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.
Then show me the containment wall that surrounded Mesopotamia at the time.
What change is that? That as new evidence gets found, theories have to be adjusted to take those new findings into account, sometimes even being discarded completely? Even if that means textbooks have to be rewritten?
Absolutely. Why else?
Sounds like he doesn't really care about the accuracy of information he presents.
You have not answered my question. Which animals were on the Ark that were not already present on this earth? Specifically. Lions but not tigers? Kangaroos but not possums?
The plants and animals on the Ark were what we call domesticated from the Tigris Euphrates river valley. By definition because plants and animals can only be transported if they are domesticated. A word that science uses today is botany. This includes the study of wild plants becoming domesticated.
The people that interpret the Bible certainly aren't perfect, are they? Or do you claim to have perfect knowledge of what God intended as the correct interpretation of His Word?
I'm not asking about the real world that most of us live in. I'm asking about Aman777's version of reality, in which Adam and Eve's "universe" was hidden under Lake Van in Turkey.
Being a Christian does not mean you represent God. Many are called to the ministry but few are choose because we are called to be Holy and Sanctified before God. We are called to be of one mind and one accord.
Sorry I did not mean to interrupt your conversation. He has to answer for himself about Lake Van. My understanding of Ancient Mesopotamia comes from Science and having studied ancient history for the last 50 years.
The original Hebrew is perfect and we need to study the Bible in the original language. Just about every original Hebrew word would require a whole modern book to define and explain. Those who study Kabbalah really get into the expository meaning of the words.
How do you know? And please don't say "because Kaballah". Any interpretation framework where if you don't get what you expect you can just add things up differently until you get what you're looking for is not something to be relied upon.
My disagreement is that you are being fallacious. It is utterly juvenile to discredit me by saying "you're being vague therefore you are afraid of me."
This is a specific form of a rather common argument against science; namely, the argument that science disagrees with itself, or changes its mind, whereas [insert alternative here] is always confident and never changes its mind. This is a purely emotional argument; humans prefer the comfort of certainty when they can get it. But if we cannot be certain about anything, what is better? To arbitrarily pick a belief and stick by it, regardless of the evidence? Or to shift one's beliefs as theories become more refined, as new evidence comes in, as the feedback loop of science and technology provides more opportunities to test previously untestable claims? Which is more likely to approach the truth? If your religion is false, its dogma will stand against all evidence to the contrary; but if science contains a false claim, it can eventually be rooted out and replaced with a more truthful alternative.
