible so that you don't think that the Bible can interpret its own meaning as opposed to the one you want to ascribe to it.

NOBODY moved any goal posts - except you. The Bible most assuredly does not say that the world was created in 6 of the twenty four days as you continue to say.

If you cannot understand that the word day in its original wording was simply an increment of time, that is on you and does not dispel any portion of the Bible.

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Here is an article explaining it (albeit not completely accurate since the author confuses Jews with Israelites.) But, it is great teaching tool for those who refuse to accept the authorship of the Pentateuch:

Did Moses Write Genesis?

What big events in the bible has science confirmed?

No proof Moses wrote anything, even your link says that.

Faith Is What Made the Dark Ages Dark

Pushy Christian fanatics are so dishonest that when archaeologists discovered the remains of some of the long-lost towns mentioned in the Bible, they claimed that was proof that everything the Bible says happened at those sites must also be true.

 

[hobelim]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

I believe in the Book; I just don't need someone who wants to apply their personal opinions and interpretations as the final say.

One thing is obvious to most who would read this. You are an American and probably not too old. You only speak a single language which tells us the reason you cannot understand that the word day as described in the Bible may not refer to your time reference. Many concepts don't translate well. For example there are no equal equivalents for the movie title Top Gun. The closet they could come in Israel was Love in the Skies.

No goalposts are being changed; nobody is cherry picking. I'm applying common sense, reading the entire Bible and allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. You're attempting to take every word literally when, in fact, not all the words - and even sentences can be directly interpreted word for word as you want to believe.

Even in English, you cannot differentiate between the concept of earth and planet. And your disbelief in a concept fails to prove it.


New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

Yes, I agree that there was no worldwide flood and that it was probably based on a more regional flood, if on anything at all.

"so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh."" People for centuries believed that this was true, and some still do today. But since science has dispelled a lot of these as myths, mostly everyone started to move the goalposts. Which is ok, it has to be done, the world wasn't made in 6 days either... So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

You start out with a lot of false presuppositions. Science continues to confirm the stories of the Bible. Science just doesn't confirm the facts as you want to interpret the story. And you are prejudiced against the Bible so that you don't think that the Bible can interpret its own meaning as opposed to the one you want to ascribe to it.

NOBODY moved any goal posts - except you. The Bible most assuredly does not say that the world was created in 6 of the twenty four days as you continue to say.

If you cannot understand that the word day in its original wording was simply an increment of time, that is on you and does not dispel any portion of the Bible.

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Here is an article explaining it (albeit not completely accurate since the author confuses Jews with Israelites.) But, it is great teaching tool for those who refuse to accept the authorship of the Pentateuch:

Did Moses Write Genesis?

What big events in the bible has science confirmed?

No proof Moses wrote anything, even your link says that.

Faith Is What Made the Dark Ages Dark

Pushy Christian fanatics are so dishonest that when archaeologists discovered the remains of some of the long-lost towns mentioned in the Bible, they claimed that was proof that everything the Bible says happened at those sites must also be true.

Relax dude. Taz is just pissed off at God because the big bad wolf ate grandma.

 

[Taz]

So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

Maybe you should try another approach other than punching holes in the stories?

The OT is called the Torah, instruction. When reading it try to learn what the instruction is. The NT is called the Good news. Try to learn what the good news is.

Yes, the bible is just a book of books.

If you were given an assignment by a teacher to write a book report on the story of the Pied Piper, would you submit a report with one sentence that says there is no proof that he ever existed?

If you did you would fail, right?

Any questions?

I have a question, can you stay on topic? I said if you don’t believe the stories in the bible, doesn’t the rest off it become suspect as well?

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

What proof do you have that the Bible verses you don't like are inaccurate? What proof do you have that the word "day" is not as has been described, but an increment of time and not a 24 hour day as you insist?

So basically your argument boils down to that the Bible is a lot of myths because some concepts could not be translated from the original languages into literal English as you understand it?

I would say that at this point, the bible is all hearsay, and none of the big things in it can be proven. So much so, that now people are arguing over whether a day meant a day, or that god would have needed 1000 years instead to accomplish what He did in each day. And it goes on and on... And the parts quoting Jesus have been dated to no earlier than several generations after the facts, and that's only an earliest fragment, most of it is dated centuries after Jesus was to have lived. So if the goalposts are been moved around as people see fit, it just seems ludicrous to cherry-pick some parts and say that they were true, without any real proof, and change the meaning of other parts because they don't fit your own narrative.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So you're saying that those resulting mega-tsunamis, as they called them, were the basis for the flood story? If they were in the Indian ocean, they wouldn't have impacted that side of the Middle East. And did some guy make a huge boat before hand and round up all the local animals? Or is that made up?

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

So you're saying that those resulting mega-tsunamis, as they called them, were the basis for the flood story? If they were in the Indian ocean, they wouldn't have impacted that side of the Middle East. And did some guy make a huge boat before hand and round up all the local animals? Or is that made up?

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

So none of the bible stories are actually true.

Arc of the covenant never existed, no proof, so another myth.

You want to criticize the Bible and can't even spell the word Ark.

The Bible is true. It's just as accurate as any source you rely on. The problem is, the Bible was limited by the number of words in the Greek and Hebrew language that could not be directly translated directly into another language.

Add to that, the Bible was written to, for, and about a specific people. The Bible only acknowledges preadamites, for example. It gives no details about them. But, science, history and the Bible all agree on their existence.

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

The Blowjobbers' Bible

So God created Adam and Eve in the Middle East, but He created Adam and Steve in what is today San Francisco.

 

[Humorme]

No, that is a ridiculous argument. You don't even believe that yourself.

For example, in Matthew 7: 6 it reads:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you"

WHY would you cast your pearls before swine? Most people recognize that this is a metaphor. Even if you didn't, a quick check on the meaning of the word swine would lead you the chaldee language to understand it better. The word "swine" is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as:

"a thicket of men, a crowd - a multitude."

Could it be that this verse of Scripture is talking about not wasting time on groups of people that will only belittle and demean you for sharing the wisdom of the Word of God? Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, there is no way a dog or a swine can "rend" you. The word rend means to divide you. Again using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find another way to interpret rend.

"Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence!" ( Isaiah 64:1-2 )

A multitude of nonbelievers would divide those who are trying to share the Word of God with them. And isn't the point of most of these non-believer v. believer threads done for exactly that purpose? Don't you think that non-believers are trying to divide the believers? Why else have the conversation if not to try and convert the believers into doubters?

And so, it is not cherry picking as it to looking at the context of a Scripture, defining the words, and applying the correct principles.

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

I believe in the Book; I just don't need someone who wants to apply their personal opinions and interpretations as the final say.

One thing is obvious to most who would read this. You are an American and probably not too old. You only speak a single language which tells us the reason you cannot understand that the word day as described in the Bible may not refer to your time reference. Many concepts don't translate well. For example there are no equal equivalents for the movie title Top Gun. The closet they could come in Israel was Love in the Skies.

No goalposts are being changed; nobody is cherry picking. I'm applying common sense, reading the entire Bible and allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. You're attempting to take every word literally when, in fact, not all the words - and even sentences can be directly interpreted word for word as you want to believe.

Even in English, you cannot differentiate between the concept of earth and planet. And your disbelief in a concept fails to prove it.


New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood Happened

Yes, I agree that there was no worldwide flood and that it was probably based on a more regional flood, if on anything at all.

"so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh."" People for centuries believed that this was true, and some still do today. But since science has dispelled a lot of these as myths, mostly everyone started to move the goalposts. Which is ok, it has to be done, the world wasn't made in 6 days either... So what I'm asking is if we're discovering that large swaths of the bible can't be true, how does what people are quoting Jesus as saying not become suspect as well? I know, you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, which is ludicrous. But nobody was following Jesus around writing it all done, and the earliest texts are dated to several generations after the facts, to me it just doesn't seem all that credible.

You start out with a lot of false presuppositions. Science continues to confirm the stories of the Bible. Science just doesn't confirm the facts as you want to interpret the story. And you are prejudiced against the Bible so that you don't think that the Bible can interpret its own meaning as opposed to the one you want to ascribe to it.

NOBODY moved any goal posts - except you. The Bible most assuredly does not say that the world was created in 6 of the twenty four days as you continue to say.

If you cannot understand that the word day in its original wording was simply an increment of time, that is on you and does not dispel any portion of the Bible.

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Here is an article explaining it (albeit not completely accurate since the author confuses Jews with Israelites.) But, it is great teaching tool for those who refuse to accept the authorship of the Pentateuch:

Did Moses Write Genesis?

What big events in the bible has science confirmed?

No proof Moses wrote anything, even your link says that.

Posted a link that scientists did prove the Noah and the Ark story.

As per your request:

Authorship of the Pentateuch | Evidence Unseen

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

So none of the bible stories are actually true.

Arc of the covenant never existed, no proof, so another myth.

You want to criticize the Bible and can't even spell the word Ark.

The Bible is true. It's just as accurate as any source you rely on. The problem is, the Bible was limited by the number of words in the Greek and Hebrew language that could not be directly translated directly into another language.

Add to that, the Bible was written to, for, and about a specific people. The Bible only acknowledges preadamites, for example. It gives no details about them. But, science, history and the Bible all agree on their existence.

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

The Blowjobbers' Bible

So God created Adam and Eve in the Middle East, but He created Adam and Steve in what is today San Francisco.

I'd say the blame for San Fran Freako should rest on the shoulders of the nonbelievers who caused God to abandon that modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.