Wysisyg

[Jet Black]

Everything Moses wrote has stood the test of time. You can take anything in Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Chemistry, Physics, etc... and check it against what Moses wrote to see if it's true or not. If it conflicts with what Moses wrote, then it's not true.

you are basing your asertation that everything moses said has stood the test of time on the presumption that anything that disagrees with moses is wrong. This is circular logic.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Everything Moses wrote has stood the test of time. You can take anything in Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Chemistry, Physics, etc... and check it against what Moses wrote to see if it's true or not. If it conflicts with what Moses wrote, then it's not true.

There are several problems here with your so-called "logic." Jet Black has already pointed out the glaring circular resoning fallacy, to which I will ad dthe following unpleasant truth:

Moses wrote nothing of value in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, chemsitry, physics, or much of anything else that would be called "science." What Moses is credited with is a touch of morality, a smattering of history, and a great deal of mythology. Therefore, invoking Moses in a scientific discussion is more or less worthless.

If he had, you would have no doubt quoted him by now and allowed this discussion to continue.

 

[JohnR7]

If he had, you would have no doubt quoted him by now and allowed this discussion to continue.

In the mean time more truth goes right over Nathans head. Do you really not understand, or are you just pretending not to understand?

 

[JohnR7]

you are basing your asertation that everything moses said has stood the test of time on the presumption that anything that disagrees with moses is wrong. This is circular logic.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You say there are no geologists that accept a 6000 year old earth, and that extablishes that the earth is older than 6000 years.

Using the same reasoning, there are no christians that believe that Moses can be falsified.

In the mean time, not one single person made any attempt at all to try and understand the point I was trying to make in this thread.

 

[JohnR7]

Because apparantly we're not having the same conversation.

Yes, I noticed that. I have seen lots of post drift off of topic. But if my memory is correct than this is the first post I have seen that not one person made even a single comment about the topic of the thread.

Let me give you a clue. How much of a sound wave is our ear able to perceive? How much of a light wave is our eye able to perceive?

 

[Nathan Poe]

In the mean time more truth goes right over Nathans head. Do you really not understand, or are you just pretending not to understand?

I understand that you haven't said an ounce of "truth" yet. Just a lot of blind assertions that you feel too good to explain.

Name one, count it, John, one scientific fact that Moses presented in any writings credited to him which have stood "the test of time."

Just one, John. Even you can do that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You say there are no geologists that accept a 6000 year old earth, and that extablishes that the earth is older than 6000 years.

You've got your causes and effects mixed up, John. Ask yourself: Why don't geologists accept a 6000 year old Earth? Could it be becasue it just isn't so?

Earht isn't old because the Geologists say it is; The geologists say it is because it is.

Using the same reasoning, there are no christians that believe that Moses can be falsified.

Hmmm? You're not talking about Genesis, are you? There are millions of Christians who don't accept it literally, and do believe it has been falsified.

Poor John. You close your eyes, and wish real hard, but that doesn't make your lies any more true.

I pity you for your delusions. I'd like to say I expect more from you, but at this point, I really don't.

In the mean time, not one single person made any attempt at all to try and understand the point I was trying to make in this thread.

Your thread is pointless.

 

[JohnR7]

You've got your causes and effects mixed up, John. Ask yourself: Why don't geologists accept a 6000 year old Earth? Could it be becasue it just isn't so?

Ask yourself, why do people with Phd's in theology believe that there is no error in the Bible. Could it be because there is no error?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, I noticed that. I have seen lots of post drift off of topic. But if my memory is correct than this is the first post I have seen that not one person made even a single comment about the topic of the thread.

Let me give you a clue. How much of a sound wave is our ear able to perceive? How much of a light wave is our eye able to perceive?

Oh, is that all you want to know?

The human ear can, on average, pick up sound from a range of 20 hertz cycles (20Hz) to a high of about 20,000 hertz cycles (20KHz). Although, as a general rule, humans tend to fare better with lower frequencies than higher ones.
(thanks to http://www.squ1.com/index.php?http://www.squ1.com/sound/the-ear.html for the info)

The eye can detect a relatively small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light waves range from 0.4 to 0.7 micrometer (4000 to 7000 angstroms), and the brain interprets these waves as different colors

(got those statistics from http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/Wavelength.html )

Here's the literal answer. Now, what's your pseudo-theological angle?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ask yourself, why do people with Phd's in theology believe that there is no error in the Bible. Could it be because there is no error?

A PhD in Theology who claims that the Bible is completely without error? Assuming that such a claim is not a prerequisite for achieving such a degree (some Bible colleges might have such a requirement), find me such a person; I'd love to meet him.

 

[JohnR7]

A PhD in Theology who claims that the Bible is completely without error? Assuming that such a claim is not a prerequisite for achieving such a degree (some Bible colleges might have such a requirement), find me such a person; I'd love to meet him.

Wow Nathan, most of the large (mainline denomination) churches have a doctor of theology as the senior pastor, so take your pick.

Most christians believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Run a search, type in "inerrant Word of God" and then any denomination" Baptist, Methodist, Luthern or whatever and you will see that they believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God

 

[Meatros]

Wow Nathan, most of the large (mainline denomination) churches have a doctor of theology as the senior pastor, so take your pick.

Most christians believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Run a search, type in "inerrant Word of God" and then any denomination" Baptist, Methodist, Luthern or whatever and you will see that they believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God

Most Christians actually do not prescribe to inerrancy:

http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html

 

[JohnR7]

Most Christians actually do not prescribe to inerrancy:

http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html

WOW, that link you gave is a pretty strong statement all in itself. That there are that many churchs that require a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible to qualify for membership.

All that link shows though is that it is not a requirement in the other denominations. It says nothing about what their offical position is. Most of that stuff is voted on and often the people who go to the conventions to vote are on fire for God. So you will not find that many churchs that do not support the inerrancy of the word of God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

WOW, that link you gave is a pretty strong statement all in itself. That there are that many churchs that require a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible to qualify for membership.

All that link shows though is that it is not a requirement in the other denominations.

What "other" denominations? You specifically mentioned Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran in your post.

It says nothing about what their offical position is. Most of that stuff is voted on and often the people who go to the conventions to vote are on fire for God.

But if the majority of voters are "on fire for God," how much more "official" can their position get than that?

So you will not find that many churchs that do not support the inerrancy of the word of God.

No matter how much ou wave your hands, you can't make the link go away.

The long and short of it is that the link directly refutes your previous statement:

Most christians believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Run a search, type in "inerrant Word of God" and then any denomination" Baptist, Methodist, Luthern or whatever and you will see that they believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God

You made a mistake, John. You can either acknowledge it, or persist in it. Which way leads to wisdom?

 

[JohnR7]

You are a dead man Nathan. I mean your not just asleep, your a walking talking dead man when it comes to God and the things of God.

Rev. 3:1 "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are a dead man Nathan. I mean your not just asleep, your a walking talking dead man when it comes to God and the things of God.

Rev. 3:1 "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.

Wow. I'm not sure if this is an insult or a threat, but it's certainly not an answer.

You could've acknowledged your own mistakes and learned something new, John, but I suppose it just wasn't meant to be.

 

[JohnR7]

Wow. I'm not sure if this is an insult or a threat, but it's certainly not an answer.

It is just the truth, just as Jesus said to the church I quoted, they were spiritually dead. They had none of God in them. Apart from God, people are dead. Do you think God enjoys hearing that stuff that comes out of your mouth? I don't think so. You have so quenched and grieved the Holy Spirit of God with your mouth, that I am sure He is far from you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It is just the truth, just as Jesus said to the church I quoted, they were spiritually dead. They had none of God in them. Apart from God, people are dead. Do you think God enjoys hearing that stuff that comes out of your mouth? I don't think so. You have so quenched and grieved the Holy Spirit of God with your mouth, that I am sure He is far from you.

Well then, you've got yourself a pretty good excuse to ignore anything you don't like; just pass judgement on them as "spiritually dead." I suppose the next step will be to put me on "ignore," so that you'll never have to answer any of my disagreeable little thoughts again.

By all means, go ahead, ignore me and anyone else you might consider "spiritually dead." I predict that after about a week, you'll run yourself out of the apologetics and Creation/Evolution boards.
Two weeks, and you'll be posting to yourself.

Better start quickly! A fact might come at you from any direction!

 

[wblastyn]

You are a dead man Nathan. I mean your not just asleep, your a walking talking dead man when it comes to God and the things of God.

Rev. 3:1 "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.

How is this even relevant to anything here? Why do you continue to push people away from Christianity with your off tangent Bible quotes and threats of hell fire?

 

[JohnR7]

How is this even relevant to anything here?

It is relevant if people what to know the God who created them. it is relevant if people are interested in eternal life. If they do not want to know the God who created them, and if they want to perish and die in their sin, then it would not be relevant.