Hmmmmm, you're right....Jesus never died on the cross and then rose again. (climbing back into my small box now)
Upvote
0
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.
When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
I am just showing the difference between human understanding and monkey understanding, which demonstrates the difference between spiritual understanding and human understanding.
You have reviewed the evidence and agree that there is no hard evidence to support the Exodus.I have reviewed the evidence and I agree that there is no hared evidence to support the Exodus.
Then what is it you claimed you studied?And yet you can't produce a shred of evidence to support your claims.
You have reviewed the evidence and agree that there is no hard evidence to support the Exodus.
What evidence?
How can you review evidence and conclude there is no evidence?
Then what is it you claimed you studied?
What evidence?The same way you can review evidence and conclude that there is no evidence for a Leprechaun being involved in a crime.
Okay ... you studied observable phenomena, called it evidence, then concluded it wasn't evidence?Observable phenomenon that support the real existence of time and other processes.
Okay ... you studied observable phenomena, called it evidence, then concluded it wasn't evidence?
I think I'll just pass on believing you.Here are 29 pieces of evidence.
I think I'll just pass on believing you.
You may have studied something you thought was evidence (for whatever reason), then concluded it wasn't evidence in the first place (meaning you wasted your time chasing rabbits).
I just love it when I'm supposed to believe scientists studied [x] and concluded [event x] didn't happen because [x] wasn't really [x].Why?
I think I'll just pass on believing you.
You may have studied something you thought was evidence (for whatever reason), then concluded it wasn't evidence in the first place (meaning you wasted your time chasing rabbits).
But hey ... scientists have to sound like they're doing something, or they'll lose sponsorship.
You tell me please.Could you explain to me how I can know if evidence is actually evidence, without examining it first?
I just love it when I'm supposed to believe scientists studied [x] and concluded [event x] didn't happen because [x] wasn't really [x].
What if someone said that they studied geology, and found tons of evidence that contradicted a recent global flood?You tell me please.
What would you think if you heard someone say:
"I studied evidence of the Flood and concluded there was no Flood."
You tell me please.
What would you think if you heard someone say:
"I studied evidence of the Flood and concluded there was no Flood."
That's completely different.What if someone said that they studied geology, and found tons of evidence that contradicted a recent global flood?
LOLThat sounds perfectly normal to me.
So it's labeled "Evidence" first, then studied ... right?Reasoning said:Evidence does not necessarily have to mean 'positive evidence in favor of that what I want it to prove'.
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?