A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[dad]

this seems to be a confession that all the evidence from the natural world fails to back the idea that the Bible is inerrant and that in order to rescue the idea of biblical inerrancy one is driven to the idea that all our discoveries about the nature of reality must be cast aside as worthless.

Amen. Except no discovery extends to Noah's day in any way that tells us what the laws were.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The laws you cite never applied to mankind. They applied to a people long ago. As I said, don't try to pull an Obama on us.

Jesus disagrees with you on that.

Fundamentalists do not get to pick which parts of the Bible they believe in.

 

[dad]

Jesus disagrees with you on that.

Fundamentalists do not get to pick which parts of the Bible they believe in.

Jesus agrees big time actually. He did not tell us that we had to eat no pork, He showed Peter that we could eat all things.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Amen. Except no discovery extends to Noah's day in any way that tells us what the laws were.

So that raises the question - how did you find out the Bible is God's very word? You cannot cite evidence, because all evidence fails to get past your past state notions. You cannot cite biblical verses, because that is circular reasoning, assuming the truth of what you wish to prove before you have proven it as evidence of what you are trying to prove. It must be in the nature of an assumed axiom, that is, something assumed to be true without proof as it is so self-evident that proof is regarded as not necessary. Is that the case for your system of belief?

 

[dad]

So that raises the question - how did you find out the Bible is God's very word? You cannot cite evidence, because all evidence fails to get past your past state notions.

Get a grip, this present state world has existed as long as man remembers.

Don't try your lame last week nonsense.

You cannot cite biblical verses, because that is circular reasoning, assuming the truth of what you wish to prove before you have proven it as evidence of what you are trying to prove. It must be in the nature of an assumed axiom, that is, something assumed to be true without proof as it is so self-evident that proof is regarded as not necessary. Is that the case for your system of belief?

That is your attempt at debate and logic!!!!? Ha.


Newsflash, the bible is for this state and written in this state. It speaks of the future and past, which are different, but it speaks to US here about them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus agrees big time actually. He did not tell us that we had to eat no pork, He showed Peter that we could eat all things.

Chapter and verse please. I am willing you cannot back up your claim about Jesus.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. Says who? One star differs from another in glory. Life in heaven and Eden and the millennium are all quite different that now! Even in the flood, many things happened that exceed what could happen with our laws.

Great, so what are they? How can creation and the flood be very true 3 other ways? How did the waters get to earth and off it? How did animals speciate so fast after the flood? How could land mass and water separates fast with no heat from friction that killed life? How did man live 1000 years almost? Why is man and animals not in the fossil record if we were created the same week as other life? Etc..


That sets of the alarm bells, and that is why I hold the feet of science to the fire. The result of the interrogation by fire is that they have just belief. Believers can laugh, and rejoice.


It does suggest that earth is not on the same rules as heaven. That's a start!


Gen 10:25 -And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]for in his days was the earth divided;

"to divide, split

1. (Niphal) to be split, be divided
2. (Piel)
   1. to split, cleave"

Heaven going by different rules than earth doesn't suggest the rule on earth ever changed, it just means they are different when comparing the two different places

 

[AV1611VET]

Chapter and verse please. I am willing you cannot back up your claim about Jesus.

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

 

[Queller]

Since Jesus and the folks who wrote the New Testament believed in a flood and first man, the only issue is when.

Sorry, there is no evidence of that. There is evidence that Jesus spoke of stories that were familiar to the people of the time, nothing more.

Since we know Abraham lived around a certain time, and that he was said to be a contemporary of Noah, the timeframe is not any real issue. Belief is the issue.

"said to be" =/= "was"

BTW, even if Noah was a contemporary with Abraham, that would not invalidate an old earth/old universe/evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

That depends on who the 'we' is. If you include flatworms and etc, speak for yourself. If you think having a shared ancient virus or pre virus means they got it through birth, I must point out you are invoking the religion of a same state past. No can do. Transfer could have happened another way.

The only religion being pushed is a belief in a different state past because a religious text says so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

AAh, so it was a voice in his head that he thought was God. It did not even say which hat he was wearing. I do not consider my challenge met, but thanks for playing

 

[dad]

Chapter and verse please. I am willing you cannot back up your claim about Jesus.

That depends if you think the blanket lowered from heaven in a dream to Peter was a message from Jesus.

Besides Jesus did stuff on the Sabbath day! The law said not to do stuff. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for us, not us for the silly day!

In no way can you try to enforce all the laws for ancient Israel on us. Get over it.

 

[dad]

Heaven going by different rules than earth doesn't suggest the rule on earth ever changed, it just means they are different when comparing the two different places

No, because heaven is coming to this earth! It will change. Once we admit that the future is different, we must then ask how the past can be so similar if it also was not different! How can they live 1000 years in the Millenium, and in the former state world unless both are different? How can animals and man again not eat meat, and lions eat grass? How can spiritual beings again exist along with mortal men on this earth, if not for some difference?

Face it the future and the past in the bible share similarities and are different than this present in some fundamental ways.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, because heaven is coming to this earth! It will change. Once we admit that the future is different, we must then ask how the past can be so similar if it also was not different! How can they live 1000 years in the Millenium, and in the former state world unless both are different? How can animals and man again not eat meat, and lions eat grass? How can spiritual beings again exist along with mortal men on this earth, if not for some difference?

Face it the future and the past in the bible share similarities and are different than this present in some fundamental ways.

Then this suggests a future change, not that physics or anything else has changed before.

 

[dad]

Then this suggests a future change, not that physics or anything else has changed before.

Well if the past has much of the same things, and you admit the future must change to get them...what does that tell you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well if the past has much of the same things, and you admit the future must change to get them...what does that tell you?

confused, thanks to your poorly worded sentence

 

[Subduction Zone]

dad, remember, without evidence you lose.

Again.

dad, the perpetually defeated.

 

[dad]

confused, thanks to your poorly worded sentence

OK. So the future will have A, B and C and D. The past also had A, B and C and D. That indicates they are similar. The present has C, Y, J and E.

 

[dad]

dad, remember, without evidence you lose.

Again.

dad, the perpetually defeated.

The evidence you lack moots that logic. The evidence God provided that you chose to reject has given me the victory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence you lack moots that logic. The evidence God provided that you chose to reject has given me the victory.

Wrong. We have evidence. You don't even know what qualifies as evidence.

And until you give evidence for the existence of God then you really can't claim him (or her) as a source. A book with hundreds of errors hardly counts as evidence for God's existence.