Water canopy check, and mate!

[Nathan Poe]

Of course you could, use science, and especially the rule book, given by the Ruler

The Bible is not a rule book; it is a collection of Jewish History, poetry, and mythology...often all at the same time.

And it certainly wasn't given to anyone by a ruler (unless you're referring to King James)

Sorry, dad, but you're still stuck in the myth box. You wanted so bad to believe in the water canopy, that you switched from natural and supernatural explanations at will to make it so.

 

[dad]

The Bible is not a rule book; it is a collection of Jewish History, poetry, and mythology...often all at the same time.
[No, the Ruler has a lot of rules in that book, like love one another. It is also a ruler to measure all else against. If it goes against the word of God, believers are not to believe it]

And it certainly wasn't given to anyone by a ruler (unless you're referring to King James)
[God is the Ruler who gave it]

Sorry, dad, but you're still stuck in the myth box. You wanted so bad to believe in the water canopy, that you switched from natural and supernatural explanations at will to make it so.
[This is how you see it. And I could retort secularists wanted so bad to not believe in Him, evos chose Granny and the Speck instead. Ignoring all science except for physical only science, as well, to do it. I could cite this as one reason Darwinism caught on so fast long ago.
Now, rather than sit on the side attributing alterior motives to someone with different ideas than you, why not refute them? Simple, you can't, with the bible or the box. They both are on my side here. So stop pouting, and see if you can start spouting. ]

.

 

[Nathan Poe]

[No, the Ruler has a lot of rules in that book, like love one another. It is also a ruler to measure all else against. If it goes against the word of God, believers are not to believe it]

A few questions to get you out of the myth box:

1: What Ruler?

2: What does "love one another" have to do with your water canopy theory? Doesn't the whole notion of the water canopy run contrary to this rule?

After all, if you are correct, then the canopy provides the mechanism by which God exterminated the human race... hardly an act of love.

[God is the Ruler who gave it]

So you say, as would anyone else trapped in the mythology box. But what, besides wishful thinking, makes this so?

And again, what has this to do with your alleged water canopy?

[This is how you see it. And I could retort secularists wanted so bad to not believe in Him, evos chose Granny and the Speck instead.

And you would be a liar for doing so, breaking the rules you pretend to care about.

Ignoring all science except for physical only science, as well, to do it. I could cite this as one reason Darwinism caught on so fast long ago.

What other sciences are there besides "physical-only" sciences? Philosophy? Alchemy? Sorcery?

Your mythilogy box sounds like a gateway back to the 12th century... is it any wonder you're a laughingstock around here?

Now, rather than sit on the side attributing alterior motives to someone with different ideas than you, why not refute them?

Because there's nothing to refute. Your argument is "Goddidit." Prove it, and we'll talk.

Simple, you can't, with the bible or the box.

Ok then refute this, dad:

Your ideas have absolutely no physical or scriptual support. YOu switch between bas science and bad theology at will, and have been called out repeatedly for your poor use of both.

Run along, little boy, from this forum. Adults are talking.

They both are on my side here. So stop pouting, and see if you can start spouting.

I leave the spouting to you.

 

[dad]

A few questions to get you out of the myth box:

1: What Ruler? [Already covered]

2: What does "love one another" have to do with your water canopy theory? Doesn't the whole notion of the water canopy run contrary to this rule? [You said there were no rules in there]

After all, if you are correct, then the canopy provides the mechanism by which God exterminated the human race... hardly an act of love. [If He hadn't of, He couldn't have saved mankind for eternity]



And again, what has this to do with your alleged water canopy? [Speaking of which, what do you have to say about it?]



And you would be a liar for doing so, breaking the rules you pretend to care about. [You got it backwards]




Your mythilogy box sounds like a gateway back to the 12th century... is it any wonder you're a laughingstock around here? [ You can laugh at what you can't understand. Apparently you have nothing else on offer]



Because there's nothing to refute. Your argument is "Goddidit." Prove it, and we'll talk.
[Well, theres plenty to try to refute. For example
"1) Lifespans were almost a thousand years right on up to Noah. This indicates something else at work than normal physical processes! 2) God walked among men, this too was indicitive of something different than today. Since He is a Spirit, assuming the spiritual was not fully split from the physical is a very valid option. 3) Peleg lived in the days when the split, or division occured, which has been a mystery, exactly what this was. All these are biblical support. 4) Light also was known to reach us infinitely faster than it now could, this also is support for a big change, of the type, I propose is only possible with the division, or split. I have never heard another explanation that can stand up to science. 5) The sun, and earth etc. is biblically said to be eternal, this would be impossible in the physical only universe, as they would eventually burn out, or decay, etc. 6) We know there is a 6000 year timeframe given in the bible roughly since creation, and that some process other than a decay process was at work, and certainly will be at work. For lasting forever, you need to bring the spiritual in. 7) Some aspects of the flood, I propose can only be answered in a pre split scenario, as there is too many factor's like great heat, impossible canopy, etc. "
]





Ok then refute this, dad:

Your ideas have absolutely no physical or scriptual support. [All physical science is precisely as it should be according to this idea, so there is actually all physical support, not none. The only 'none' is evo interpretation, and philosophy. And for spiritual support, I have the bible, and no one seems able to come up with a thing against it. All thats left is you not liking it, and refusing to know when you're licked] and YOu switch between bas science and bad theology at will, [Rock solid, good as God's gold biblically sound reasoning, and all the good science on the planet. If you disagree, show us some science, or bible to back up your (lack of a ) point!] and have been called out repeatedly for your poor use of both. [ Now you're called out, come out, come out wherever you are!]

Run along, little boy, from this forum. Adults are talking. [Yes, like you, only problem is, yer jaws are flapping, but nothins comin out!]



I leave the spouting to you. [Apparently you have no choice.]

.

 

[pantsman52]

Alright guys, I have come to the conclusion that Unicorns used to exist. They also built a highly advanced space faring civilization. This was until last thursday when physics changed and erased any sign of them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

1: What Ruler? [Already covered]

Covered by you? A 5,000-year old figment of the collective imagination? That's the best that your mythology box can offer?

2: What does "love one another" have to do with your water canopy theory? Doesn't the whole notion of the water canopy run contrary to this rule? [You said there were no rules in there]

You said there were. AND You claim the Water canopy allows for a global flood, which breaks those rules.

You're not being very consistent; try cutting some air holes in the mythology box.

After all, if you are correct, then the canopy provides the mechanism by which God exterminated the human race... hardly an act of love. [If He hadn't of, He couldn't have saved mankind for eternity]

"I love you so much I have to kill you"?

Or is it that the almighty God was powerless to save humanity, so he wiped the slate? (Unsuccessfully, it would seem.)

And again, what has this to do with your alleged water canopy? [Speaking of which, what do you have to say about it?]

Same thing I've always said: That it's utter nonsense.

You started with a preconceived conclusion with absolutely no support, you find bits and pieces of "box" science which might support it, and run scurrying to the supernatural to explain the refutationas. Goddidit.

And you would be a liar for doing so, breaking the rules you pretend to care about. [You got it backwards]

Ah, the classic "I know you are but what am I?" defense; a commoon enough creationist tactic.

The mythology box isn't even all that original, I see.

Your mythilogy box sounds like a gateway back to the 12th century... is it any wonder you're a laughingstock around here? [ You can laugh at what you can't understand. Apparently you have nothing else on offer]

A comic's only as good as his material... your act is a tough one to follow.

And now... finally, something worth refuting...

Because there's nothing to refute. Your argument is "Goddidit." Prove it, and we'll talk.
[Well, theres plenty to try to refute. For example
"1) Lifespans were almost a thousand years right on up to Noah. This indicates something else at work than normal physical processes!

No... it didn't happen. You're reading mythology as history.

You might as well validate Utnapisham's claim of immortality, seeing as how you've already lifted his flood story.

Or does nobody read Gilgamesh anymore?

2) God walked among men, this too was indicitive of something different than today. Since He is a Spirit, assuming the spiritual was not fully split from the physical is a very valid option.

A man walked among men that, many years after the fact, was called God.

You might as well validate the greek myths: Gods and demi-gods have been walking among men for quite some time.

Tell me, dad, was Hercules really 1/2 a god? Was Gilgamesh really 2/3 a god?

3) Peleg lived in the days when the split, or division occured, which has been a mystery, exactly what this was. All these are biblical support.

You have Biblical support of the existence of a mystery. So?

4) Light also was known to reach us infinitely faster than it now could, this also is support for a big change, of the type, I propose is only possible with the division, or split. I have never heard another explanation that can stand up to science.

Then I shall give you an explanation: The rumors of the speed of light changing are false. You've been basing your ideas on erroneous premises.

5) The sun, and earth etc. is biblically said to be eternal, this would be impossible in the physical only universe, as they would eventually burn out, or decay, etc.

Here's an idea for you: The Bible is mistaken.

6) We know there is a 6000 year timeframe given in the bible roughly since creation, and that some process other than a decay process was at work, and certainly will be at work. For lasting forever, you need to bring the spiritual in.

IF you assume that everything is going to last forever, which you do for no reason.

7) Some aspects of the flood, I propose can only be answered in a pre split scenario, as there is too many factor's like great heat, impossible canopy, etc. "

Again, your entire argument hinges on your infallible interpretation of a literal Bible. What a small box you've walled yourself into.

Ok then refute this, dad:

Your ideas have absolutely no physical or scriptual support. [All physical science is precisely as it should be according to this idea, so there is actually all physical support, not none. The only 'none' is evo interpretation, and philosophy. And for spiritual support, I have the bible, and no one seems able to come up with a thing against it. All thats left is you not liking it, and refusing to know when you're licked]

I'm simply afriad I'm less than impressed with how you choose to interpret the Bible.

and YOu switch between bas science and bad theology at will, [Rock solid, good as God's gold biblically sound reasoning, and all the good science on the planet. If you disagree, show us some science, or bible to back up your (lack of a ) point!]

All based on the assumption that the physical universe can be bent, folded, and mutilated to fit how you read the Bible.

and have been called out repeatedly for your poor use of both. [ Now you're called out, come out, come out wherever you are!]

Where is your proof that the Bible means what you want it to mean? You've offered little but wild speculation; there's nothing here to refute.

Run along, little boy, from this forum. Adults are talking. [Yes, like you, only problem is, yer jaws are flapping, but nothins comin out!]

It's not quantity, but quality. Say something worth refuting and it will be refuted...

Oh, wait, it already has...

I leave the spouting to you. [Apparently you have no choice.]

Agreed. I know I'm no substitute for therapy and medication.

 

[Stan the Man]

Wowser - I'm not sure which is worse for not knowing when to quit...

Ok, I'm only addressing one point, because it is to do with salvation not with figuring out the exact mechanism for something:

How the flood can be the act of a loving God

The bible makes several claims about God but there are two that are crucial to understanding how a loving God could bring about the flood. Firstly, that God shows mercy on those who love Him. Secondly, that God is just and so punishes sin. The flood killed those who sinned against the LORD (judgement by a just God), but the ark saved Noah and his family, and two of every kind of animal (God saving creation and those who loved Him). Thus the one who rejects God sees him as unloving, for he killed those who sinned against Him, whilst the one who accepts God sees him as one who overflows with love, because he could have destroyed everything and started from scratch but instead chose to save Noah and his family, and demonstrated further love by making a covenant with Noah that He would never flood the earth again.

Now, the reason why this is relevant to salvation is not because you have to understand the story of the flood in order to be welcomed into heaven, but because God has now promised something even more amazing than this covenant. In the flood, God destroyed all who had sinned against Him - he punished them for their sins there and then - there was no warning to them, no indication that they needed to change their ways - God knew there hearts, they could not accept Him. But there is still sin in the world - people still choose to reject God - God doesn't fit in with their plans - he takes up valuable "me" space. What does God do? He sends His Son Jesus Christ to live a life without sin, to take the punishment we deserve by suffering the cat of nine tales whip and the agony of dying on a cross, and conquered the power of sin by rising from the dead on the third day. God promises that all those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved from the punishment for sin ("for the wages of sin are death"), and more than that, that they will be made like Christ in glory. And he offers this to all, not to a select band or group - He reaches out to everyone through His word, and through those who have faith in Him... he makes himself available to all - it's not a question of whether or not God is loving, it's a question of whether or not we choose to accept Him as Lord and Saviour. This act of love was made when mankind was still doing its own thing, as it was when God sent the flood, and the saving power of this act continues.

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God"

"But while we were still sinners, Christ died for us"

"For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

did all the animals he killed sin against him too? or was he just too lazy to save them? what about pregnant mothers at that time? their fetuses died too, I assume...

 

[Stan the Man]

Animals are not created with souls, so this is not a matter of salvation (and before anyone leaps on that, I'm going with what the bible says on it, and I won't address this side issue) - he chose to keep two of each kind, thereby saving creation. Which do you think requires more effort on God's part, to ensure that two of each kind survive by having them on the ark, or killing them all, and having to create all those creatures again when the waters subsided... laziness doesn't factor in the equation.

And yes, logically, if a mother was pregnant with a child at the time when the flood came, the unborn would have died too... this does not contradict scripture ' "I punish sin to the fourth and fifth generation" says the Lord '.

 

[dad]

Alright guys, I have come to the conclusion that Unicorns used to exist. They also built a highly advanced space faring civilization. This was until last thursday when physics changed and erased any sign of them.

AS far as unicorns, I won't argue. Now, as to the rest of it, isn't it a crying shame you don't have the bible and science to back you up? Your theory is about as solid as custard.

 

[pantsman52]

I don't need either, I have pre-unicorn physics to back me up.

 

[dad]

Covered by you? A 5,000-year old figment of the collective imagination? That's the best that your mythology box can offer?
[So you rest on the arguement God and the bible are not real, because modern physical science can't stick them in a test tube for you. Fine]



You said there were. AND You claim the Water canopy allows for a global flood, which breaks those rules.
[No, the rules include the spiritual, of course, unlike the micky mouse box]

You're not being very consistent; try cutting some air holes in the mythology box. [Nice try to try to make it sound like it is not physical only based knowledge- which is the epitomy of box like limitations- but trying to tar God, the bible, and true science with the same brush]]



"I love you so much I have to kill you"?

Or is it that the almighty God was powerless to save humanity, so he wiped the slate? (Unsuccessfully, it would seem.) [Man was so bad, no hope was left to save them except for starting over with the worthiest ones He could find]



Same thing I've always said: That it's utter nonsense.

You started with a preconceived conclusion with absolutely no support, you find bits and pieces of "box" science which might support it, and run scurrying to the supernatural to explain the refutationas. Goddidit.
[Lots of support, including the bible-don't cry to me just because you chose to not accept it]]



Ah, the classic "I know you are but what am I?" defense; a commoon enough creationist tactic.

The mythology box isn't even all that original, I see. [No, your phrase is ill applied]



A comic's only as good as his material... your act is a tough one to follow. [ Even God has a sense of humor. And He will have the last laugh. Psalm 2:4]

And now... finally, something worth refuting...



No... it didn't happen. You're reading mythology as history.
[You reject God's account of how long men lived, so carefully chronicled, fine. You are entitled to your unprovable philosophy]

You might as well validate Utnapisham's claim of immortality, seeing as how you've already lifted his flood story.

Or does nobody read Gilgamesh anymore? [Giglamesh is for giggles, because it is a crock of paganistic assumptions that overlooks the utter unimportance of all but God's people at the time, as far as who knew anything of worth.]



A man walked among men that, many years after the fact, was called God.
[And we know this because.....? What, the tiny box tells us so?]

You might as well validate the greek myths:[OK. There was a lot to them, that was based on real spiritual beings] Gods and demi-gods have been walking among men for quite some time. [Actually they still do, mostly demons on this earth now. But also angels, and good spirits sent to our physical world out of love to help us. But this doesn't take away from the awesome accounts of God being real up close, and Personal in more ancient times, as a matter of documented record]]

Tell me, dad, was Hercules really 1/2 a god? Was Gilgamesh really 2/3 a god? [Sorry, no details, just the general fact that there was something to a lot of it is all I can give you here]




You have Biblical support of the existence of a mystery. So? [Glad you don't contest, at least, as you have before, my biblical support]




Then I shall give you an explanation: The rumors of the speed of light changing are false. You've been basing your ideas on erroneous premises.
[ I don't think it did change. All I've said is it was replaced by our physical universe light, which is a totally different thing]



Here's an idea for you: The Bible is mistaken.
[Yes, since the garden, this has been a message of a certain party]



IF you assume that everything is going to last forever, which you do for no reason.
[ I don't assume. I simply believe, with good reason]



Again, your entire argument hinges on your infallible interpretation of a literal Bible. What a small box you've walled yourself into.
[God is so big, He can't fit into any box. I'm glad you like to use the word box, however, even if hopelessly misplaced]



I'm simply afriad I'm less than impressed with how you choose to interpret the Bible.
[Funny, from the amount of babbling on about precious little you do, I'd almost think you were somewhat impressed]



All based on the assumption that the physical universe can be bent, folded, and mutilated to fit how you read the Bible.
[The physical universe will be more than bent, it will forever disappear, as the merged spiritual/physical, eternal one comes to be.]




Where is your proof that the Bible means what you want it to mean? You've offered little but wild speculation; there's nothing here to refute.
[ There is a trump card to all that evoism has to offer]



It's not quantity, but quality. Say something worth refuting and it will be refuted...

Oh, wait, it already has...



Agreed. I know I'm no substitute for therapy and medication.
[At least one of us is drug free, thankfully. As far as 'therapy' I'd be one to ggive it, not take it from some brainwashed spritless, nuts who used to say we wanted to make our mothers, and hate our fathers, if I remember right? Fraudean nincompoops in my humble opinion.

.

 

[dad]

Wowser - I'm not sure which is worse for not knowing when to quit...

Ok, I'm only addressing one point, because it is to do with salvation not with figuring out the exact mechanism for something:

How the flood can be the act of a loving God

The bible makes several claims about God but there are two that are crucial to understanding how a loving God could bring about the flood. Firstly, that God shows mercy on those who love Him. Secondly, that God is just and so punishes sin. The flood killed those who sinned against the LORD (judgement by a just God), but the ark saved Noah and his family, and two of every kind of animal (God saving creation and those who loved Him). Thus the one who rejects God sees him as unloving, for he killed those who sinned against Him, whilst the one who accepts God sees him as one who overflows with love, because he could have destroyed everything and started from scratch but instead chose to save Noah and his family, and demonstrated further love by making a covenant with Noah that He would never flood the earth again.

Now, the reason why this is relevant to salvation is not because you have to understand the story of the flood in order to be welcomed into heaven, but because God has now promised something even more amazing than this covenant. In the flood, God destroyed all who had sinned against Him - he punished them for their sins there and then - there was no warning to them, no indication that they needed to change their ways - God knew there hearts, they could not accept Him. But there is still sin in the world - people still choose to reject God - God doesn't fit in with their plans - he takes up valuable "me" space. What does God do? He sends His Son Jesus Christ to live a life without sin, to take the punishment we deserve by suffering the cat of nine tales whip and the agony of dying on a cross, and conquered the power of sin by rising from the dead on the third day. God promises that all those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved from the punishment for sin ("for the wages of sin are death"), and more than that, that they will be made like Christ in glory. And he offers this to all, not to a select band or group - He reaches out to everyone through His word, and through those who have faith in Him... he makes himself available to all - it's not a question of whether or not God is loving, it's a question of whether or not we choose to accept Him as Lord and Saviour. This act of love was made when mankind was still doing its own thing, as it was when God sent the flood, and the saving power of this act continues.

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God"

"But while we were still sinners, Christ died for us"

"For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"

Some good points.

 

[dad]

did all the animals he killed sin against him too? or was he just too lazy to save them? what about pregnant mothers at that time? their fetuses died too, I assume...

I hate to tell you what I think wicked men was doing with a lot of the animals. If we look at the sin of sodomy that was prevalent there at the time, there may have been less babies than you think, as well. Look at this fact, as well, the babies would be delivered to heaven, rather than thrust into a vile, filthy, violent world! Man would have another chance.

 

[dad]

Animals are not created with souls, so this is not a matter of salvation (and before anyone leaps on that, I'm going with what the bible says on it, and I won't address this side issue) - he chose to keep two of each kind, thereby saving creation. Which do you think requires more effort on God's part, to ensure that two of each kind survive by having them on the ark, or killing them all, and having to create all those creatures again when the waters subsided... laziness doesn't factor in the equation.

And yes, logically, if a mother was pregnant with a child at the time when the flood came, the unborn would have died too... this does not contradict scripture ' "I punish sin to the fourth and fifth generation" says the Lord '.

On this small matter, my opinion goes further. There are animals in heaven, and I believe we will see our pets there. So, in a sense, I believe some animals do have souls, or spirits.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

why would god bother with your pets if you can't even be married in heaven?

 

[dad]

why would god bother with your pets if you can't even be married in heaven?

Apparently He does. Besides, it says we shall be as the angels, which did come down, and have children (giants) with the daughters of men. If I remeber, He was trying to answer someone asking about whose a gal would be, if she had married a number of brothers. (whose wife) All He says, is, basically, it's not the same as here, not that we won't have relationships.
Even He is getting married in Heaven, so let's not paint it too somber.

 

[enlightenment]

And yes, logically, if a mother was pregnant with a child at the time when the flood came, the unborn would have died too... this does not contradict scripture ' "I punish sin to the fourth and fifth generation" says the Lord '.

That's pure evil.

 

[Numenor]

1) Lifespans were almost a thousand years right on up to Noah. This indicates something else at work than normal physical processes!

Umm...no, it indicates they lived longer.

2) God walked among men, this too was indicitive of something different than today. Since He is a Spirit, assuming the spiritual was not fully split from the physical is a very valid option.

Since God is a spirit, he does not have legs for walking, unless what you're saying that the nature of God has changed also and not just the physical world, because that would be unbiblical wouldn't it. It's better to learn how to read the bible before you post drivel.

3) Peleg lived in the days when the split, or division occured, which has been a mystery, exactly what this was. All these are biblical support.

Umm...yeah, so nobody reall knows what Gen 10:25 means, and that's supposed to support your day-dreaming?

4) Light also was known to reach us infinitely faster than it now could, this also is support for a big change, of the type, I propose is only possible with the division, or split. I have never heard another explanation that can stand up to science.

...what you mean an explanation that can stand up to "physical box only" science? 'Light was known to reach us faster'? Known by who?

5) The sun, and earth etc. is biblically said to be eternal, this would be impossible in the physical only universe, as they would eventually burn out, or decay, etc.

Chapter and verse please...

6) We know there is a 6000 year timeframe given in the bible roughly since creation, and that some process other than a decay process was at work, and certainly will be at work. For lasting forever, you need to bring the spiritual in.

There is no 6000 year timeframe given in the Bible.

7) Some aspects of the flood, I propose can only be answered in a pre split scenario, as there is too many factor's like great heat, impossible canopy, etc.

It's easy, there wasn't a global flood. I notice you still haven't disproved the pre-split custard canopy theory.

 

[Numenor]

So, in a sense, I believe some animals do have souls, or spirits

Same drill dad, chapter and verse please.....

why would god bother with your pets if you can't even be married in heaven?

Apparently He does. Besides, it says we shall be as the angels, which did come down, and have children (giants) with the daughters of men. If I remeber, He was trying to answer someone asking about whose a gal would be, if she had married a number of brothers. (whose wife) All He says, is, basically, it's not the same as here, not that we won't have relationships.
Even He is getting married in Heaven, so let's not paint it too somber.

Apprently he doesn't, Matt 22: "[sup]29[/sup]Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. (He's talking to you here dad) [sup]30[/sup]At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage"