If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[Mr Laurier]

How many teeth does it take to make a man in Nebraska?

As many or as few as you want. Or as many as it takes to make a woman in Gascony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, thanks.

That is a bit of a snag for you. Most of the self contradictions in the Bible arise from your claim about what the Bible is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of the self contradictions in the Bible arise from your claim about what the Bible is.

I've seen those "self contradictions," and they stem from Biblical illiteracy, not Biblical literalism.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

 

[BNR32FAN]

... and they would be still needing to keep their bodies intact and without injuries

Unless man was incapable of being injured before the fall.

 

[Speedwell]

I've seen those "self contradictions," and they stem from Biblical illiteracy, not Biblical literalism.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

Here's one for you, show us how it works:


"Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food." --Matthew 10:9-10


"He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff–no bread, no bag, no money in their belts..." -–Mark 6:8

So were the disciples to take a staff or not? This minor discrepancy is not a problem for most Christians but it is fatal to literalism. How do you resolve it?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Ediacaran biota.
Not poorly edited books of ancient myths, legends, fairy tales, priestly self justifications, and petty tribal bragging.
We are addressing science here. Facts backed by evidence.
Not how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

Then it’s probably a waste of time coming to a Christian website and expecting Christians to accept the knowledge of scientists over the Word of God. Evidence isn’t mandatory for a statement to be a fact, the earth was still a sphere long before anyone could prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's one for you, show us how it works:


"Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food." --Matthew 10:9-10


"He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff–no bread, no bag, no money in their belts..." -–Mark 6:8

So were the disciples to take a staff or not? This minor discrepancy is not a problem for most Christians but it is fatal to literalism. How do you resolve it?

Do Matthew 10:10, Mark 6:8, and Luke 9:3 contradict?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's one for you, show us how it works:


"Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food." --Matthew 10:9-10


"He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff–no bread, no bag, no money in their belts..." -–Mark 6:8

Do you see what's confusing you, Speedwell?

Notice "a staff" in both passages you quoted?

Not let's see what He really said:

Matthew 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

See the difference?

That's how it works.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Alas, there are as many versions of the trinity, as there are sects.

Not nearly as many as the number of “theories of evolution”

 

[Mr Laurier]

Not nearly as many as the number of “theories of evolution”

So 1 is more than 1000.
Got it

 

[BNR32FAN]

So 1 is more than 1000.
Got it

That’s hardly an honest assessment, it’s a deceitful exaggeration is what it is.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you see what's confusing you, Speedwell?

Notice "a staff" in both passages you quoted?

Not let's see what He really said:

Matthew 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

See the difference?

That's how it works.

So they're only to take one staff, but no more. I see. But if they only had one each, wouldn't that still be "staves" (the plural of "staff")?

 

[Speedwell]

Then it’s probably a waste of time coming to a Christian website and expecting Christians to accept the knowledge of scientists over the Word of God. Evidence isn’t mandatory for a statement to be a fact, the earth was still a sphere long before anyone could prove it.

Nobody is requiring you to accept anything, but if you want to teach creationism in public school science classes, it has to be science.

 

[AV1611VET]

So they're only to take one staff, but no more. I see. But if they only had one each, wouldn't that still be "staves" (the plural of "staff")?

From the link I provided:

What is the easiest explanation here? The Lord Jesus allowed them to use one walking staff, just not bring along another (or special) one. In other words, they did not need to go out and buy another staff to prepare for their journeys (thus giving them two or more staves, which Jesus forbade). No, they just needed to bring along the one staff they already had. They did not need to pack a bag with money or extra clothes, either. Bringing along more supplies was unnecessary. The Messianic believers whose houses they would visit, those people would provide for their needs, for “the workman is worthy of his meat” (Matthew 10:10b).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen those "self contradictions," and they stem from Biblical illiteracy, not Biblical literalism.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

The opposite is true. The defense of them relies on dishonesty and illiteratism if one demands that the Bible is read literally.

 

[Speedwell]

From the link I provided:

What is the easiest explanation here? The Lord Jesus allowed them to use one walking staff, just not bring along another (or special) one. In other words, they did not need to go out and buy another staff to prepare for their journeys (thus giving them two or more staves, which Jesus forbade). No, they just needed to bring along the one staff they already had. They did not need to pack a bag with money or extra clothes, either. Bringing along more supplies was unnecessary. The Messianic believers whose houses they would visit, those people would provide for their needs, for “the workman is worthy of his meat” (Matthew 10:10b).

Very good. In science that would be called an hypothesis, and would have to be tested.

 

[Mr Laurier]

That’s hardly an honest assessment, it’s a deceitful exaggeration is what it is.

There is one theory of evolution.
There are at the very least hundreds of versions of the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[coffee4u]

The Ediacaran biota.
Not poorly edited books of ancient myths, legends, fairy tales, priestly self justifications, and petty tribal bragging.
We are addressing science here. Facts backed by evidence.
Not how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

You are addressing science, I'm not. I mostly post scripture-welcome to CF.

 

[coffee4u]

It was the abuse of scripture that made it "gibberish".

I can promise you no scripture was whipped on my watch.

I think you overlooked the beginning of this silly discourse.

Mr Laurier said

Animals existed LONG before Jesus.

Since Jesus is God and has always been
Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
I posted scripture saying that Jesus was the creator of the animals.

Mr Laurier then posted back saying that Jesus has only been around for 2000 years.
So again I posted a scripture saying Jesus is God the son and has always been.

I can't help it if Mr Laurier doesn't know the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't help it if Mr Laurier doesn't know the Bible.

Danno often resorts to a uberliteral interpretation of Scripture, probably to parody literalists.