I just posted that above, DOP. It's really good......

Oh yes it is. You're arguing about what you admitted to be ignorant about. Not only that...... you can't get the logic that I gave you. I did no such thing! Now you're showing you also don't comprehend what you read. You should discuss with Gosthacked. Bye-bye.....I'll ignore you until you've got something worth responding to.

There is no contradiction, bcsapper. The message is consistent: the world had a beginning, and it was created. You can't even follow the logic above??? I suppose you and I are done here since being ignorant of the Bible (which you freely admitted), you don't really have anything substantial to discuss.

Simile.... ....is the likening of one thing to another. The terms, "like" or "as" are usually used to liken. 2 Peter 3 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. Psalm 90 4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Matthew 23 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Though your statement doesn't make any sense since you're mis-using the term contradiction.....I do understand what you're trying to say. You're still wrong, though. There's no contradiction since God was using His day. Night and day weren't God's first creation, therefore He couldn't be referring to human 24-hour day. For consistency, His seventh day would have to be the same as the days He'd used in creating His creations. That is also compounded by logical reasoning: The Bible is full of figures of speech. God/Jesus had used numerous figures of speech. Therefore, that number, "a thousand," could also be simply a figure of speech that means God's days are not similar to human 24-hour days. In this case, "SIMILE" (figure of speech), is used. God's days are not similar to human 24-hour days. That's the message with Psalm and Peter verses. Thus I say, the age of the earth is not an issue at all, however a Christian would want to take it (whether literally or not). The point being given is that the world had a beginning, and it was created. God is giving us a historical statement (a generalized statement of His creation - He didn't get into details about thermo dynamics, etc.,). To believe that God is the Creator.....that's the full import of Genesis.

I wouldn't say there's no evidence to support the great flood. One is the polystrate fossils. Another is clastic dikes. Then there's also "extensive strata and pancake layering." But it's like the debate on climate change, or macroevolution..... Speaking of macroevolution - there is no scientific evidence to support it and yet, look how Darwinists are so willing to accept it.

You must be thinking of children's books that show giraffes and elephants, with big smiles, sticking their heads out from the boat. The Biblical cubit in our own standard of measurement is estimated to be 18 inches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit Based on that measurement, that would make the ark 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1413 Where does it say in the Bible that the animals were full-grown? On the same note I ask: assuming the flood didn't occur, and evolution is true..... ........................if we use the evolutionary time scale, we'd say that most of the human population is missing! No, it's not impossible! https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/1-population-growth-could-noah-fill-the-earth/

It could be.

With SUPPORTING verses! You, yourself, had admitted of being ignorant of the Bible - what authority do you think you have to question an interpretation WITH SUPPORTING verses? You're in a laughable position trying to debate something you freely admit to be ignorant about!

It's not simply my opinion since I'd given you supporting verses! It's not that contradiction is not acceptable. I'm saying there are no contradictions! What folks say are contradiction, are actually misconceptions and/or ignorance of the Scriptures.

The figure of speech used above is called a Metonymy, and can also be called a metaphor. https://literarydevices.net/metonymy/ example: When a statement comes out from the "White House" - we don't mean the building is speaking. The White House refers to the President of the USA. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/477-what-are-transubstantiation-and-consubstantiation There are many types of figures of speech used in the Bible. That's what this thread will explore.

First of all, if it's to be taken literally......why is it that none of the 12 Apostles ever tried to literally take a bite out of Him? Of all the apostles, I imagine Peter would've been the one who would've tried. And yet, no one did! Not even Peter took it literally, or asked about it. Second, not even one among His apostles questioned that statement. Not even one among them had asked Him to expand on that. Or, pointedly asked Him if He really meant it to be literally. Wouldn't you? If you're one of the apostles? The apostles were with Him practically 24/7. They've been in His rallies - they've heard His parables - they know His style. That's why no one questioned Him. They knew it's not to be taken literally. So, why didn't Jesus stop the people from leaving Him? It would've been simple to just explain that He didn't mean it literally, right? Jesus let them leave because it's not about whether His statement about the bread is to be taken literally or not.......it's all about their lack of faith. John 6 41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Many Disciples Turn Away 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” They were questioning His claim about being the Son of God. His question to the apostles (and the response by Peter) had proven that the issue was about His claim as the Son of God. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”[i]

This thread is inspired by a lengthy discussion I've recently had about transubstantiation - the belief by some that the bread and wine during Communion literally become the flesh and blood of Christ. My view is that, it's not to be taken literally. It's not the ability of Jesus to perform miracles that's in question here. If He can raise the dead, He can do anything. It's the inconsistencies it presents with the Scriptures when it's taken literally. If you're eating human flesh, and drinking human blood - you're committing cannibalism. Furthermore, it means He's being sacrificed - going through His passion and death every time we have communion! His death was the ultimate sacrifice - thus His last Words were, "It's finished!" Communion is supposed to be symbolical - to remember what He'd done for us, and the meaning of that ultimate sacrifice. The benefit for mankind! Jesus had taught so many times using PARABLES - synonymous with allegory. Why is it so difficult to accept that bread/wine becoming His flesh/blood, is another figure of speech? John 6 was given as an argument to support transubstantiation, however.....the very same chapter proved that it's not to be taken literally. John 6 32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” 35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Rejected by His Own 41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’[e] Therefore everyone who has heard and learned[f] from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[g] has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. Many Disciples Turn Away 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”[i] Those are indeed quite clear instructions from Jesus! He emphasized eating Him! How can you not take that literally? Why am I insisting that it's not to be taken literally? (continued......)

I suppose this question will be asked over and over again, so let me just re-post my previous responses: I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND." That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis. What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?" We don't know exactly. The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species). Maybe, "kind" refers to genus. The Bible referred to "sea serpent", "behemoth," and "leviathan." Were they dinosaurs? We don't know for sure. If they were.......could it be that God had sent infant animals in pairs? We don't know if the 7 creation days are to be taken literally, or not. Genesis' emphasis is not on how old earth or the universe is. We don't even know when the beginning began. There was no space or time prior to that. Genesis' emphasis is on creation by God. God did not say when in time exactly did He create earth. My view: God does not tell us to believe that everything was created in 7 human days, or that earth is this old or that. He tells us to believe that He is the Creator. ------------------------------ There's a reason why I say the age of the earth is not a real issue. 2 Peter 3 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. Psalm 90 4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Now, that "thousand years" could also be a figure of speech and not to be taken literally. It could mean that God's day is not the same as a 24-hour human day.

Liberals are creating such havoc. Canada is going downhill fast! Too bad they still have a few years before the next election.....and who knows, they might still win again! Their supporters think like them!

You don't know? I rest my case with you.

No one says animals don't have emotions. But are those emotions as complex as HUMANS? No. How many humans got hurt getting "emotional" with a wild animal - thinking the animal shares the same emotion? Btw, you show Steve Irwin. How did Steve Irwin die? He was struck HUNDREDS of times by a stingray! I wonder if that stingray had felt any remorse at all for killing Irwin for no other reason. Animals don't know what's right and wrong. I've created many threads showing evidence that give support for theism, is on every quarter: be it cosmology, biology, math, philosophy, physics etc., You offered nothing to back up your claim. So, the ones who're doing a tremendous leap of faith would be those who'd pinned their faith in, and accepts macroevolution.