New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[TheBear]

Yup ...

Overcrowding, depletion of earth's natural resources, global warming, Y2K, radon gas in the curtains, asbestos in the ceiling, lead paint on the walls, those sorts of things.

Is this you just wanting attention, so you throw in any random and irrelevant thought? Or, is this you trying to distract? I'm responding to another member who cited threats and coercion from the Bible. If you can't follow along, then please move along.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Regardless of your definition of "everlasting punishment" or the meaning of "sheol", what do you think of the verses I quoted earlier.

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Revelation 20:14
The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Now before you get into the meaning of the lake of fire, consider the description of what the devil, the beast and the false prophet will suffer after being thrown into this same lake.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

It sounds to me like the unbelievers will be condemned to an eternity in a place that sounds like the traditional definition of what people would call "hell". Don't you think?

Well again, it depends on how the translation was done. I do know that in many places in scripture the translation to eternal doesn't really mean that. The Hebrew word didn't have a direct translation word, so they simply used eternal for some very odd reason. Let me give you an example. "I lit a bonfire and the smoke went up for ever and ever (or for eternity)". OR, "I lit a bonfire and its flames raged for an eternity". We know that fires don't burn for an eternity, and behold the Hebrew word should be translated as "It burned for as long as it could" or "It burned until the fuel ran out".
If you are an unaccepted soul that is thrown into the lake of fire to burn, it will not take long before you are consumed. I believe the true translation should be "Burned in the lake of fire until consumed". When reading the bible for the 20th time, I cross referenced many sections to hebrew, greek, latin to see whether the meaning in English was correct because it didn't make sense. If someone suffers eternal torment, they can't be dead right? But scripture states it's the second death. Bit contradictory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I spy the fossil record!

The fossil record spans billions of years. Like I said, spectacular failure on the part of Bible prophecy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes men wrote it, but about the things shown to them by God.

According to whom? Men?

 

[Split Rock]

Yup ...

Overcrowding, depletion of earth's natural resources, global warming, Y2K, radon gas in the curtains, asbestos in the ceiling, lead paint on the walls, those sorts of things.

There is radon gas and lead paint in Hell? Cool.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossils will become even more faked now. It has become commercialised with collectors paying huge amounts of money at auction.

And more lies from creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fossil record spans billions of years.

Only on paper.

 

[LastSeven]

Well again, it depends on how the translation was done. I do know that in many places in scripture the translation to eternal doesn't really mean that. The Hebrew word didn't have a direct translation word, so they simply used eternal for some very odd reason. Let me give you an example. "I lit a bonfire and the smoke went up for ever and ever (or for eternity)". OR, "I lit a bonfire and its flames raged for an eternity". We know that fires don't burn for an eternity, and behold the Hebrew word should be translated as "It burned for as long as it could" or "It burned until the fuel ran out".
If you are an unaccepted soul that is thrown into the lake of fire to burn, it will not take long before you are consumed. I believe the true translation should be "Burned in the lake of fire until consumed". When reading the bible for the 20th time, I cross referenced many sections to hebrew, greek, latin to see whether the meaning in English was correct because it didn't make sense. If someone suffers eternal torment, they can't be dead right? But scripture states it's the second death. Bit contradictory.

Well, for the sake of all those poor souls, I hope you're right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, for the sake of all those poor souls, I hope you're right.

Don't worry, their fate is the same as your fate.

 

[Doveaman]

How did I say or imply that God can lie to me if he wants to?

I’m not sure who's accusing you of calling God a liar, but one way God could appear to be a liar is by planting an allegorical man (Adam) within the literal ancestry of Jesus.

Luke 3:23-38
"Now Jesus…He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…the son of David…the son of Judah, the son of Jacob...the son of Abraham… the son of Noah…the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

If Adam was not a literal man, Jesus' physical ancestry would be misleading, a deception of sort. It’s as if God is leading us to believe Adam was a literal ancestor of Jesus when in fact he is a mere allegory.

Do you think the seven day creation story is believed to be a literal seven days? That in itself would be impossible since the sun was not set in the sky until the "fourth day" and yet a day is defined as a single rotation around the sun. How could there have been three "days" before the sun even existed? Clearly the creation story is allegorical....

To me, this seems to be a conclusion inspired by science, rather than the Bible, since it is based on your understanding of the earth's rotation relative to the sun?

None of the biblical authors, however, seem to agree with this allegorical view. Not even Jesus.

Mark 10:5-6
"Jesus replied. 'But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

1 Tim 2:13
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

1 Cor 15:45
"The first man Adam became a living being"

Acts 17:26
"From one man He made every nation of men"

Rom 5:14
"Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses"

Jude 14
"Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men."

From a purely biblical perspective, the creation story can only be interpreted literally since the biblical authors make reference to it as being literal and since Jesus himself is said to have descended from a literal Adam who himself was created by a literal God.

"Now Jesus…He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…the son of Adam, the son of God."

 

[Loudmouth]

I’m not sure who's accusing you of calling God a liar, but one way God could appear to be a liar is by planting an allegorical man (Adam) within the literal ancestry of Jesus.

Actually, that would be calling the men who wrote the Bible liars, not God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, that would be calling the men who wrote the Bible liars, not God.

And not even necessarily liars but rather mistaken.

 

[Doveaman]

Actually, that would be calling the men who wrote the Bible liars, not God.

This assumes God did not inspire the Bible. He did.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only on paper.

It's in the rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

This assumes God did not inspire the Bible.

You are assuming that God did. If you want to claim that God is not lying, then the obvious conclusion is that the biblical authors were lying when they claimed divine inspiration.

 

[Doveaman]

You are assuming that God did.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

If you want to claim that God is not lying, then the obvious conclusion is that the biblical authors were lying when they claimed divine inspiration.

Or I can simply conclude the creation story is literal and everyone is telling the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

Then demonstrate that it is a fact.

Or I can simply conclude the creation story is literal and everyone is telling the truth.

What evidence would allow you to conclude this?

 

[Doveaman]

Then demonstrate that it is a fact.

The predictive power of the Bible could only be inspired by a God. Men are not that smart.

In fact, the Bible predicts that men are not that smart:

Rom 1:22-23
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

What evidence would allow you to conclude this?

Conclude what? that the creation story is literal?

Let’s just say it reads more like a literal story rather than an allegorical one.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Occam’s Razor demands that it be a duck.

 

[Loudmouth]

The predictive power of the Bible could only be inspired by a God.

Then we should not find billions of years of radioactive decay in meteors. That prediction fails. We find 4.5 billion years worth of radioactive decay in meteors.

Therefore, the Bible could not be inspired by God.

 

[keith99]

Actually, that would be calling the men who wrote the Bible liars, not God.

As much showing that modern man made different distinctions than bronze age man.

It seems the distinction between myth and reality as we think of it did not exist at that time. Forcing a work of that time into one of the 2 boxes distorts the work.