Comments
592,321 - 592,340 of 720,686 Comments Last updated 7 min ago

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623957
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't make sense to think that the universe and everything in it was created 144 hours. That's ludicrous.

I know you just wanna argue and I could go on for probably months (with you) about this, but here, read.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genes...
I think it's sickening that you are trying to twist the bible to suit your own agenda.

You believe it is foolish to think what was meant is 6 literal days, but that IS what was meant so maybe you shouldn't have such faith in the bible or in the god of the bible.

"The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days

If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8,“... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says,“... and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation."

If you think about it, an infinite Creator God could have created everything in no time. Why, then, did He take as long as six days? The answer is given in Exodus 20:11. Here we find that God tells us that He deliberately took six days and rested for one as a pattern for man—this is where the seven-day week comes from. The seven-day week has no basis for existing except from Scripture. If one believes that the days of creation are long periods of time, then the week becomes meaningless.

The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.

Were the days 24 hours? Most definitely!“Let God be true, but every man a liar”(Romans 3:4)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...

Sorry for your luck, RR. According to the mere mortal men who wrote the bible, your god created EVERYTHING in just SIX LITERAL 24 hour DAYS.

That that doesn't make any sense doesn't mean that is not what is written and that that is what is meant by what was written- it IS.

Continue to wonder why the bible is often referred to as a book of fairy tales- LOL!!

Your post edited not only for space but for relevance as well.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623958
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't make sense to think that the universe and everything in it was created 144 hours. That's ludicrous.
<quoted text>
Again, you are wrong. I don't interpret the Bible the way I see fit, I understand the Bible and what it's saying. You don't.
Here comes your Google search...
<quoted text>
Sorry, but Bob is wrong. The Hebrew word Yom has several meanings, basically it's only direct translation to English is either 12 hours, 24 hours or an undetermined amount of time. Now that third one doesn't specify what length of time, could be a second, day, or year, an eon. It all depends on the context and the structure of the sentence, specifically the words before and after. In the context of Genesis the translation would be more correct at "a period of time", not 24 hours.
I do think it's cute that you googled it and found someone that agrees with you, I really do. But it's interesting that after all the sh*t you talk about creationists, when the argument calls for it, you agree with them.
Imagine that.
I know you just wanna argue and I could go on for probably months (with you) about this, but here, read.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genes...
BTW, I think it's "cute" that you found a BLOG which agrees with YOU.

You ALWAYS cherry-pick to bible to try and get it to conform with what YOU choose to believe.

Doesn't work like that, RR.

Too bad you're not MAN enough to admit that you only believe the parts of the bible which make sense to YOU.

That's the thing with fairy tales- they NEVER make sense.

I might as well cherry-pick "Cinderella" to conform with what is possible and what is not.

Could she have lost a slipper? Sure. Could it have been made out of glass? No.

Could a pumpkin have been turned into a coach? No.

But the POINT is that the entire FAIRY TALE of "Cinderella"- while a beautiful FAIRY TALE- does not make sense.

News flash! Either does the BIBLE- a book of FAIRY TALES.

So you either believe it or you don't- YOU make no sense if you think you can PICK and CHOOSE the parts of the bible you think are literally correct while dismissing the parts of the bible you do NOT think are literally correct.

And according to the bible, the creation WAS 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.

That you find that to be ludicrous- which it most definitely is- does NOT mean the words written mean anything OTHER than 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.
henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623959
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Not at all. Very many of them are very intelligent

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623960
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't make sense to think that the universe and everything in it was created 144 hours. That's ludicrous.
ours.
I do think it's cute that you googled it and found someone that agrees with you, I really do. But it's interesting that after all the sh*t you talk about creationists, when the argument calls for it, you agree with them.
Imagine that.
I know you just wanna argue and I could go on for probably months (with you) about this, but here, read.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genes...
And this:

"There is a widespread belief, even in many Christian circles, that the "days" of Genesis are not normal 24-hour days.

However, a careful study of scriptures using well accepted methods of interpretation leads us to the clear conclusion that God went out of his way to demonstrate to us that he meant for us to interpret the six "days" of creation as actual 24-hour days, with no gaps in between them.

Chapter 5 (in the most recent version of this book it's chapter 2) of the book titled The Answers Book does a good job of arguing this from a Bible interpretation perspective. There are other materials that expand on the topic even more. We wish to express our gratitude to Answers in Genesis Ministries Group (AiG) for allowing us to publish the entire chapter on our web site. We encourage all Christians to purchase a copy of the book because we have found it to be a very useful witnessing tool.

Why "Long days"?

The main reason why many try to make the days into long periods is to find a way to harmonize the creation account with the idea that there was a succession of vast geological ages before man appeared.

But if one accepts these ages as being real, then one is accepting that interpretation of the fossil record which (1) denies a world-wide flood (since such a flood would have wiped out all traces of such preceding ages), and (2) insists that there were many creatures which lived, struggled, and held out long before man appeared on the scene. This, of course, seriously undermines the whole New Testament/Gospel emphasis relating to sin, death, bloodshed, redemption, and the curse.(1)

Put simply any attempt to harmonize long geological ages will Genesis (Gap Theory, day-age theory, progressive creation, etc.) inevitably means accepting that before man, rather than the New Testament insistence that the struggle, suffering, and bloodshed of the present world came about after Adam sinned. That these attempts to compromise are artificial, and not true to the text can be seen by the following quotation from Dr. James Barr](Regius professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University).

So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew for Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience,(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to latter stages in the biblical story,(c) knows the flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark." (2)"

http://creationists.org/how-long-is-a-day-in-...

BTW, I do NOT agree with creationists; I simply pointed out that the 6 day creation in the bible IS meant to be taken literally by those who DO believe in the creation in Genesis.

That would be YOU, bub- not ME.
henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623961
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It really has.
Of course, there never was any god at all!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623962
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Very many of them are very intelligent
As well as loving, compassionate, giving, caring and kind.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623963
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OCB wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, I think it's "cute" that you found a BLOG which agrees with YOU.
You ALWAYS cherry-pick to bible to try and get it to conform with what YOU choose to believe.
Doesn't work like that, RR.
Too bad you're not MAN enough to admit that you only believe the parts of the bible which make sense to YOU.
That's the thing with fairy tales- they NEVER make sense.
I might as well cherry-pick "Cinderella" to conform with what is possible and what is not.
Could she have lost a slipper? Sure. Could it have been made out of glass? No.
Could a pumpkin have been turned into a coach? No.
But the POINT is that the entire FAIRY TALE of "Cinderella"- while a beautiful FAIRY TALE- does not make sense.
News flash! Either does the BIBLE- a book of FAIRY TALES.
So you either believe it or you don't- YOU make no sense if you think you can PICK and CHOOSE the parts of the bible you think are literally correct while dismissing the parts of the bible you do NOT think are literally correct.
And according to the bible, the creation WAS 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.
That you find that to be ludicrous- which it most definitely is- does NOT mean the words written mean anything OTHER than 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.
In the original German, it was a fur slipper.

It became glass through a magnificent accident of mistranslation.

(sorry!)

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623964
May 15, 2013
 
OCB wrote:
And....true to form- you trying to deny that you said how else would one discipline a 6 month old baby other than by spanking them?
I did it wrote that. You're lying.
You said it, many people commented on it horrified just as I was that anyone would even SUGGEST hitting a 6 month old baby.
YOU said that is the ONLY way a 6 month old baby can be "disciplined"- by being SPANKED.
Now you try to deny it.
I said it was ONE way, not the ONLY way.
I don't have children
Which is why you don't understand.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623965
May 15, 2013
 
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>You are such a f*cking liar.
It was ME who said there are other ways to discipline children other than hitting them and you replied with saying that how else would one discipline a 6 month old BABY other than by HITTING them- and that IS what SPANKING is, RR- since a 6 month old baby can't understand what you are saying and can't be reasoned with?
Then that started a discussion about hitting BABIES to begin with- something that is truly monstrous.
"Kids, babies, whatever"??? You see no difference between a 6 month old BABY and a 6 year old CHILD?
And you think that because you spawned children that makes YOU some kind of expert when you make such moronic remarks about "disciplining" 6 month old BABIES???
RR, you are an UNFIT parent- even just trying to justify EVER hitting a BABY- even if you yourself never did- is enough for me to justifiably say that you ARE an unfit parent.
ANYONE who strikes a baby is a BULLY. And that IS what you are- a BULLY.
And FYI, here is the definition of SPANKING:
Definition of SPANK
: to strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand
— spank noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spa...
Now here is the definition of STRIKING:
strike (strk)
v. struck (strk), struck or strick·en (strkn), strik·ing, strikes
v.tr.
1.
a. To hit sharply, as with the hand, the fist, or a weapon.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strike
Spanking is STRIKING someone. Spanking is HITTING someone.
So don't think because you use the word "spank" that doesn't mean "hit" or "strike".
It does. So you condone hitting/striking/spanking 6 month old BABIES.
You're SICK.
You're weird. And dishonest.

I've never said that the only way to discipline a child is to spank them. Ever.

It seems that you think discipline=spanking.

O_o

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623966
May 15, 2013
 
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's sickening that you are trying to twist the bible to suit your own agenda.
You believe it is foolish to think what was meant is 6 literal days, but that IS what was meant so maybe you shouldn't have such faith in the bible or in the god of the bible.
"The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days
If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8,“... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says,“... and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation."
If you think about it, an infinite Creator God could have created everything in no time. Why, then, did He take as long as six days? The answer is given in Exodus 20:11. Here we find that God tells us that He deliberately took six days and rested for one as a pattern for man—this is where the seven-day week comes from. The seven-day week has no basis for existing except from Scripture. If one believes that the days of creation are long periods of time, then the week becomes meaningless.
The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.
Were the days 24 hours? Most definitely!“Let God be true, but every man a liar”(Romans 3:4)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...
Sorry for your luck, RR. According to the mere mortal men who wrote the bible, your god created EVERYTHING in just SIX LITERAL 24 hour DAYS.
That that doesn't make any sense doesn't mean that is not what is written and that that is what is meant by what was written- it IS.
Continue to wonder why the bible is often referred to as a book of fairy tales- LOL!!
Your post edited not only for space but for relevance as well.
Ok.

Creationist.

Your google copy/paste tells me you're not educated in what you're talking about, you just believe the creationists.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623967
May 15, 2013
 
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, I think it's "cute" that you found a BLOG which agrees with YOU.
You ALWAYS cherry-pick to bible to try and get it to conform with what YOU choose to believe.
Doesn't work like that, RR.
Too bad you're not MAN enough to admit that you only believe the parts of the bible which make sense to YOU.
That's the thing with fairy tales- they NEVER make sense.
I might as well cherry-pick "Cinderella" to conform with what is possible and what is not.
Could she have lost a slipper? Sure. Could it have been made out of glass? No.
Could a pumpkin have been turned into a coach? No.
But the POINT is that the entire FAIRY TALE of "Cinderella"- while a beautiful FAIRY TALE- does not make sense.
News flash! Either does the BIBLE- a book of FAIRY TALES.
So you either believe it or you don't- YOU make no sense if you think you can PICK and CHOOSE the parts of the bible you think are literally correct while dismissing the parts of the bible you do NOT think are literally correct.
And according to the bible, the creation WAS 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.
That you find that to be ludicrous- which it most definitely is- does NOT mean the words written mean anything OTHER than 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.
I already tried e plainsong to you the Hebrew word "yom", I'm not doing it again. You're too dense and stuck on stupid.
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623968
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Why should atheists be hateful??

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623969
May 15, 2013
 
Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
henry wrote:
Not at all. Very many of them are very intelligent
Not that I agree with Tanner, but a person can be intelligent AND hateful. Hitler is a great example of a hateful but intelligent atheist.
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623970
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nobody wrote:
<quoted text>God does not need us, we need him if you want to live. It is not a culturally conditioned belief system. This is something the whole world could live by if they choose to. You let me know what is wrong with loving all people and forgiving all people and wanting to treat others like you want to be treated. What is wrong with that?
Sorry, god existed of course never.
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623971
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Religions are out of trend.
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623972
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Consult a doctor!
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623973
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Go to a psychiatrist!
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623974
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Are you mentally alright??
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623975
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Perhaps you have a mental defect??
henry

Eigenrieden, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623976
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Are you having bad dreams?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

434 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 4 min An NFL Fan 115,034
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min Buck Crick 224,114
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 11 min Senecus 1,522
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 27 min dirty white boy- 599,068
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 36 min pusherman_ 532,639
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 49 min seriously the original 5,231
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr MUQ1 36,504
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Clearwater 172,345
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr Naveen kumar 4,629
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 2 hr bbbbbb 73
Does anyone do incest sex with your sister (Apr '12) 9 hr Larry 122
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••