Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here is the first of a series of videos on testing geocentrism:
Testing Geocentrism - Part 1 - YouTube
I like that series. Kind of complicated, but it's really well done.
Job 38:6-7You've GOT to be kidding me. Next you'll be saying that the Bible is pretty clear that stars can sprout mouths and sing arias.
*rolleyes*
You've GOT to be kidding me. Next you'll be saying that the Bible is pretty clear that stars can sprout mouths and sing arias.
*rolleyes*
You don't know much about the Bible, do you?
Psalms 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
How many times am I going to have to make this point?
1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
Steadfast ... unmoveable ... abounding -- all in one verse.
Looks like 'unmoveable' can means something else, doesn't it?
I know the Bible fairly well, and I also know a bit about literary forms, poetic language,... the kind of knowledge that makes it readily obvious that God didn't intend the Bible in general (or those passages in particular) to be a science text to be taken with an absurdly wooden literalism.You don't know much about the Bible, do you?
Psalms 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
I know the Bible fairly well, and I also know a bit about literary forms, poetic language,... the kind of knowledge that makes it readily obvious that God didn't intend the Bible in general (or those passages in particular) to be a science text to be taken with an absurdly wooden literalism.
Really? You mean that when you heard the Troggs sing "Wild Thing", you thought it meant that she shoved him to the other side of the room?Yes, sometimes the meaning partially comes from context. Let's see if there is any other possible meaning from the verse Psalms 93:1 that CabVET posted.
...hmmm....
Nope, none that I can see. Can you see another one? Can you justify your alternative meaning?
You have no idea how silly that sounds. Your literature professor would be ashamed.Oh allegory, sort of like the Adam and Eve myth and the Noah's Arc myth. In that case I agree.
Really? You mean that when you heard the Troggs sing "Wild Thing", you thought it meant that she shoved him to the other side of the room?
That's a bone-stupid argument.We are talking about the Bible, a book of myths here. Some strange people want to take certain parts of it literally. For example the two myths that I listed. Now the Troggs were obviously writing about another way that something could be moved. He obviously meant moved emotionally or to be more precise, sexually. Since the Earth has no emotions I don't know how else it could be moved other than physically.
By the way, this was supposed to be a stupid argument to counter a stupid claim. Yet it has a grain of truth in it.
So unless you have no reply to how else the Earth would be moved other than physically you should agree that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally when it makes what would be otherwise foolish statements.
You have no idea how silly that sounds. Your literature professor would be ashamed.
Why is that? You do know that the Adam and Eve and Noah stories are myths, don't you?
I know the Bible fairly well, and I also know a bit about literary forms, poetic language,... the kind of knowledge that makes it readily obvious that God didn't intend the Bible in general (or those passages in particular) to be a science text to be taken with an absurdly wooden literalism.
Really? You mean that when you heard the Troggs sing "Wild Thing", you thought it meant that she shoved him to the other side of the room?
That's a bone-stupid argument.
You have no idea how silly that sounds. Your literature professor would be ashamed.
Right offhand, I would say science justifies it; wouldn't you?Yes, sometimes the meaning partially comes from context. Let's see if there is any other possible meaning from the verse Psalms 93:1 that CabVET posted.
...hmmm....
Nope, none that I can see. Can you see another one? Can you justify your alternative meaning?
Right offhand, I would say science justifies it; wouldn't you?
I have Boolean standards, so I'll know how far science can go.Science also justifies alternative meanings for everything in Genesis.
What you call "consistency," others call "context."Consistency is what you lack.
I have Boolean standards, so I'll know how far science can go.
What you call "consistency," others call "context."
And they would be wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?