What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gary Higgins

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 1,473)

Showing posts 29,441 - 29,460 of32,855
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30837
Apr 6, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus speaks with women of another tribe.
..which, technically, is not against any law given to Moses. All the prohibitions about disassociation with Gentiles began after Israel's release from the Babylonian captivity.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

When our anointed Savior blessed the Samaritan woman, this was a foreshadow of what was to occur.
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus touches lepers.
..which, also, is not prohibited in the law given to Moses. I mean, yes. People became unclean, themselves, if they came in contact with a leper, or anything the leper touched, but it wasn't a sin. Our anointed Savior, also, did what was necessary, showing that even the sick deserve love and compassion, and that not everyone sick was judged by "God". If they were, they couldn't be healed.
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus fails many times to keep the Law of Moses as it is written.
Well, hopefully, I've demonstrated that your perception is a wrong one, from the answers I've provided in this post. Even when he allowed his apostles to pick corn on the Sabbath, he picked none, himself. During those moments, though, he proved that necessity overshadowed adherence.
WasteWater wrote:
You are hair splitting about covenants. God makes a covenant with Noah yet you deny it.
I denied nothing. Reading the text, we can see that the covenant was between Father and every living thing on earth. All I said, though, was that the covenant with Noah and every living thing was different than the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Call it "splitting hairs" if you want, but it is what it is. Father is Father and that's the way it is. That's why I quoted a verse that proves that Father would make promises by His own name, because there was none greater to swear by.
WasteWater wrote:
What kind of sadistic God would do such a thing as with Abraham? Such a God is unworthy of worship.
It's sad that you feel that way considering that Father stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided them an animal to sacrifice. It's also sad, too, that you feel that way considering that when it came to His own son, Father didn't withhold him from us, knowing that it was imperative that a substitute pay the price for our sins, and only a substitute that identifies with us identically. And you call the same "God" "sadistic."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30838
Apr 6, 2013
 
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>..which, technically, is not against any law given to Moses. All the prohibitions about disassociation with Gentiles began after Israel's release from the Babylonian captivity. And this disassociation wasn't encouraged by Father.
Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
When our anointed Savior blessed the Samaritan woman, this was
<quoted text>..which, also, is not prohibited in the law given to Moses. I mean, yes. People became unclean, themselves, if they came in contact with a leper, or anything the leper touched, but it wasn't a sin. Our anointed Savior, also, did what was necessary, showing that even the sick deserve love and compassion, and that not everyone sick was judged by "God". If they were, they couldn't be healed.
<quoted text>Well, hopefully, I've demonstrated that your perception is a wrong one, from the answers I've provided in this post. Even when he allowed his apostles to pick corn on the Sabbath, he picked none. And even then, he proved that necessity gave allowance.
<quoted text>I denied nothing. Reading the text, we can see that the covenant was between Father and every living thing on earth. All I said, though, was that the covenant with Noah and every living thing was different than the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Call it "splitting hairs" if you want, but it is what it is.
<quoted text>It's sad that you feel that way considering that Father stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided them an animal to sacrifice. It's also sad, too, that you feel that way considering that when it came to His own son, Father didn't withhold him from us, knowing that it was imperative that a substitute pay the price for our sins, and only a substitute that identifies with us identically. And you call the same "God" "sadistic."
I don't think it is sad at all. I believe it is a teaching story about faith. It never actually happened just as many things in the Bible never happened.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30839
Apr 6, 2013
 
Also, it may be that Canaanite ritual required the sacrifice of children to the Canaanite God Moloch. The story of Abraham taught that the Hebrew God was against such practice but required devotion and unconditional faith.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30840
Apr 6, 2013
 
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
No they don't -
If they didn't, I wouldn't be able to quote verses that prove as much.
NASL wrote:
I've posted my refutations to your "assertions" below. I've used facts. Not sure where your information came from.
My 7-year old daughter refutes my assertions that brussels sprouts are good for her, so... In the meantime, my facts are based on what I read. I can, most easily, quote the prophecy from the old covenant texts and align them with a quote from the new covenant texts that say it was fulfilled by our anointed Savior.
NASL wrote:
Okay, I agree. And it is the same as you do.
Imagine that, huh?
Imagined it. Not true, at all.
NASL wrote:
Well, okay. Most of the writers of the ancient texts "believed in our annointed Savior". What is your point?
FACT: none fo teh authors of the NT have precisely been proven to have written the text, instead the attributions are only supposed and probably discerned to be of disciples of disciples.
Many (if not all) the "early Church 'fathers'," as they're called and that wrote their own books during the early 2nd century, mentioned the gospel texts by name, so obviously, the texts align with the era they're supposed to have been written. Your precious "gospel of Judas" does not. It's that simple.
NASL wrote:
FACT: Irenaeus talks about it in 180 CE - when "Against Heresies" was written.
- BTW - Irenaeus was a bigot and not very "Christian", unless you call a person who judges many such. I don't.
Your accusation is irrelevant to the discussion. This discussion is about the authenticity of your precious "gospel of Judas". Even if Irenaeus was a perfect Christian, that wouldn't change a thing.
NASL wrote:
You just contradicted yourself.
DOH!!
How so? I said, "In 180 AD, Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, composed a document in total opposition of this 'gospel of Judas'. He called it a 'fictitious history'." 180 AD is, indeed, in the latter portion of the 2nd century, is it not?

Year 1 to year 99 - 1st century
Year 100 to 199 - 2nd century

Your thirst for argument has gotten the better of you. Perhaps, it is you that should be saying "D'OH!"
NASL wrote:
True. In fact, Nat Geo has this data assigned...

- which now justifies this same logic can be applied to all the NT texts.
In fact, it can't, but only according to the copies of the original texts. Other than that, though, we have witness by the so-called "early Church 'fathers'."
NASL wrote:
+ there is no surviving NT texts that dates earlier than the 4th century - and those books are in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
See above answer.
NASL wrote:
+ Thus, with you claiming one texts is not early enough, then in fact, none of them are.
See above answer.
NASL wrote:
+ Why do you believe men?
Your question is only valid if your beliefs are all based on original thought. They're not, though. Without men, you would have never have gotten any concept of anything "spiritual".
NASL wrote:
Why those two texts - which were also written by men?
Because the Torah and Tanakh are said to be from Father, Himself. And I believe it.
NASL wrote:
You sure place alot of authority in men, for one who says they shouldn't.
I believe we shouldn't depend solely on men and that we should be inclined to investigate every claim.
NASL wrote:
Speculating is fun, huh?
As for your comment of:
"True spirituality is not in the form we exist, or the type of body we inhabit, but in how we live."
- Correct - no religion, book, text, person, or anything is required.
- So why do you follow men?
Self.
What'll happen if my "self's" version of love doesn't coincide with yours? What if my "self's" perception of love dictates that I have every right to have sex with my wife, your wife, your mother, your sister, and your daughter, all at the same time?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30841
Apr 6, 2013
 
I wrote: I meant that it was Father that renewed the covenant with Israel and not Yahowshua. Yahowshua played an integral part in the renewing of the new covenant, though.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
What proof do you have to support this theory?
It's in the bible.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Just the Bible? Any other documents or are you playing "all-in" with jsut the Bible?
Just the bible. But, the bible is a collection of 66 separate documents, so...
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Do you believe everything you read?
Apparently, I don't, or I'd believe you were truly a legitimate leader of some new-age spirituality movement.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
What specific factors are included for you to determine that one thing is true and another is false?
In the bible? All things must harmonize with Torah and Tanakh.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30842
Apr 6, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
I don't think it is sad at all. I believe it is a teaching story about faith. It never actually happened just as many things in the Bible never happened.
Actually, it's even more sad that you would call Father "sadistic" for giving us an account that you believe is not an actual, historic event and supposed to be merely teaching us a moral lesson. Darth Vader's a mean dude, but I don't think George Lucas is sadistic for creating him, or the Star Wars saga.
WasteWater wrote:
Also, it may be that Canaanite ritual required the sacrifice of children to the Canaanite God Moloch. The story of Abraham taught that the Hebrew God was against such practice but required devotion and unconditional faith.
Perhaps. But, I believe the account is actual and factual. The author of "Hebrews" seems to believe as I do.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30843
Apr 6, 2013
 
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it's even more sad that you would call Father "sadistic" for giving us an account that you believe is not an actual, historic event and supposed to be merely teaching us a moral lesson. Darth Vader's a mean dude, but I don't think George Lucas is sadistic for creating him, or the Star Wars saga.
<quoted text>Perhaps. But, I believe the account is actual and factual. The author of "Hebrews" seems to believe as I do.
The flood never happened either. It is physically impossible. So why should I believe that God spoke to Abraham in such a way?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30844
Apr 6, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
The flood never happened either. It is physically impossible. So why should I believe that God spoke to Abraham in such a way?
Aahhh. I'm beginning to understand now, I think. The "God" you believe in can't perform any acts unless man can either, duplicate it, or understand it completely. In the meantime, the flood account was believed by our anointed Savior and Peter.

Matthew 24:37-39
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

1Peter 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

2Peter 2:5
For if God... spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

I truly cannot fathom how Father accomplished such a feat, but I'll not be so foolish as to think that there's anything Father can't accomplish.

Job 38:4-6
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30846
Apr 6, 2013
 
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Aahhh. I'm beginning to understand now, I think. The "God" you believe in can't perform any acts unless man can either, duplicate it, or understand it completely. In the meantime, the flood account was believed by our anointed Savior and Peter.
Matthew 24:37-39
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
1Peter 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
2Peter 2:5
For if God... spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.
I truly cannot fathom how Father accomplished such a feat, but I'll not be so foolish as to think that there's anything Father can't accomplish.
Job 38:4-6
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?
The flood as described in the Bible was physically impossible. There isn't enough water in the whole biosphere called Earth to cover even the smallest hill, let alone a 16,000' mountain. Noah could not collect all the animals and look after them. Even if Noah collected 15,000 species, he would have had around 35,000 lbs of food and waste to deal with each day. There would not have been enough room on his vessel. Need I say more? The story is a teaching story which contains a "truth" so to speak. It never actually happened. Ancient people conveyed teachings through such stories. The flood story comes from a story-telling tradition which went on for hundreds of years before it was even written down.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30847
Apr 7, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
The flood as described in the Bible was physically impossible. There isn't enough water in the whole biosphere called Earth to cover even the smallest hill, let alone a 16,000' mountain. Noah could not collect all the animals and look after them. Even if Noah collected 15,000 species, he would have had around 35,000 lbs of food and waste to deal with each day. There would not have been enough room on his vessel. Need I say more? The story is a teaching story which contains a "truth" so to speak. It never actually happened. Ancient people conveyed teachings through such stories. The flood story comes from a story-telling tradition which went on for hundreds of years before it was even written down.
Like I said, man has a difficult time grasping and accepting the flood account because it's most difficult fathoming things that don't necessarily satisfy our physical senses. And, the fact is, the flood account does, indeed, defy scientific logic. But, following are common misconceptions.

1) We automatically believe the earth's landscape is exactly as it is today. But, we have evidence that landscapes change drastically even during the smallest of floods and during shorter periods of time. On top of all that, though, we've no reason to believe that supernatural power wasn't used. How did Father flood the entire earth? I don't know. But, I don't believe such a thing is impossible for Him to accomplish.

2) We believe that every animal was present on the ark, not taking into consideration that only the parents were necessary. In other words, not every canine breed had to be present in order to save the breed. Only a male and female wolf were necessary, as every canine derives from the wolf species.

3) Both, our anointed Savior and Peter, failed to use the flood account as merely symbolic language, but used it as an actual, historical account.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30848
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said, man has a difficult time grasping and accepting the flood account because it's most difficult fathoming things that don't necessarily satisfy our physical senses. And, the fact is, the flood account does, indeed, defy scientific logic. But, following are common misconceptions.
1) We automatically believe the earth's landscape is exactly as it is today. But, we have evidence that landscapes change drastically even during the smallest of floods and during shorter periods of time. On top of all that, though, we've no reason to believe that supernatural power wasn't used. How did Father flood the entire earth? I don't know. But, I don't believe such a thing is impossible for Him to accomplish.
2) We believe that every animal was present on the ark, not taking into consideration that only the parents were necessary. In other words, not every canine breed had to be present in order to save the breed. Only a male and female wolf were necessary, as every canine derives from the wolf species.
3) Both, our anointed Savior and Peter, failed to use the flood account as merely symbolic language, but used it as an actual, historical account.
There is no reason to accept literally accept the flood account. It never happened. God's law and scientific law can never be in conflict if God is the creator.

Wrong again. The Bible time line is less than 10,000 years. Mt. Ararat is mentioned in the Biblical account. What this means is twofold. First, that Ararat exists in the Bible proving my time line to be correct. What's more, Mt. Ararat is a fairly recent volcanic formation. As told, there is insufficient water in the whole biosphere, including ice, surface water and underground sources to accomplish the task. The fact is if all were brought to the surface and melted, we would only raise the mean sea level by around two meters.

The Bible account of the Flood is written by pre-scientific man. If God directed such an account, God would know better.

Nice try. No soap.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30849
Apr 7, 2013
 
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said, man has a difficult time grasping and accepting the flood account because it's most difficult fathoming things that don't necessarily satisfy our physical senses. And, the fact is, the flood account does, indeed, defy scientific logic. But, following are common misconceptions.
1) We automatically believe the earth's landscape is exactly as it is today. But, we have evidence that landscapes change drastically even during the smallest of floods and during shorter periods of time. On top of all that, though, we've no reason to believe that supernatural power wasn't used. How did Father flood the entire earth? I don't know. But, I don't believe such a thing is impossible for Him to accomplish.
2) We believe that every animal was present on the ark, not taking into consideration that only the parents were necessary. In other words, not every canine breed had to be present in order to save the breed. Only a male and female wolf were necessary, as every canine derives from the wolf species.
3) Both, our anointed Savior and Peter, failed to use the flood account as merely symbolic language, but used it as an actual, historical account.
1) We can safely assume the landscape within the last 10,000 years has changed little with regard to Mt. Ararat spoken of in the Bible.

2) We can assume that no animals were on the Ark because the story is Mythology. Noah could not collect animals from another continent, much less feed and clean up tons of food and waste each day. The Ark would be much too small and the job much too big. It never happened.

3) Which proves what exactly? That they took the Myth literally? Surely you jest. There is no way you can prove how they took the story.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30850
Apr 8, 2013
 
Before I begin, let me tell you that I've noticed that our discussion has veered off into another direction, altogether. The fact that believing in the flood account or not isn't detrimental to salvation, I think it's useless even arguing the point. Regardless of what you believe, I know what our anointed Savior and Peter taught, so...
WasteWater wrote:
There is no reason to accept literally accept the flood account. It never happened. God's law and scientific law can never be in conflict if God is the creator.
So, what scientific law did Father transgress when He created something from nothing that also caused conflict in His own law?
WasteWater wrote:
Wrong again. The Bible time line is less than 10,000 years.
You're mistaken, my friend. The so-called "bible timeline" is based on the Gregorian calender which totally disregards the changes from the Hebrew calender, to the adoption of the Babylonian calender, to the adoption of the Julian calender. Harold Camping made that same mistake when he predicted that May 21st and October 21st were prophetic dates.
WasteWater wrote:
Mt. Ararat is mentioned in the Biblical account. What this means is twofold. First, that Ararat exists in the Bible proving my time line to be correct. What's more, Mt. Ararat is a fairly recent volcanic formation.
Recent? There's records of the Ararat mountain ranges dating back to the 3rd century B.C. That's hardly recent. And the fact that Ararat is considered a "stratovolcano," that serves to prove my point that it's quite possible that Ararat wasn't as tall during Noah's generations as it is today.
WasteWater wrote:
As told, there is insufficient water in the whole biosphere, including ice, surface water and underground sources to accomplish the task. The fact is if all were brought to the surface and melted, we would only raise the mean sea level by around two meters.
Struggling for a years considering even that which you've just shared, I came to a couple conclusions. 1) Father caused the waters to levitate, or 2) He multiplied the waters in the same manner our anointed Savior multiplied the fish and bread. My "God" is capable of both.
WasteWater wrote:
The Bible account of the Flood is written by pre-scientific man. If God directed such an account, God would know better.
You're argument would hold weight if men claimed to have caused the flood. None did.
WasteWater wrote:
Nice try. No soap.
whatwhATWHAT?!
WasteWater wrote:
1) We can safely assume the landscape within the last 10,000 years has changed little with regard to Mt. Ararat spoken of in the Bible.
Safely? No. Assume? All you want.
WasteWater wrote:
2) We can assume that no animals were on the Ark because the story is Mythology. Noah could not collect animals from another continent, much less feed and clean up tons of food and waste each day. The Ark would be much too small and the job much too big. It never happened.
You repeated yourself. I already explained how simple of a task it would have been. Apparently, you reject my explanation. So, be it, then.
WasteWater wrote:
3) Which proves what exactly? That they took the Myth literally? Surely you jest. There is no way you can prove how they took the story.
Then, how do you explain both mentions, then, by our anointed Savior and Peter? Did both men mention symbolic accounts to warn of future, symbolic dangers?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30851
Apr 8, 2013
 
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Before I begin, let me tell you that I've noticed that our discussion has veered off into another direction, altogether. The fact that believing in the flood account or not isn't detrimental to salvation, I think it's useless even arguing the point. Regardless of what you believe, I know what our anointed Savior and Peter taught, so...
<quoted text>So, what scientific law did Father transgress when He created something from nothing that also caused conflict in His own law?
<quoted text>You're mistaken, my friend. The so-called "bible timeline" is based on the Gregorian calender which totally disregards the changes from the Hebrew calender, to the adoption of the Babylonian calender, to the adoption of the Julian calender. Harold Camping made that same mistake when he predicted that May 21st and October 21st were prophetic dates.
<quoted text>Recent? There's records of the Ararat mountain ranges dating back to the 3rd century B.C. That's hardly recent. And the fact that Ararat is considered a "stratovolcano," that serves to prove my point that it's quite possible that Ararat wasn't as tall during Noah's generations as it is today.
<quoted text>Struggling for a years considering even that which you've just shared, I came to a couple conclusions. 1) Father caused the waters to levitate, or 2) He multiplied the waters in the same manner our anointed Savior multiplied the fish and bread. My "God" is capable of both.
<quoted text>You're argument would hold weight if men claimed to have caused the flood. None did.
<quoted text>whatwhATWHAT?!
<quoted text>Safely? No. Assume? All you want.
<quoted text>You repeated yourself. I already explained how simple of a task it would have been. Apparently, you reject my explanation. So, be it, then.
<quoted text>Then, how do you explain both mentions, then, by our anointed Savior and Peter? Did both men mention symbolic accounts to warn of future, symbolic dangers?
I wonder who want to speak with you,and your fables
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30852
Apr 8, 2013
 
What the Bible says about Christ's church:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_...
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30853
Apr 8, 2013
 
The Flood?

Search for information here:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/sitesearch.as...
Happy to be here

Bad Vilbel, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30854
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WasteWarter is gay. I also want to be happy, but not gay.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30855
Apr 8, 2013
 
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Before I begin, let me tell you that I've noticed that our discussion has veered off into another direction, altogether. The fact that believing in the flood account or not isn't detrimental to salvation, I think it's useless even arguing the point. Regardless of what you believe, I know what our anointed Savior and Peter taught, so...
<quoted text>So, what scientific law did Father transgress when He created something from nothing that also caused conflict in His own law?
<quoted text>You're mistaken, my friend. The so-called "bible timeline" is based on the Gregorian calender which totally disregards the changes from the Hebrew calender, to the adoption of the Babylonian calender, to the adoption of the Julian calender. Harold Camping made that same mistake when he predicted that May 21st and October 21st were prophetic dates.
<quoted text>Recent? There's records of the Ararat mountain ranges dating back to the 3rd century B.C. That's hardly recent. And the fact that Ararat is considered a "stratovolcano," that serves to prove my point that it's quite possible that Ararat wasn't as tall during Noah's generations as it is today.
<quoted text>Struggling for a years considering even that which you've just shared, I came to a couple conclusions. 1) Father caused the waters to levitate, or 2) He multiplied the waters in the same manner our anointed Savior multiplied the fish and bread. My "God" is capable of both.
<quoted text>You're argument would hold weight if men claimed to have caused the flood. None did.
<quoted text>whatwhATWHAT?!
<quoted text>Safely? No. Assume? All you want.
<quoted text>You repeated yourself. I already explained how simple of a task it would have been. Apparently, you reject my explanation. So, be it, then.
<quoted text>Then, how do you explain both mentions, then, by our anointed Savior and Peter? Did both men mention symbolic accounts to warn of future, symbolic dangers?
You think you know what Jesus and Peter taught but it is merely here-say. There is no way to actually have such knowledge.

It is plain to see that God only uses what is already there. God never introduces that which does not already exist.

I already gave an example of one way the Bible timeline can be established. We have but a few generations between Creation and the Flood. The Flood account states that Mt. Ararat exists. Since Mt. Ararat is a fairly recent volcanic formation, we can easily ascertain the the Bible is less than 10,000 years. Most knowledgeable Bible people agree that the Biblical timeline is less than 10,000 years and is related to the birth of civilization in the fertile river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Considering the fact that the world is around 4.5 billion years old, and the fact that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.4 million light years away, it is safe to say that Mt. Ararat is a very recent formation.

The flood never happened. It is myth.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30856
Apr 8, 2013
 
Saban fan wrote:
The Flood?
Search for information here:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/sitesearch.as...
Why should anyone search a repository of worthless information?
Expert in all things

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30857
Apr 8, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You think you know what Jesus and Peter taught but it is merely here-say. There is no way to actually have such knowledge.
It is plain to see that God only uses what is already there. God never introduces that which does not already exist.
I already gave an example of one way the Bible timeline can be established. We have but a few generations between Creation and the Flood. The Flood account states that Mt. Ararat exists. Since Mt. Ararat is a fairly recent volcanic formation, we can easily ascertain the the Bible is less than 10,000 years. Most knowledgeable Bible people agree that the Biblical timeline is less than 10,000 years and is related to the birth of civilization in the fertile river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Considering the fact that the world is around 4.5 billion years old, and the fact that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.4 million light years away, it is safe to say that Mt. Ararat is a very recent formation.
The flood never happened. It is myth.
Problem is your assumption about Mt Ararat, more claims based on what you have been told and nothing when it comes to evidence.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 29,441 - 29,460 of32,855
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

678 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 min Buck Crick 217,211
Gay Snapchat Names 3 min must add 1,365
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min BenAdam 680,873
The sad REALITY of being a gay atheist 11 min BenAdam 13
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 13 min Dang It 109,754
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min pusherman_ 512,329
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 18 min Wetpussywanted 281
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr pusherman_ 596,623
•••
•••
•••