The bible is a fairy tale!

[MHz]

That is highly unlikely as I have no plans to read that work of fiction again.

You take in a little bit of knowledge every time you visit some thread with a Christian thread, granted the majority of your time is spent in slandering the book and the people who read it and believe the words to be true. It certainly does come blindly or I would not have any controversy with other who 'appear' to be informed.

I see no point in it. As for your long and incoherent rant, it is a poor motivation to even consider reading it as you come across as Dex says, delusional and hallucinating.

What better kind is there? lol
Short and to the point certainly doesn't shut you up. It also gives you the excuse to not reply to any specific points. If some have a mistaken belief that hell is an eternal punishment and nobody that goes there ever makes it to be alive after Judgment Day then why does that view not change when a passage is shown that shows that the ones sent to hell do have a spot reserved for them that is not 'the cream' but nobody would be complaining. Vanity is a big player when pointing that out to 'the ones who already consider themselves to be 2nd born'.
Slander is Dex's method that he always uses when he is in a argument that he has no rebuttals to, Dex is not the only one to use that method. For as educated as he claims to be he also has a hard time accepting that what he has accepted as 'fact'. You just have a pure hatred for any/all Christians because of your experiences in your past.

In the end, it will be you who is grossly disappointed in a life wasted in the study of a work with little value other than entertainment.

You probably have more posts in the religious threads than I do. I enjoy looking up certain 'answers' that are in the Bible, reading the ones that are directed at you is probably not very entertaining for you though. Dex just quits the thread after he says any reply is beneath him.

Lord of the Rings would be a more profitable pursuit.

I wonder if the 4th book will ever come out? The one that picks up where the 3rd one ended, a big party then WHAM.

M't:24:37:
But as the days of Noe were,
so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
M't:24:38:
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage,
until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Perhaps you and Dex should read the KISS Bible. Genesis 1,2,3 and Revelation 20,21,22 and leave the rest alone since your first thought gets carved in stone. Some study that book for their whole life and they do not understand it properly. Your vanity says your can read it once and you know all there is to know, and probably a little more than is actually there. If you had to supply a passage to support your claims you would be speechless. Which is what I hope you are at this point in time. lol

I've never been stuck for an answer to you, it's just that sometimes I decide your remarks aren't worth responding to because it's clear you either aren't going to pay any attention or you'll refuse to understand the response, which is obvious in your response above. You're stuck, and sunk, in a belief that the Bible is literally true and prophetic for our times, which is demonstrably a false belief, but the more evidence you're given that shows that, the more stubbornly you cling to your delusions and twist the words of scripture to mean what you want them to mean. You're simply wrong, that's all, utterly and completely and provably wrong, but barring some staggering epiphany, you'll never see that. You are hallucinating.

See how many words you can rattle off on just meaningless dribble. Yet when it comes to dealing with the words in this book you become speechless over the 'challenge to existing doctrine' that says using the book of Daniel to create a picture all by itself is a cardnial sin in understanding the message. If you can't make the connection to an 'end of sacrifice' in back to back chapters then it is you who is under delusion. The changes that makes is also verified in several other passages as well, bits you will never see as you never get past the 1st page, and you call yourself open-minded, reading you above post just paints you as being a self-righteous ass.

Da:8:11:
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,
and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Da:8:12:
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,
and it cast down the truth to the ground;
and it practised, and prospered.

Da:9:27:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

When it comes to even showing which chapter covers the iron/clay kingdom in Daniel you draw a blank even though the other metal kingdoms clearly have their own individual chapter. You really should have asked more questions in that class.

Quite so, Cliffy. Bible is a great read the first time. It has plenty of blood, gore, killing, mayhem etc., and that always makes for interesting, fascinating reading.

That could be said about the whole last century, only a limited amount of reading is encouraged though. Oppression masquerading as enlightenment, how repetitive can things get, the same types deceptions that were used almost a century ago are still being used today with the same effect, most buy it hook, line and sinker.

How very sheeple of everybody.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

See how many words you can rattle off on just meaningless dribble. Yet when it comes to dealing with the words in this book you become speechless ...

That pretty much demonstrates my point. You believe Revelation and the apocalyptic bits in Daniel and Isaiah are about our future, for instance, it's been demonstrated to you why that's wrong, you simply deny it and continue to base arguments on that delusion. After the first time, they're not worth answering.

You're like this guy:
YouTube - Richard Dawkins cruelly answers audience question

 

[MHz]

it's been demonstrated to you why that's wrong,

lol that would be 'in your opinion'. Too bad you have to leave Daniel to explain Daniel. Again you miss the opportunity to reply to a specific questions and you are off on some other quest, attack the messenger.

 

[AnnaG]

Quite so, Cliffy. Bible is a great read the first time. It has plenty of blood, gore, killing, mayhem etc., and that always makes for interesting, fascinating reading.

Unfortunately, it does not carry well into the second reading. I have read Lord of the Rings trilogy (and Foundation Trilogy) several times. But after one or two readings of Bible, I was done. If I want to find out what Bible says about a particular subject, I refer to internet.

While Bible makes for interesting reading, there is noting in it to lure you to it again and again.

I never thought so. Except for the odd spot, the book is pretty dull. One part really sticks out as a nap trigger; the first 10 or 12 verses in Chronicles 1.

lol that would be 'in your opinion'. Too bad you have to leave Daniel to explain Daniel. Again you miss the opportunity to reply to a specific questions and you are off on some other quest, attack the messenger.

----->
:neutral:
whoooosh

Missed the point, I think.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I never thought so. Except for the odd spot, the book is pretty dull. One part really sticks out as a nap trigger; the first 10 or 12 verses in Chronicles 1.

Oh, i don't know. The Garden of Eden, the Exodus (parting of red sea, manna from Heaven etc.) make for a pretty good tale. So does Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale, Lott's wife turning into a pillar of salt and several others.

In ancient days if a traveler came to somebody's house and told similar tales, he most certainly will be deserving of a supper.

 

[AnnaG]

Oh, i don't know. The Garden of Eden, the Exodus (parting of red sea, manna from Heaven etc.) make for a pretty good tale. So does Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale, Lott's wife turning into a pillar of salt and several others.

What? A dozen or two little anecdotes out of 400 or so? Big whoopee. And most of the tales are goofy.

In ancient days if a traveler came to somebody's house and told similar tales, he most certainly will be deserving of a supper.

.... just to get him to shut up, most likely.

 

[MHz]

Oh, i don't know. The Garden of Eden, the Exodus (parting of red sea, manna from Heaven etc.) make for a pretty good tale. So does Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale, Lott's wife turning into a pillar of salt and several others.

In ancient days if a traveler came to somebody's house and told similar tales, he most certainly will be deserving of a supper.

How about the one where a man is getting back with his estranged wife and on the journey home she is 'captured' and raped and killed. The husband chops her into pieces and sends those pieces to his friends that have authority over many soldiers. By the time all the wars are over more than 800,000 men have died. The chopping up (as proof she was dead) is a bit much for today's culture.
How about the NT story about two women who were forgiven their sins yet during the telling of their sins their names were left 'anonymous' until another verse where they were named as being followers of Jesus (in that they traveled around with Jesus and the Apostles). What morality, if any, is shown in that example?

 

[Cliffy]

Jesus seemed to like to hang out with men and hookers. Sounds like he was a switch hitter.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

lol that would be 'in your opinion'. Too bad you have to leave Daniel to explain Daniel. Again you miss the opportunity to reply to a specific questions and you are off on some other quest, attack the messenger.

No, it's not merely my opinion, it's an easily defensible conclusion from the evidence, which you've been shown, and deny. I don't answer many of your specific questions because they're based on your delusions and are not significant or meaningful. How is it attacking the messenger to point out the errors in his messages? You continue to miss the point, as Anna observed: the basis of your worldview is false, the Bible is not what you think it is.

 

[petros]

Jesus seemed to like to hang out with men and hookers. Sounds like he was a switch hitter.

When Jesus comes back my money says he rises out of East Side Vancouver type places, does his thing, saves who truly need saving then just fades away as another unknown in a world few have ever encountered beyond staring from the safety and security of an automobile as they drive through in fear of someone jumping out to wash their window.

 

[MHz]

Missed the point, I think.

No, I just chose not to comment on his little mind games. First off, I would never act in the fashion of the 'meek little Christian' who doesn't even have a valid question to ask. A hired actor couldn't have come up with a more pathetic appearance.
As soon as I said Genesis 1 he would know I was a believer in Christ. That first chapter (one page to describe how we got here and how life came to the land, the sea and the air) a true rebuttal should be in the same number of words just because God is not going to add any more verses than what we already have. Impossible it seems as it takes a series of manuscripts to cover what God put down in one little page. lol
Ge:1 enough information to supply a great many questions that deal with the origin of us. Old Earth Creation does allow for a solar system that is billions of years old (and a heaven that is even older), the species jump is still a point that has yet to be proved beyond doubt.
The Bible does allow for adaptation and a certain amount of 'change' is allowed within the species, A fish changing from cold to warm blood and changing the motion of the spine is more than adaption allows for. The Bible's steps are somewhat different from modern science (in it's current form) starting with 'life' began with plants. Basically that is saying water existed in vapor for before seas existed. That vapor promoted the growth of plants first and with plants comes the eco system that goes along with the plants and trees. Whales are mentioned just after the birds and a whale has more in common with a bird than either do with a fish. To make a whale from a bird you only need adaptation rather than the 6 species jumps that is taken for the truth today.
So really, if given the opportunity to ask Mr. Hawkins any question it would be along those lines and that is nothing like the chap getting the sympathy from the 'authority' (Dex in his mind when replying to any parts of my post). To come into a confrontation and stay in it until there is a 'common understanding' is usually the polite thing to do. Dex chooses to present his version and then discussion is closed. His ass would have blisters if he had to sit throiugh the full explanation of wht his view of Danile and Revelation is the version that is in error. A main point he uses is Revelation was 'in code' so as not to attract the wrath of Rome. There isn't one story in the NT (or the OT) when servants of God or Jesus shirked on their duty. Stephan's speech was a death sentence, that was known before he entered the Temple that fateful day. There is nothing timid or hidden about the way they went about their business, Dex's theory falls flat on it's face on that point alone, let alone the many more points that create conflict in the prophecies having one meaning.
Perhaps some of the follow up questions might be if the earth is made of the remnants of many stars going nova the when the earth began to collect water why is it always shown as coming in the form of large comets when the current dats says when our oceans boil away it is in a slow evaporation that would leave only tiny ice-crystal rather than large masses of snowballs. In the dead od space that would not be enough mass to promote clumping. It should arrive at it's new home (a planet with enough mass to draw the snowflakes that comes in as a fluffy rain that can cool a planet a lot faster than a series of fast pitches. If it takes a few million years for our oceans to evaporate then that can be used as an indicator of how long the snowstorm would last. That is a preview of how the old earth creation theory goes.

In the 'goddidit' dept all the life that has existed will be restored to life to act as the seeds for the start of the next phase where Adam and Eve are alive in the Garden with all the ones they were given dominion over. Extinctions that have taken place still have their place in the earth that exists after Judgment Day. This earth is the home base but all what we call the heavens are to become the new earth as it is slowly (an eternal process that starts with a burst and then settles into a slower pace of growth). And then that same theme can be referenced from several different passages, to get there you have to understand Daniel and Revelation first. When you don't your only option is to hang up, which is what Dex does.

Now aren't you glad you so predictably posted your chime? Bye.

Jesus seemed to like to hang out with men and hookers. Sounds like he was a switch hitter.

lol He died a bachelor, that doesn't mean He didn't love Mary the sister of Martha and her brother Lazarus. Guess who the bride is that is referenced. The Church is invited strangers on Christ's side. Sorry to burst your bubble but you are inside the city (1500 mile wide cube) with the rest of us humans and only one person is standing beside Christ on this mountain top.

Re:21:9:
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues,
and talked with me,
saying,
Come hither,
I will shew thee the bride,
the Lamb's wife.
Re:21:10:
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain,
and shewed me that great city,
the holy Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven from God,
Re:21:11:
Having the glory of God:
and her light was like unto a stone most precious,
even like a jasper stone,
clear as crystal;

For bring a Heathen you sure have a pile of vanity. lol

When Jesus comes back my money says he rises out of East Side Vancouver type places, does his thing, saves who truly need saving then just fades away as another unknown in a world few have ever encountered beyond staring from the safety and security of an automobile as they drive through in fear of someone jumping out to wash their window.

How much $$ is that in real world terms? So far my $ investment is a freeware E-bile and some bandwidth on the innernet. Can you imagine weekly installments, lol.

 

[AnnaG]

No, I just chose not to comment on his little mind games.

I think it just went right over your head.

First off, I would never act in the fashion of the 'meek little Christian' who doesn't even have a valid question to ask. A hired actor couldn't have come up with a more pathetic appearance.

You're even wrong right there. Dex is not playing mind-games. I'd go so far as to suggest he'd think mind games were a bit beneath him and I'd agree. I think he's probably one of the most sincere people at CC.

As soon as I said Genesis 1 he would know I was a believer in Christ.

Why? Jews believe in Genesis 1 and they don't believe Jesus was anything other than a human being.

That first chapter (one page to describe how we got here and how life came to the land, the sea and the air) a true rebuttal should be in the same number of words just because God is not going to add any more verses than what we already have. Impossible it seems as it takes a series of manuscripts to cover what God put down in one little page. lol

A true rebuttal would bring up real evidence, not hearsay.
Who said this god will do this, that, or something else?
Does it? Seems to me the stone tablets with the 10 commandments on them didn't take series of manuscripts for people to understand.

Ge:1 enough information to supply a great many questions that deal with the origin of us.

Yup. Lots of questions and nonsense and hearsay for answers.

Old Earth Creation does allow for a solar system that is billions of years old (and a heaven that is even older),

I doubt it. [

the species jump is still a point that has yet to be proved beyond doubt.

I'll see it to believe it. So far the Bible produces a lot of hearsay and nonsense and nothing in the way of proof.

The Bible does allow for adaptation and a certain amount of 'change' is allowed within the species, A fish changing from cold to warm blood and changing the motion of the spine is more than adaption allows for. The Bible's steps are somewhat different from modern science (in it's current form) starting with 'life' began with plants. Basically that is saying water existed in vapor for before seas existed. That vapor promoted the growth of plants first and with plants comes the eco system that goes along with the plants and trees. Whales are mentioned just after the birds and a whale has more in common with a bird than either do with a fish. To make a whale from a bird you only need adaptation rather than the 6 species jumps that is taken for the truth today.

Are you sure you haven't added a whole lot of your own ideas, words, and opinions to the Bible? Putting your own spin on it, as it were?

So really, if given the opportunity to ask Mr. Hawkins any question it would be along those lines and that is nothing like the chap getting the sympathy from the 'authority' (Dex in his mind when replying to any parts of my post). To come into a confrontation and stay in it until there is a 'common understanding' is usually the polite thing to do. Dex chooses to present his version and then discussion is closed.

Actually I haven't noticed that. I have noticed him post the same things several times over in several different ways in order to make himself understood. There are a few people that just don't seem to make an effort to understand. And it isn't as if he's posting BS either. I can't say he's been correct in every one of his posts, but by far he's pretty accurate.

His ass would have blisters if he had to sit throiugh the full explanation of wht his view of Danile and Revelation is the version that is in error. A main point he uses is Revelation was 'in code' so as not to attract the wrath of Rome. There isn't one story in the NT (or the OT) when servants of God or Jesus shirked on their duty. Stephan's speech was a death sentence, that was known before he entered the Temple that fateful day. There is nothing timid or hidden about the way they went about their business, Dex's theory falls flat on it's face on that point alone, let alone the many more points that create conflict in the prophecies having one meaning.

How do you know that your interpretation isn't the wrong one and he's right?

Perhaps some of the follow up questions might be if the earth is made of the remnants of many stars going nova the when the earth began to collect water why is it always shown as coming in the form of large comets when the current dats says when our oceans boil away it is in a slow evaporation that would leave only tiny ice-crystal rather than large masses of snowballs.In the dead od space that would not be enough mass to promote clumping. It should arrive at it's new home (a planet with enough mass to draw the snowflakes that comes in as a fluffy rain that can cool a planet a lot faster than a series of fast pitches. If it takes a few million years for our oceans to evaporate then that can be used as an indicator of how long the snowstorm would last. That is a preview of how the old earth creation theory goes.

WTF are you talking about? What ice? When the sun goes red giant, Earth will be a charcoal briquet.

In the 'goddidit' dept all the life that has existed will be restored to life to act as the seeds for the start of the next phase where Adam and Eve are alive in the Garden with all the ones they were given dominion over. Extinctions that have taken place still have their place in the earth that exists after Judgment Day. This earth is the home base but all what we call the heavens are to become the new earth as it is slowly (an eternal process that starts with a burst and then settles into a slower pace of growth). And then that same theme can be referenced from several different passages, to get there you have to understand Daniel and Revelation first. When you don't your only option is to hang up, which is what Dex does.

*shrugs* It's all hearsay anyway.

Now aren't you glad you so predictably posted your chime? Bye.

Yup. I'm certain that what he said went over your head now. As far as being predictable goes, so what?

 

[Goober]

You don't, unless you make claims about them that you can be certain not everybody will agree with, or you proselytize, or preach, or condemn those who disagree with you, and similar things. Your religious beliefs are entirely your own business, you can believe whatever you personally find to be sensible and satisfying, as long as you keep them to yourself. Put them out on a public forum though, and you have to expect to be challenged, because you know not everybody's going to agree with you. Even then you're under no real obligation to defend or justify them, you're not writing an exam here, you can choose not to respond, though I think that makes putting them out there in the first place rather pointless. If you were, say, a politician trying to get your religious views incorporated into public policy that's different, then you ARE obliged to defend and justify, at least in civilized countries, but you don't have to do it here. Your choice.

Dex

While I cannot prove the existence of a Creator, science cannot disprove it either - So as to you not having a religious belief is not what i would judge you on as that is your decision -
As I stated earlier forcing something like religion is the ultimate failure of their religious beliefs- for the ones that force do nothing but harm to themselves, the person they force and the religion itself.
- If I did judge you - It is how you live, what you do what your life - That is what is important.

 

[MHz]

No, it's not merely my opinion, it's an easily defensible conclusion from the evidence, which you've been shown, and deny.

Actually you have no opinion, everything you mentioned is from somebody else's theory, you just adopted it. 50 million Evangelkicans believe the same thing as you as far as Daniel is concerned. Revelation is different, that doesn't automatically mean one of you is right and the other wrong. When referencing only the Bible you are both wrong. The goal with the Bible is to create a 'plausible theory' based on available information.

I don't answer many of your specific questions because they're based on your delusions and are not significant or meaningful.

That is what I put in the post to Anna, you give your view and that is the end of the subject even tough I have 10 references to other prophecies that make your adopted theory unsupported by Scripture. If you aren't prepared to examine all 10 arguments stay out of the thread altogether or say your piece and leave the subsequent character assignation posts out.

How is it attacking the messenger to point out the errors in his messages?

Delusion is an description of me, not the subject of my argument which, 'was are the two verses in those chapters related when using Daniel to explain Daniel?' B
That should be accomplished before trying to blend it in with the other books that make up the Bible. You 'proof' is to leave the Bible entirely, it may have impressed you but it doesn't hold up when closely examined. You accepted what was presented to you for whatever reason. If your teachers were wrong, you are wrong. That is why you leave the topics.
The Bible does give me authority to go as far back as Moses when looking for information about Jesus and both advents.
Lu:24:27:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

You continue to miss the point, as Anna observed: the basis of your worldview is false, the Bible is not what you think it is.

I would thing that might require a finer definition of what 'worldview' means before it being labeled as 'false'. I haven't missed the main point of our posting has not been about the topics but it is more geared to your determination to prove yourself superior in every respect. Anna is void of knowing what epiphany you mentioned but all it did was inspire me to open the book and read. Learning came no faster than it did with any other subject that required a few 'reviews'.

The Bible is more than you think, simply adding a zero for each day of creation ends up with the sun exploding into light some 4,500,000,000 years ago. God has it down to the very day. You never did tackle that one either. lol don't bother doing it now.

 

[AnnaG]

Dex

While I cannot prove the existence of a Creator, science cannot disprove it either - So as to you not having a religious belief is not what i would judge you on as that is your decision -
As I stated earlier forcing something like religion is the ultimate failure of their religious beliefs- for the ones that force do nothing but harm to themselves, the person they force and the religion itself.
- If I did judge you - It is how you live, what you do what your life - That is what is important.

Good post, Goob. It made me think that if there was a god interested in us and it was truly merciful, kind, all-powerful, etc. and it did intend people to develop religions, it'd most likely make those people able to develop the religions to attract rather than to need people to go out and "witness". It's a lot easier to be led than to be pushed.

Chalk up another failure.

 

[petros]

How much $$ is that in real world terms? So far my $ investment is a freeware E-bile and some bandwidth on the innernet. Can you imagine weekly installments, lol.

I'll take Canadian Tire money at $0.40 on the dollar.

 

[AnnaG]

Actually you have no opinion, everything you mentioned is from somebody else's theory, you just adopted it. 50 million Evangelkicans believe the same thing as you as far as Daniel is concerned. Revelation is different, that doesn't automatically mean one of you is right and the other wrong. When referencing only the Bible you are both wrong. The goal with the Bible is to create a 'plausible theory' based on available information.

Information that is misleading, vague, sometimes plain bullshyte, etc. And it's all based on hearsay. So the "theory" isn't a theory at all but a rather poor hypothesis.

Delusion is an description of me, not the subject of my argument which, 'was are the two verses in those chapters related when using Daniel to explain Daniel?' B
That should be accomplished before trying to blend it in with the other books that make up the Bible. You 'proof' is to leave the Bible entirely, it may have impressed you but it doesn't hold up when closely examined. You accepted what was presented to you for whatever reason. If your teachers were wrong, you are wrong. That is why you leave the topics.
The Bible does give me authority to go as far back as Moses when looking for information about Jesus and both advents.
Lu:24:27:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Dex's theory is plausible because it is based on evidence. The Bible isn't plausible because it is based entirely upon hearsay.

The Bible is more than you think, simply adding a zero for each day of creation ends up with the sun exploding into light some 4,500,000,000 years ago. God has it down to the very day. You never did tackle that one either. lol don't bother doing it now.

6 days: day 1, add 0 = 10; day 2, add 0 = 20; day 3, add 0 - 30; day 4, add 0 = 40; day 5, add 0 = 50; day 6, add 0 = 60. I get 210 days, not 4.5 billion years. So much for simply adding zeroes. :roll:
Or didja mean 102,030,405,060 Nope, that still doesn't work.

 

[MHz]

I think it just went right over your head.

Again the posted vid was about some idiot spouting off about being a believer in Jesus without addressing anything about evolution. The majority of my post was an example of the sort of questions I would ask.

You're even wrong right there. Dex is not playing mind-games. I'd go so far as to suggest he'd think mind games were a bit beneath him and I'd agree. I think he's probably one of the most sincere people at CC.

So there was no 'pity' card being played where the 'scientist' has compassion (sincere belief) yet the vast emphasis of the reply was is on delusional and hallucinations. One point he made is that background plays a role in the thought processes, yet no admittance that his own background has a bearing on his current viewpoint.
You are friends, wait till you get into an disagreement and the words used in his posts to me end up being in in a reply to you. I don't think you are outspoken enough to do that yet, with anybody that you see as an 'authority'. That's alright as long as the 'norm' is a just authority.

Why? Jews believe in Genesis 1 and they don't believe Jesus was anything other than a human being.

That's true, my mistake. Declaring either would not have any bearing on an argument that would acknowledge information such as the adaption changes that the human body has been going through and will continue to do so until the point reached in this vid. The same species is kept throughout.
Homo Futurus | Watch Free Documentary Online

A true rebuttal would bring up real evidence, not hearsay.

That would be the proper reply to evidence being presented rather than 'an opinion' from fellows who were not present for the events themselves. The Bible promotes it's writers as being eye-witness, prove this is in error.

Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh:21:25:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which,
if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Accepting that they mean only an eye-witness wrote the whole book is neither delusional or an act any mental instability. You need proof to make that claim false.

Who said this god will do this, that, or something else?

I said God wouldn't be giving anything more than what is already written down, commonly called the Holy Bible.

Does it? Seems to me the stone tablets with the 10 commandments on them didn't take series of manuscripts for people to understand.

They would have been taught that for 40 years, at least I assume they were as I don't have a verse that specifically says they were under teaching. Perhaps that is the day the new laws came into effect, backed up by death being the punishment for breeches to the Royal Law and a lot more that were instituted later. The 2nd coming is not very different, if you are a sinner at the sound of the 7th trump you will lose your life for a little more than 1,000 years. That concept does not require any more words than the ones you just read.

Yup. Lots of questions and nonsense and hearsay for answers. I doubt it. [I'll see it to believe it. So far the Bible produces a lot of hearsay and nonsense and nothing in the way of proof.

It isn't there to provide proof (other than it being there which is proof that the Bible exists, which is more than the opposition can provide). It is a message about what God has in store for our planet. He is under His own obligation to tell us about what He is going to do before He does it.

Isa:42:9:
Behold,
the former things are come to pass,
and new things do I declare:
before they spring forth I tell you of them.

Are you sure you haven't added a whole lot of your own ideas, words, and opinions to the Bible? Putting your own spin on it, as it were?

I'm pretty careful to post the same references that lead me to have that certain opinion. The rebuttals fail to provide the same sort of 'evidence' so they do not sway my opinion. If they don't like it, tough.

Actually I haven't noticed that. I have noticed him post the same things several times over in several different ways in order to make himself understood.

I don't recall you ever being on any discussion about Daniel or Revelation. Are you referencing the expanding earth thread or something similar.

There are a few people that just don't seem to make an effort to understand. And it isn't as if he's posting BS either.

It is still a 'canned response' and he already said in this thread science occasionally need to do rewrites in what the 'facts' are. Being familiar with science doesn't act as a qualifer for being able to piece Bible prophecy together. Dex doesn't see it that way, too bad that doesn't count towards being a factor in being accurate as far as what prophecies mean.

I can't say he's been correct in every one of his posts, but by far he's pretty accurate.

So.

How do you know that your interpretation isn't the wrong one and he's right?

Like I said, I can post the passages that support my view, it can take as many as 10 references to prove one little point. That little point can determine some other passage that is in turn verified by another passage. Salvation probably has 1,000 references, I'm conmtent if I can find 3 that say the very same thing, at that point I accept it as being the way it was intended to be understood.

WTF are you talking about? What ice? When the sun goes red giant, Earth will be a charcoal briquet.

Before that the water is sent into space as evaporation and then ice once it hits -200C. It stays in that form and size until it encounters another solar system where it 'might' again create an ocean at the same rate it evaporated from this world, a thin stream of minute ice-crystals and 1M years.

*shrugs* It's all hearsay anyway.

If science was immune to 'belief' there would never be any need for 'updates'.

Yup. I'm certain that what he said went over your head now. As far as being predictable goes, so what?

He didn't say anything, he posted a link to a vid that he referenced as being me, perhaps you missed that as being the whole point of the post. The Bible verses were not worth his consideration, so really I have no reason to have any respect for his knowledge about the Bible. The talking down to people is just his own vanity, it doesn't impress me and I don't ignore it as much as I should. (mostly because of the feeble insults) Bye

 

[Cliffy]

Many references have been posted over the last two years to show the who, where, whens and whys the bible was written to show that the whole thing was made up or based loosely on older texts from bygone empires. The whole Jesus myth has been shown to be nothing more than rehashes of Egyptian, Hindu and other previous gods and religions. The over whelming evidence is that the bible is a fraud as the word of god and should be considered in the same light as Aesop's Fables.

It is pointless to prove your assertions right or wrong based on the facts that your beliefs are interpretations of fables, myths and metaphors. Daniel and Revelations may or may not agree, but to base ones whole life on these myths as being the word of god makes no sense to those who know what these stories are. It is historically and scientifically provable that these stories are not what you believe them to be, so your insistence that anybody use these stories to prove you wrong is just plain silly. The only sensible course is to prove the stories wrong, which has been done time and time again. We can lead you to water, but we can't force you to drink.

 

[Goober]

Many references have been posted over the last two years to show the who, where, whens and whys the bible was written to show that the whole thing was made up or based loosely on older texts from bygone empires. The whole Jesus myth has been shown to be nothing more than rehashes of Egyptian, Hindu and other previous gods and religions. The over whelming evidence is that the bible is a fraud as the word of god and should be considered in the same light as Aesop's Fables.

It is pointless to prove your assertions right or wrong based on the facts that your beliefs are interpretations of fables, myths and metaphors. Daniel and Revelations may or may not agree, but to base ones whole life on these myths as being the word of god makes no sense to those who know what these stories are. It is historically and scientifically provable that these stories are not what you believe them to be, so your insistence that anybody use these stories to prove you wrong is just plain silly. The only sensible course is to prove the stories wrong, which has been done time and time again. We can lead you to water, but we can't force you to drink.

Cliffy - Think what you want and that is fine - But you cannot definitively prove that a creator does not exist. Simple as that - Read all the slanted texts - this way or that - 9 ways to Sunday and you still cannot

Watch all the different speeches and dissertations on what ever program you wish and you still cannot. Science cannot so how can you. Please answer that one. And please do not throw that you cannot prove a negative BS as that really does not apply now does it.

But for one with an open mind as you state you have, why do you find this so difficult.

Guessing here - You defined your beliefs a long time ago and your mind set has been settled and cleary defined and ingrained into your spirit and seld awareness on this issue for decades.

Historically proven - Goggle the red sea and what conditions are required for it to divide - It is very shallow water.

I'll take Canadian Tire money at $0.40 on the dollar.

I will up that to 0.41 and Petros - we split the profits. No sense having a bidding war.