Why Christian Creationists Hate Evolution but Muslim Creationists Don’t Care

[TLK Valentine]

Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Still no room for Him, is there?

Hardly surprising... According to Luke, Joseph took his 9 month pregnant wife on a 100 mile road trip through the desert to Bethlehem because he was a descendant of David... although with dozens of wives, hundreds of concubines, and a handful of affairs that we know of, there must've been tens of thousands of Jews at the time with equally valid claims of a Davidic lineage... all descending on Bethlehem at the same time?

No wonder there was no room at the inn!

 

[Jadis40]

Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Still no room for Him, is there?

Of course there is. My point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 does not match up with the physical evidence that we've discovered. Not to mention the mess a 6000 year old earth makes of the historical timeline when there are people running around saying there was a flood in 2348 BC - when there is no evidence of any such event happening within the past 6000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course there is. My point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 does not match up with the physical evidence that we've discovered. Not to mention the mess a 6000 year old earth makes of the historical timeline when there are people running around saying there was a flood in 2348 BC - when there is no evidence of any such event happening within the past 6000 years.

I take it this passage is an exception though?

Matthew 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I take it this passage is an exception though?

Matthew 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

Refresh my memory -- when the women went to the tomb, did they see the risen Jesus there?

(according to Matthew, that is.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Refresh my memory -- when the women went to the tomb, did they see the risen Jesus there?

(according to Matthew, that is.)

I've posted a chronological sequence of events on the Resurrection morning before.

I'm not going to do it again.

If you really want to know, professor, get a Schofield Reference Bible and read his footnotes.

 

[HitchSlap]

I've posted a chronological sequence of events on the Resurrection morning before.

I'm not going to do it again.

If you really want to know, professor, get a Schofield Reference Bible and read his footnotes.

Tsk, tsk.... adding to scripture, and all that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've posted a chronological sequence of events on the Resurrection morning before.

I'm not going to do it again.

Good, because I didn't ask, and I don't care.

All I want to know is : did Matthew say that the women saw the resurrected Jesus at the tomb?

YES or NO will do.

(Really, AV -- a child could answer this; you've educated yourself into ignorance )

 

[AV1611VET]

All I want to know is : did Matthew say that the women saw the resurrected Jesus at the tomb?

You can't read it yourself, professor?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can't read it yourself, professor?

You can't say it yourself, amateur?

C'mon, AV -- would it make you feel better if I called it "My Matthew Challenge"?

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't say it yourself, amateur?

C'mon, AV -- would it make you feel better if I called it "My Matthew Challenge"?

How about you call it "My Documentation Challenge," professor?

My Documentation Challenge

Specifically post #9.

-amateur

 

[TLK Valentine]

How about you call it "My Documentation Challenge," professor?

My Documentation Challenge

Specifically post #9.

-amateur

Are you admitting, then, that you got it (partially) wrong? Or do you need to read John 20:14 again?

- Professor

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course there is. My point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 does not match up with the physical evidence that we've discovered.

Nor does a literal interpretation of the Gospels... but at least nobody's trying to pass that off as history in our schools.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you admitting, then, that you got it (partially) wrong? Or do you need to read John 20:14 again?

- Professor

Mary hung around for quite awhile, didn't she ... professor? and guess Who eventually showed up?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Mary hung around for quite awhile, didn't she ... professor? and guess Who eventually showed up?

So he was there after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

So he was there after all.

Nope.

He showed up later.

You know what your problem is, professor?

Your attitude: it's keeping you from understanding.

Good, because I didn't ask, and I don't care.

 

[HitchSlap]

You're attitude: it's keeping you from understanding.

He is attitude?

 

[JD16]

He is attitude?

 

[AV1611VET]

He is attitude?

LOL -- good catch.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope.

He showed up later.

You know what your problem is, professor?

Your attitude: it's keeping you from understanding.

What part of "he was there" is causing the problem?