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.
I've been accused of injecting pseudoscience into Genesis 1.Perhaps you could explain why you think it's important.
Good luck getting an answer to that one. Having been raised in a faith which regards Scripture as the inspired word of God but which does not embrace literalism, the "why" of it has always escaped me. Perhaps that is why I hang around in chatrooms like this, and perhaps someday I will come across a sensible answer.Of course its not the point of the account.
Mine of course is just that the story is in some
measure inaccurate, and what that so- obvious fact
means for literalists.
Well !Good luck getting an answer to that one. Having been raised in a faith which regards Scripture as the inspired word of God but which does not embrace literalism, the "why" of it has always escaped me. Perhaps that is why I hang around in chatrooms like this, and perhaps someday I will come across a sensible answer.
You mean like here: Post 1512Good luck getting an answer to that one. Having been raised in a faith which regards Scripture as the inspired word of God but which does not embrace literalism, the "why" of it has always escaped me. Perhaps that is why I hang around in chatrooms like this, and perhaps someday I will come across a sensible answer.
So 99.9 percent of all pre flood species became extinct in the flood?
It depends on what you mean by "the Bible is wrong." To say that the Bible is not always literally accurate is only an accusation of wrongness to a literalist.You mean like here: Post 1512
In short, the molten sea was oval, not circular.
But the Bible calls it "round," which can be either oval or circular.
To call it "circular," then say the Bible is wrong, might get you on the Dean's list, but you would be wrong.
What you call "luck," I call "apologetics."Mutual wishes for good luck!
God: And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.It depends on what you mean by "the Bible is wrong." To say that the Bible is not always literally accurate is only an accusation of wrongness to a literalist.
It is a possible answer, but far from perfect, for lo:
There is simply no way the measurements are very accurate.
Common sense tells you that.
So, the q. Is still- are you going to take the numbers as literally true?
So why do you defend the accuracy of the measurements?When your using a cubit as a method for measurement you can only expect the accuracy to be within about 18 inches or so. So a .08” difference is hardly something that needed to be included in the description of Saul’s pool. I’d be willing to bet that if someone were to buy a swimming pool and the measurement of the pool was .08” bigger than advertised no one would think twice about it.
Really ?Of course not don’t be silly, there were many species that could survive the flood without an ark.
When your using a cubit as a method for measurement you can only expect the accuracy to be within about 18 inches or so. So a .08” difference is hardly something that needed to be included in the description of Saul’s pool. I’d be willing to bet that if someone were to buy a swimming pool and the measurement of the pool was .08” bigger than advertised no one would think twice about it.
Look at the shape.If you believe the bible is literal truth, what do you
do when the numbers are not true?
Sure, why not?Estrid said:Brush it off with talk of swimming pools?
So why do you defend the accuracy of the measurements?
Then why did you make such an egregious error here:
Could it be that your attitude towards Genesis 1 being mythical, coupled with your attitude that certain terms are "pseudoscience," that it has clouded your thinking?
Your precise 0.08" inches is made up of course but
I am glad to see you agree the numbers are not accurate-
but I hoped we were past that.
If you believe the bible is literal truth, what do you
do when the numbers are not true?
Brush it off with talk of swimming pools?
No it doesn't.
Not if the point is whether the bread was created ex nihilo or ex materia.
According to Valentine, it was created ex nihilo.
According to me, it was created ex materia.
Break the tie.
No.Could be I made no error.
Ya ... my bad.Where did I say that, AV?
That's what can happen when you get answer like this to good questions.How would you answer someone who wanted to know how, if creation ended after six days, God fed the four thousand without doing any act of creating?Wouldn't it be a better use of time to figure out how on Earth Red Riding Hood didn't recognize a freaking WOLF dressed up as her own grandmother?
I was implying that the Bible passage in question does not contain any mathematics at all that should be subject to an exacting standard of mathematical correctness. You are struggling to justify a figure of 3.0 when it really does not make any difference.I was defending the mathematics. You were implying that the Bible contained incorrect mathematics.
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?