Question on Noah's Ark

[miknik5]

I don't remember anyone dieing or getting hurt as a result of having a different opinion on biblical texts.

No comment

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No comment

Off course not... there's nothing to comment.

It's plain obvious.
Nobody dies or otherwise gets hurt due to someone having a personal interpretation of any religious text.

Well... unless, off course, that interpretation tells them to go fly planes into buildings or similar.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As for Job, it talks of angels singing with joy watching creation.

Notice that it says all the angels. Why would the fallen angels rejoice at earth's creation?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Jude is about angels rebelling, nothing about doing so in the middle of verse two of creation!

Genesis 1:2 isn't about creation but the condition of the earth at that moment: a chaotic wasteland covered with water and plunged into darkness. In other words a state of ruin.

 

[miknik5]

Notice that it says all the angels. Why would the fallen angels rejoice at earth's creation?

So?

Rebellion is rebellion when it is made known by its works against the one initially thought to have served

 

[miknik5]

Genesis 1:2 isn't about creation but the condition of the earth at that moment: a chaotic wasteland covered with water and plunged into darkness. In other words a state of ruin.

A state of disorder until GOD ordered it

 

[SkyWriting]

Hilarious how wrong one can be right....

In his opinion, science can be used to study the supernatural, but at the same time, science can't reasonably conclude what happened just 10 seconds ago based on the evidence in the present.

I've asked him 5 times now what the most reasonable "assumption" (=conclusion) would be to explain human footprints on a beach: that a human walked there, that a bipedal dog with shoes shaped like human feet walked there, or that an ethereal demon put the footprints there to mislead us.

I still have no received an answer, only tapdances

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from
physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from
physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

And still no answer to my very simple question.


FYI: I just asked my 7-year old nephew. He gave me a reasonable answer within 2 seconds. I asked him to explain his reasoning for why he chose the option he chose and he also gave a reasonable answer within 2 seconds to that question.

Why is it, that you are apparantly incapable or unwilling to do so?

Anytime you wish to answer that simple question.............

 

[SkyWriting]

And still no answer to my very simple question.
Why is it, that you are apparently incapable or unwilling to do so?

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

My stand is that assumptions are a procedural sin,
so I hesitate to commit one at your demand.

So, for you, all three options are equally likely and reasonable? And it would be a "sin" to consider one more likely then the others?

For your reminder, here they are once more:

Which of these would you consider the most reasonable "assumption" and why:
1. a human walked there
2. a bipedal dog with shoes in the shape of human feet walked there
3. a supernatural ethereal demon put the tracks there to mislead us



ps: it's become really hard to pretend to take you seriously

 

[miknik5]

So, for you, all three options are equally likely and reasonable? And it would be a "sin" to consider one more likely then the others?

For your reminder, here they are once more:

View attachment 192823

Which of these would you consider the most reasonable "assumption" and why:
1. a human walked there
2. a bipedal dog with shoes in the shape of human feet walked there
3. a supernatural ethereal demon put the tracks there to mislead us



ps: it's become really hard to pretend to take you seriously

Did you tell your 7 year old nephew the full intent of your questions?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A state of disorder until GOD ordered it

I am made in God's 'image and likeness' (I think like God does). When I make or build something it is never in disorder or a state of ruin that needs to be repaired, unless I purposely ruin it.

 

[miknik5]

I am made in God's 'image and likeness' (I think like God does). When I make or build something it is never in disorder or a state of ruin that needs to be repaired, unless I purposely ruin it.

I'm sorry. You can't build the HOUSE for GOD nor can you do anything to ruin HIS HOUSE

Either in THE DOOR or outside THE DOOR

If one thinks he's in THE HOUSE yet sets out to ruin it by causing confusion amongst those who are indeed in THE HOUSE... there are some who are wise and will see it for what it is

A wolf claiming to be a sheep

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you tell your 7 year old nephew the full intent of your questions?

It's a pretty straight forward question. It needs no additional explanation.

"What is the most reasonable conclusion of this data?" - seems pretty clear.

Do you care to answer it?

 

[miknik5]

except you're actually claiming to be "zerubabbel"

And I am telling you that you aren't

 

[JD16]

Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from
physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

 

[miknik5]

It's a pretty straight forward question. It needs no additional explanation.

"What is the most reasonable conclusion of this data?" - seems pretty clear.

Do you care to answer it?

Ask your 7 year old nephew if he believes in GOD and if GOD can do anything

You sir, might learn from him!

 

[Speedwell]

Ask your 7 year old nephew if he believes in GOD and if GOD can do anything

I don't have to ask my nephew. I believe it myself; God can do anything. The question at hand is, what did He do?
Did He do it the way some Christians misinterpret an old Hebrew creation story? Or did He do it according to what science has concluded?

 

[miknik5]

I don't have to ask my nephew. I believe it myself; God can do anything. The question at hand is, what did He do?
Did He do it the way some Christians misinterpret an old Hebrew creation story? Or did He do it according to what science has concluded?

What connection does a picture of footprints on the beach have to do with this thread

Tell me, when the water comes it will wipe away the prints

Are you going to say there were NEVER footprints there...EVER because you can't see them anymore?

 

[SkyWriting]

So why are trials not conducted by scientists then?