JamesHackerMP Posted July 15, 2017 Report Posted July 15, 2017 5 hours ago, betsy said: If archeologists and scholars says it is....and there's no counter, or any disagreement.....what more is there to prove? Betsy dear, how do you know there isn't any disagreements? There's a lot of people on this Earth involved in archaeology and biblical history. I very much doubt all of them agree with each other. Archaeology is a tricky thing, there's so little evidence left from thousands of years ago that it leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. 5 hours ago, betsy said: I say there are no contradictions at all. There aren't....unless you take every word literally. My point is not the Christianity/Judaism is dumb, or that the Bible is BS; quite the reverse. By taking everything too literally--the Earth being created in 6 days (I say 6 because 7 was God's day off), that there were an actual Adam and Eve; that a single ship filled with only one male and one female of each clean and unclean animal preserved all the species presently on Earth from a giant catastrophe; that you can actually cause goats and sheep to have offspring of a particular color by showing them certain patterns whilst mating;....need I go on? In the NT, Jesus explains that he speaks in parables. The OT is full of creation "traditions" (I'll stop short of calling them myths rather than traditions since they're somebody's religion, but we're stretching the English language a bit by using the latter) that were meant to illustrate a point. A moral point. Not a scientific point. 5 hours ago, betsy said: We can't take everything literally in the Bible! I've been saying that all along Not really! Your talk of the laws of thermodynamics, star-dust, etc. indicates the opposite. Unless that wasn't what you "meant" per se. And above you just said "there are no contradictions at all". That implies some sort of literal interpretation, then! I'm not trying to make you agree with me Betsy. But I do have a valid point, meaning it "alleges truth". I think my point is true, you obviously don't. that's fine. I think your points you have made are reasonably valid, they allege truth, but I do believe them to be based on flawed premises. You don't have to agree with my assessment for it to be valid. (some people think "valid" has to mean true, but that's an incorrect use of the word). But my point is that there are contradictions in the Bible, even anachronisms. I have read your articles in support of your view and find them to be flawed as well. That's OK. I won't go to hell for that, will I? NOW: Can we get back to the subject of contradictions? Why would Matthew say that Judas hanged himself, and Acts says he experienced some rather unfortunate gastric distress? Isn't that a contradiction? My point is that it wouldn't be if you weren't taking everything so literally. And yes, you did say that before, maybe not in this thread, but in another of your plethora of simultaneous bible threads. So how do you reconcile the difference between Acts and Matthew vis-a-vis Judas's death? Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
The_Squid Posted July 15, 2017 Report Posted July 15, 2017 7 hours ago, betsy said: Explain what makes you ask that. I can't read your mind. The bible says bats are birds. Do you think bats are birds too? Quote
betsy Posted July 15, 2017 Author Report Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said: NOW: Can we get back to the subject of contradictions? Why would Matthew say that Judas hanged himself, and Acts says he experienced some rather unfortunate gastric distress? Isn't that a contradiction? My point is that it wouldn't be if you weren't taking everything so literally. And yes, you did say that before, maybe not in this thread, but in another of your plethora of simultaneous bible threads. So how do you reconcile the difference between Acts and Matthew vis-a-vis Judas's death? How many times will I have to answer that? I'll be ignoring you.... Edited July 15, 2017 by betsy Quote
JamesHackerMP Posted July 15, 2017 Report Posted July 15, 2017 Actually, you kind of dodged the question when I asked. Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
betsy Posted July 15, 2017 Author Report Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, The_Squid said: The bible says bats are birds. Do you think bats are birds too? Here is the answer. No contradiction! Quote The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times we categorize animal species more specifically and have categorized the bat as a mammal and not a bird. Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking. https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/bat-bird In Florida, a gopher is a turtle - and you wonder why ancient people refer to the bat as a bird? Imposing a MODERN system on an ancient text - and then, imply that the ancient text is wrong - is an ignorant argument. Quote Scientific Classification and Names - Translations A Bat by any other Name....is a Bat.... So...what are these fancy names and what do they mean? As humans, we seem to enjoy naming things – our cars, pets, and computers – but why do scientists need such complicated terms? Common names may or may not be of any help. After all, in Nebraska, a 'gopher' is a rodent, while in Florida, a 'gopher' is a turtle - go figure. Other problems exist, such as finding enough names to cover 45,000 Chordate species, 120,000 Mollusk species, and the five million or so Insect species alive today on our planet. To solve these problems, Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) prepared a classification scheme that we still use today. http://www.batsnorthwest.org/bat_names.html Quote Leviticus 11:13–19These are the birds [05775 Pwe ‘owph] you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means “fowl/winged creature.”1 The word owph simply means “to fly” or “has a wing.” So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bats-of-a-feather/ Edited July 15, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 15, 2017 Author Report Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: Actually, you kind of dodged the question when I asked. Dodged my foot. Dig it up, and read. Bye. Edited July 15, 2017 by betsy Quote
AsksWhy Posted July 16, 2017 Report Posted July 16, 2017 On 7/14/2017 at 4:53 AM, betsy said: I don't know what you mean exactly by "days," - God days? Human days 24/7? But yes, creation narrative - though not in full details - is written in chronological order. I imply no hidden meaning to the word "day". - Can we agree that it simply refers to an interval of time, by which each interval is the same length? Also, would the following assumption be correct: God created "the heavens and the earth" over a period of six "days", and rested on the seventh? Quote
betsy Posted July 16, 2017 Author Report Posted July 16, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, AsksWhy said: I imply no hidden meaning to the word "day". - Can we agree that it simply refers to an interval of time, by which each interval is the same length? Also, would the following assumption be correct: God created "the heavens and the earth" over a period of six "days", and rested on the seventh? Each interval, same length? No, I can't agree to that. Besides, if we apply logic to all the CORROBORATING evidences presented in the other thread, "Why Trust The Bible," that God created the heavens and the earth.......can no longer be called an assumption. You're new to the board. Refer to post #610 for the recap of all evidences, and #612: You should also review this article: Quote At its foundation is a literal translation of the Hebrew word, "yom," which can mean a twelve hour period of time, a twenty-four hour period of time, or a long, indefinite period of time.God has not revealed the entire creation process, but only those that are particularly relevant to mankind.The interpretation presented here is based upon the creation accounts found throughout the entire Bible (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.1) as it relates to God's creation of the heavens and the Earth, and is consistent with all the biblical texts in addition to the revelations of science. Day-Age Genesis Interpretation: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html Edited July 16, 2017 by betsy Quote
JamesHackerMP Posted July 16, 2017 Report Posted July 16, 2017 Betsy, you kind of did. OK, not "dodge" exactly but I pointed out the Judas thing, and then the anachronism of "Ur of the Chaldaeans". You mentioned the latter but not the former. I'm not trying to piss you off, but I'd at least like you to elaborate, OK? If you start ignoring people, as you said above ("I'll be ignoring you") you'll end up like our friend Altai. Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
The_Squid Posted July 17, 2017 Report Posted July 17, 2017 On 2017-07-15 at 3:48 PM, betsy said: Here is the answer. No contradiction! https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/bat-bird In Florida, a gopher is a turtle - and you wonder why ancient people refer to the bat as a bird? Imposing a MODERN system on an ancient text - and then, imply that the ancient text is wrong - is an ignorant argument. http://www.batsnorthwest.org/bat_names.html https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bats-of-a-feather/ So you say the bible is correct on science. But when it's wrong, you point to the excuse that it's not a science book. Can't have it it both ways. Quote
betsy Posted July 17, 2017 Author Report Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, The_Squid said: So you say the bible is correct on science. But when it's wrong, you point to the excuse that it's not a science book. Can't have it it both ways. You misunderstood, Squid. I explained so many times, and I'll repeat it for you. THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SCIENCE BOOK......... ..........HOWEVER, SCIENCE, JUST SO HAPPENS TO SUPPORT, OR REAFFIRM SOME STATEMENTS IN THE BIBLE! Which part of that is so difficult to understand? If one cannot understand such a simple statement - then, he's out of his league in this discussion. It would be like talking economy to a first grader! You're giving the Biblical reference to the bat (as a bird) as an evidence that somehow it's a contradiction or an error.....when in fact, it's you who's committed a grave error! An example was even given - in Florida, they called a gopher a "turtle." HERE, read this part which you must've missed! Should I make the font even much larger, you think? Quote Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking. https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/bat-bird When did Linneus create the classification system? Sometime in the 18th century! http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_1.htm Do you get now why ancient people referred to the bat as a bird? Do you need a much simpler explanation? Tell me, and I'll try to help you with this one. We could try with an even bigger font. Edited July 17, 2017 by betsy Quote
AsksWhy Posted July 17, 2017 Report Posted July 17, 2017 On 7/16/2017 at 3:59 AM, betsy said: On 7/15/2017 at 9:29 PM, AsksWhy said: I imply no hidden meaning to the word "day". - Can we agree that it simply refers to an interval of time, by which each interval is the same length? Also, would the following assumption be correct: God created "the heavens and the earth" over a period of six "days", and rested on the seventh? Each interval, same length? No, I can't agree to that. Besides, if we apply logic to all the CORROBORATING evidences presented in the other thread, "Why Trust The Bible," that God created the heavens and the earth.......can no longer be called an assumption. I think you might be unintentionally complicating things here. I am not attacking the creation of "the heavens and the earth"; nor do I care how long each "day" actually was, I am merely trying to establish a timeline. Given that man (through Divine Authorship) used the term "day" to describe each unit of time, I assumed that they should be consistent. Is that not a fair assumption? NOTE: Knowing what we know today (that units of time are consistent), it would be contradictory for the word "day" to represent varying lengths of time? Quote
betsy Posted July 17, 2017 Author Report Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, AsksWhy said: I think you might be unintentionally complicating things here. I am not attacking the creation of "the heavens and the earth"; nor do I care how long each "day" actually was, I am merely trying to establish a timeline. Given that man (through Divine Authorship) used the term "day" to describe each unit of time, I assumed that they should be consistent. Is that not a fair assumption? NOTE: Knowing what we know today (that units of time are consistent), it would be contradictory for the word "day" to represent varying lengths of time? That's my point: it's difficult to establish the time-line since we're talking God's time-line! We're getting some clues about time-line of creation thru the help of science. Like I said, "The beginning," is ambiguous. The heavenly bodies were already created before the first day! Genesis 1 is simply a summary of creation. 24-hour day (time), was created on the third God's day. Genesis 1 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 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: We don't know exactly how many human years is in God's day. A couple of verses refers to it as "a thousand years," but we don't know if that's a figure of speech that simply means God's day isn't like a 24-hour day. Edited July 17, 2017 by betsy Quote
GostHacked Posted July 18, 2017 Report Posted July 18, 2017 On 7/14/2017 at 7:45 AM, betsy said: It's not disproven. That's the point. There is no proof for fairies. But that does not mean they don't exist. Right? Do you believe in fairies? My farts cure cancer. and you cannot disprove it anymore than I can prove it. This is where you are at Betsy. Quote
Guest Posted July 18, 2017 Report Posted July 18, 2017 49 minutes ago, GostHacked said: There is no proof for fairies. I beg your pardon...? Quote
JamesHackerMP Posted July 18, 2017 Report Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, betsy said: THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SCIENCE BOOK......... ..........HOWEVER, SCIENCE, JUST SO HAPPENS TO SUPPORT, OR REAFFIRM SOME STATEMENTS IN THE BIBLE! OK, I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye that it's not meant to be a science book. But I think you put it accurately when you said "science just so happens to support..." [etc.] If there seems to be an ex post facto affirmation of passages within the Bible by XXI Century science, it's coincidental. Those who put pen to paper centuries ago had no idea about any of that. Divinely-inspired they may have been; that doesn't necessitate God was guiding them toward writing things down that would one day be considered scientifically accurate by other human beings whose outlook on the universe would be radically different from their own. If it seems like He did from various verses in the Bible, it likely wasn't meant to be that way. After all, the XXI century isn't the completion of science as we know it. And sorry about the Judas thing. I shouldn't have accused you of "dodging" it. (Check your personal messages inbox). I think you might have actually explained that in a different thread, I couldn't find it since there are a few different biblical threads about. There's something else I'm curious about. It's not a "contradiction" per se, but one wonders about this particular passage. In Genesis, there are generations descended from Cain and Seth, but they're all wiped out by the flood. It was only Noah's family which survived, as they were the only "good" family (e.g., not evil and violent). SI am referring to the antediluvian (I think is the correct word) table of descendants, in Gen. 4:17--5:32. One is mention as the ancestor of those who play the lyre (v. 4:21) and another who is ancestor of those who dwell in tents and keep livestock (v. 4:20). There are several of these "ancestors of..." mentioned in Genesis 4. Question is, if these are ancestors of certain groups of descendants, why were their lines wiped out by the great flood which only the family of Noah survived? Therefore, why are their names mentioned at all? The only "ancestor" of these types of humans would be Noah, right? It seems a waste of ink and papyrus to have even mentioned these antediluvian populations. Edited July 18, 2017 by JamesHackerMP Quote "We're not above nature, Mr Hacker, we're part of it. Men are animals, too!" "I know that, I've just come from the House of Commons!" [Yes, Minister]
betsy Posted July 18, 2017 Author Report Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) On 7/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, JamesHackerMP said: Betsy dear, how do you know there isn't any disagreements? There's a lot of people on this Earth involved in archaeology and biblical history. I very much doubt all of them agree with each other. Archaeology is a tricky thing, there's so little evidence left from thousands of years ago that it leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. Yes indeed, archeology is a tricky thing. If that's your position - what makes you think the first assumption - that the Chaldeans came after Abraham - wasn't wrong? If there is now evidence to show that it was wrong - then, it was wrong. Quote There aren't....unless you take every word literally. My point is not the Christianity/Judaism is dumb, or that the Bible is BS; quite the reverse. By taking everything too literally--the Earth being created in 6 days (I say 6 because 7 was God's day off), that there were an actual Adam and Eve; that a single ship filled with only one male and one female of each clean and unclean animal preserved all the species presently on Earth from a giant catastrophe; that you can actually cause goats and sheep to have offspring of a particular color by showing them certain patterns whilst mating;....need I go on? James, I said you, can't take EVERYTHING literally. So, I don't know what you're arguing about. Btw, the goat's/color, and all animals in a ship - had already been explained. Quote In the NT, Jesus explains that he speaks in parables. The OT is full of creation "traditions" (I'll stop short of calling them myths rather than traditions since they're somebody's religion, but we're stretching the English language a bit by using the latter) that were meant to illustrate a point. A moral point. Not a scientific point. The OT, full of creation traditions? Did I miss them? These creation traditions are all written in the Bible? What are these so-called creation "traditions?" Cite them. Quote Not really! Your talk of the laws of thermodynamics, star-dust, etc. indicates the opposite. Unless that wasn't what you "meant" per se. And above you just said "there are no contradictions at all". That implies some sort of literal interpretation, then! If I say that not EVERYTHING can be taken literally - then that means, there are things that can be taken literally. Those given evidences can apparent fall in the group that can be taken literally......since science had reaffirmed them through its findings. And yes, I said "no contradictions at all." Though the so-called contradictions that were given so far (that I can recall) are all taken literally (bat/bird, Judas hanging/bursting)...... that doesn't necessarily mean that all so-called contradictions are literal (since the Bible is full of figures of speech). Quote I'm not trying to make you agree with me Betsy. How many times have you said goodbye, James? Yet here you are.....I'm not complaining though. Just saying it's hard to believe that you're not trying to make me agree with you. Quote But I do have a valid point, meaning it "alleges truth". I think my point is true, you obviously don't. I've proven that your point isn't valid at all. Just look at the way you reason.....they're "half-baked," and not well thought out. Some of my statements, you don't seem to understand - like I've stated several times already that, not everything can be taken literally - and yet, you're arguing like as if I said otherwise. I say you can't even pin your point, and here you claim to have a valid point? Quote I think your points you have made are reasonably valid, they allege truth, but I do believe them to be based on flawed premises. They're sound. They're based on logic. Yours, are not. Quote You don't have to agree with my assessment for it to be valid. (some people think "valid" has to mean true, but that's an incorrect use of the word). But my point is that there are contradictions in the Bible, even anachronisms. I have read your articles in support of your view and find them to be flawed as well. That's OK. I won't go to hell for that, will I? Well, if you found my articles flawed - wouldn't that be a perfect opportunity to discredit my claim? Wouldn't you say, "AHA! your article says blah-blah-bl;ah.....but that's faulty, because this source says it's this-this-this?" I would, if I found your source, faulty. So....where's the flaw? Be specific, and tell me which paragraph it can be found. Quote NOW: Can we get back to the subject of contradictions? We are! Right now, we're discussing about you........... contradicting yourself! Quote Why would Matthew say that Judas hanged himself, and Acts says he experienced some rather unfortunate gastric distress? Isn't that a contradiction? My point is that it wouldn't be if you weren't taking everything so literally. And yes, you did say that before, maybe not in this thread, but in another of your plethora of simultaneous bible threads. So how do you reconcile the difference between Acts and Matthew vis-a-vis Judas's death? Go read my responses to you. I've explained this to you a couple of times already. No matter how you re-phrase your question (about this so-called contradiction)....the answer will not miraculously change, James. I'm surprised that this seems to be the only so-called contradiction you can give. For the sake of a lively discussion - go to an atheist site and take from their list of alleged contradictions. Otherwise, one of these days....I'll do just that. I'll be rebutting from their list! Edited July 18, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 18, 2017 Author Report Posted July 18, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 3:47 PM, GostHacked said: Contradiction #1, Thou shalt not kill. God ignores his own advice and kills countless. It's not a contradiction. For one thing, it says, "Thou shalt not murder." Second, the rule is for us - not for God. Nothing says that the Creator - the omnipotent God, is bound by His own rules. Only silly humans who have no understanding of the concept of God, want to think that. Quote
betsy Posted July 18, 2017 Author Report Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) On 7/15/2017 at 0:06 PM, JamesHackerMP said: Why would Matthew say that Judas hanged himself, and Acts says he experienced some rather unfortunate gastric distress? Isn't that a contradiction? My point is that it wouldn't be if you weren't taking everything so literally. And yes, you did say that before, maybe not in this thread, but in another of your plethora of simultaneous bible threads. So how do you reconcile the difference between Acts and Matthew vis-a-vis Judas's death? Both had happened to Judas. He hanged himself.....and later on, his decomposing body fell from that height, and his gas-filled stomach burst open. Quote Why Does a Decomposing Whale Explode? Experts are scrambling to find a way to dispose of the 380,000-pound (170,000-kilogram) corpse before gases generated by its decomposing body cause it to explode. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/02/animals-science-world-exploding-whale-blue/ One author talked about the hanging, while the other talked about the bursting stomach. No contradiction. Edited July 18, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 18, 2017 Author Report Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said: OK, I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye that it's not meant to be a science book. But I think you put it accurately when you said "science just so happens to support..." [etc.] If there seems to be an ex post facto affirmation of passages within the Bible by XXI Century science, it's coincidental. Those who put pen to paper centuries ago had no idea about any of that. Divinely-inspired they may have been; that doesn't necessitate God was guiding them toward writing things down that would one day be considered scientifically accurate by other human beings whose outlook on the universe would be radically different from their own. If it seems like He did from various verses in the Bible, it likely wasn't meant to be that way. After all, the XXI century isn't the completion of science as we know it. And sorry about the Judas thing. I shouldn't have accused you of "dodging" it. (Check your personal messages inbox). I think you might have actually explained that in a different thread, I couldn't find it since there are a few different biblical threads about. I have to apologize. My mistake. The hanging Judas should be explained on this particular thread where it really belongs. Read my response to it above. As for the rest....I'll respond to them later. Gotta go. Edited July 18, 2017 by betsy Quote
GostHacked Posted July 18, 2017 Report Posted July 18, 2017 10 hours ago, bcsapper said: I beg your pardon...? You think that is proof? Quote
GostHacked Posted July 18, 2017 Report Posted July 18, 2017 1 hour ago, betsy said: It's not a contradiction. For one thing, it says, "Thou shalt not murder." Second, the rule is for us - not for God. Nothing says that the Creator - the omnipotent God, is bound by His own rules. Only silly humans who have no understanding of the concept of God, want to think that. I don't like anyone that makes a set of rules for me, while they have a set of rules for them. Sounds elitist. Quote
betsy Posted July 18, 2017 Author Report Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said: There's something else I'm curious about. It's not a "contradiction" per se, but one wonders about this particular passage. In Genesis, there are generations descended from Cain and Seth, but they're all wiped out by the flood. It was only Noah's family which survived, as they were the only "good" family (e.g., not evil and violent). SI am referring to the antediluvian (I think is the correct word) table of descendants, in Gen. 4:17--5:32. One is mention as the ancestor of those who play the lyre (v. 4:21) and another who is ancestor of those who dwell in tents and keep livestock (v. 4:20). There are several of these "ancestors of..." mentioned in Genesis 4. Question is, if these are ancestors of certain groups of descendants, why were their lines wiped out by the great flood which only the family of Noah survived? Therefore, why are their names mentioned at all? The only "ancestor" of these types of humans would be Noah, right? It seems a waste of ink and papyrus to have even mentioned these antediluvian populations. Even though they got wiped out by the flood - they didn't get wiped out as descendants. As an analogy, if only one person survived the Holocaust (Nazi), and all his family were wiped out by the Nazis......... and this lone survivor moved on in life to marry, and beget children and grandchildren......do you think the family tree chart that his future grandchildren will create to trace back their descendants, will end with this lone survivor, since everyone's been wiped out except him? Edited July 18, 2017 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 18, 2017 Author Report Posted July 18, 2017 Let's do a recap, so we'll know what so-called contradictions have been given and answered: Metallicity (post #27, 79) Dinosaurs in Noah's Ark/How animals fit in the ark (posts #36, 64, 65) God making new stars and planets (posts #78, 116) Problem with order of creation (post #108) Creation of the heavens and Genesis 1:14 (post #118) Bats not Birds (posts #158, 161) Thou shalt nor murder (post #168) Judas hanging/bursting (post #169) Quote
Omni Posted July 18, 2017 Report Posted July 18, 2017 3 hours ago, GostHacked said: I don't like anyone that makes a set of rules for me, while they have a set of rules for them. Sounds elitist. Her god sounds like a right scary bugger. I'm glad I don't have to fear him, her, it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.