The bible is a fairy tale!

[AnnaG]

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.

Exactly. You missed Dex's point. lmao

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.

Oh, we've had the odd disagreement. We still get along quite well because we both realise that we actually can back up what we say with evidence, not just hearsay.

That's true, my mistake.

I know.

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.

roflmao The entire Bible is hearsay.

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.

You are using hearsay to back up hearsay. lmao

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

How do you know what a god will or will not do?

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.

So why were you mumbling something about manuscripts if it all just that simple?

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.

Yeah, well, I can say anything I like, too. When someone wants me to prove it, I can say I am me and that is all the proof you need. :roll: It's good for a laugh but goes only so far as people are willing to swallow 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.

See? The former things have come to pass. That's like saying "history is history". Big whoop! New things I declare, too. I'm going for a cuppa tea.

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.

lol That's because you are really selective about what you read or you simply don't understand some of what you read.

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

Are you asking a question or making a statement. lmao

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.

Too bad that the Bible bases an awful lot of what it says on faulty history and faulty "science". After realising that, we should pay much attention to prophecies? roflmao

So.

Yup. It is.

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.

And it fails. Why? Because the entire thing is hearsay. You cannot reference anything as proof of what it says. That's just plain fool's play.

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.

So if I say trees can fart a couple more times between now and when I croak, then it's true. Awesome!

Before that the water is sent into space as evaporation and then ice once it hits -200C.

And the Bible told you this? roflmao Last I heard water vapor turns into ice at 0C.

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.

Exactly 1 M years? To the second?

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

Fortunately, scientific belief is not based on "ifs" and "maybes" like gods n goblins, but on evidence.

He didn't say anything,

Bullshyte.
This

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.

is what he said, and it went whizzing over your head. His point was that you make these sillyass claims, provide a whole pile of debatable conjecture about it while ignoring any proofs and evidence against it and keep making the same erroneous claims.

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

Sorry. I didn't miss anything, even the part where his point went zinging over your head entirely unnoticed. lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Sure it does, why shouldn’t it? You are asking him to prove that God doesn’t exist, and in the same breath you claim that he cannot advance the (perfectly logical) premise that you cannot prove the negative. That is nonsense.

Of course you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, any more than you can prove that Santa Claus or Easter Bunny doesn’t exist.

The burden of proof is not upon Atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is upon those who claim that God exists, they have to prove their case.

If Atheists must prove that God doesn’t exist, then my religion, Applism is fully as valid as your religion, Christianity. After all, you cannot disprove Applism, can you?

 

[MHz]

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.

The theory comes from the Bible itself, how about an even more blatant example. Does the word 'covenant' from this same passage reference the same one?

Da:9:4:
And I prayed unto the LORD my God,
and made my confession,
and said,
O Lord,
the great and dreadful God,
keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him,
and to them that keep his commandments;
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.

Just the answer to that can kill Dex's adopted doctrine. I doubt he could even tell you what changes would be made to a 'yes' answer.

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

You are missing the point, the exercise is not proving the Bible, it is to understand what the prophecies meant when they were written. If it's a jumbled mess Dex can stay with the 'God does not exist', if prophecy as far back as the reference below can be harmonized into one single 'picture' then the writers were more than simple goat-herders with too much time on their hands.

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.

Better not leave you alone with so many possibilities. The exit from Eden was 4,500 years ago (rounded off) so that would have been the end of day7.

Add one zero and you have the date of the end of the 6th day, 45,000 years ago. At that time everything that was to be created was created. Specificallt this was the start of the herds that are called the beasts of the field. Insects and such are also named on the 6th day. The trees that were mentioned in previous verse have filled the earth, their first mention was when they were capable of reproduction.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 5th day, 450,000 years ago and all the Oceans have the life we find today, the skies had birds also

Add one zero and you have the end of the 4th day, 4,500,000 years ago and the orbit around the sun was established to an extent that what was a day back then is still considered to be a day today. Time was established, the sun and moon existed at the end of day one, they were the light, on day 4 they were given names.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 3rd day, 45,000,000 years ago and you have plants and trees beginning to grow, seas begin to form.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 2nd day, 450,000,000 years ago and you have water in liquid and vapor form.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 1st day, 4.500,000,000 years ago and the sun shone on a revolving ball that experienced the first night and day on planet earth.

Hopefully that was enough to give you the basic understanding.

 

[Cliffy]

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.

Goobs, I have never stated that there is no creator. I do believe that some conscious force caused the Multiverse to come into being. I also believe that the Earth itself is a conscious being and that it provides the medium (the biosphere) for life to exist on it.

What I am saying is that an ancient book that people say is the word of god is fraudulent and can be proven to be so. The same way the Quran and most other holy books can be proven to be. I am saying that if you want to know the truth, you need to go to the source whatever you imagine that to be. How you imagine that source has no bearing on what it is. Beliefs cannot change what it is, it just is. The infinite is incomprehensible to the finite mind.

My faith and beliefs are based on my daily experiences and as such are subject to change and correction on a daily basis. I don't need books to tell me anything because I trust in my direct link to the source. Religion or thrust in books and other people's interpretations of those books are a sure sign of lack of faith and trust in the benevolence of the Universe. War, pain and suffering are caused by people who don't have that connection, or have had it beaten out of them by the religious.

"By the cold and religious
we were taken in hand
We were showed how to feel good
but told to feel bad" - Pink Floyd

 

[MHz]

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.

All those are opinion pieces, you keep harping about the reality, there isn't going to be any proof, that is why it is based on belief at the moment. The part you should stay away from is the threads where prophecy is the issue. It takes a little more than reading something once. This 'overwhelming evidence' you speak so highly of, what is the exact location because so far is it based on belief also.

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.

Your water has things floating around that shouldn't be there, they are called questions.

No may or may not about it, they both cover the iron/clay kingdom, they are meant to mesh. Nobody from Dex's camp will explain where there jump in time happens to allow for going from pre-cross to the judgment of the Messiah.

Da:11:45:
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;
yet he shall come to his end,
and none shall help him.
Da:12:1:
And at that time shall Michael stand up,
the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:
and there shall be a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time:
and at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found written in the book.
Da:12:2:
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

The burden of proof is not upon Atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is upon those who claim that God exists, they have to prove their case.

If Atheists must prove that God doesn’t exist, then my religion, Applism is fully as valid as your religion, Christianity. After all, you cannot disprove Applism, can you?

It is a futile quest even before it is started, Jesus wasn't just filling up space with these words. We are in that period of time where proof is not going to be available.

Joh:20:29:
Jesus saith unto him,
Thomas,
because thou hast seen me,
thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen,
and yet have believed.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is a futile quest even before it is started, Jesus wasn't just filling up space with these words. We are in that period of time where proof is not going to be available.

Quite so, the proof is not available. So anybody who wants to accept Christ as the Messiah or the true God (or Allah, or Buddha or Vishnu etc.) must do so without any proof.

I am glad we are in agreement.

 

[AnnaG]

The theory comes from the Bible itself,

Theories require evidence. Hypotheses are even educated guesses.

how about an even more blatant example. Does the word 'covenant' from this same passage reference the same one?

Da:9:4:
And I prayed unto the LORD my God,
and made my confession,
and said,
O Lord,
the great and dreadful God,
keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him,
and to them that keep his commandments;
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.

Not enough reference material.

Just the answer to that can kill Dex's adopted doctrine. I doubt he could even tell you what changes would be made to a 'yes' answer.

Ask him.

You are missing the point, the exercise is not proving the Bible, it is to understand what the prophecies meant when they were written. If it's a jumbled mess Dex can stay with the 'God does not exist', if prophecy as far back as the reference below can be harmonized into one single 'picture' then the writers were more than simple goat-herders with too much time on their hands.

Why? What's the point of knowing the future even if it could be done?

Revelation 8:8, 9
8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

I'll be long dead before and if (huge if) that happens.

Better not leave you alone with so many possibilities.

Good plan. I tend to see things from as many different angles as I can. It usually results in my being quite accurate. It also makes me feel sorry for people who have only 1 perspective.

The exit from Eden was 4,500 years ago (rounded off) so that would have been the end of day7.

Really? I don't remember any date written in Genesis 3.

Add one zero and you have the date of the end of the 6th day, 45,000 years ago. At that time everything that was to be created was created. Specificallt this was the start of the herds that are called the beasts of the field. Insects and such are also named on the 6th day. The trees that were mentioned in previous verse have filled the earth, their first mention was when they were capable of reproduction.

45,000 years ago? Modern man is about 200,000 years old. Human relatives go back even further. Sharks are over 16 million years old.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 5th day, 450,000 years ago and all the Oceans have the life we find today, the skies had birds also

See my previous comment.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 4th day, 4,500,000 years ago and the orbit around the sun was established to an extent that what was a day back then is still considered to be a day today. Time was established, the sun and moon existed at the end of day one, they were the light, on day 4 they were given names.

So my sharks were swimming around in space?

Add one zero and you have the end of the 3rd day, 45,000,000 years ago and you have plants and trees beginning to grow, seas begin to form.

We have plant fossils from the Cambrian period of the Paleozoic era. The Cambrian was from about 540 million to about 490 million years ago.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 2nd day, 450,000,000 years ago and you have water in liquid and vapor form.

There's evidence that Earth had water 4.3 billion years ago.

Add one zero and you have the end of the 1st day, 4.500,000,000 years ago and the sun shone on a revolving ball that experienced the first night and day on planet earth.

Last estimate I saw said Earth is 4.7 billion years old. But most scientists think it's 4.55 billion years old.

Hopefully that was enough to give you the basic understanding.

Yup. Clear enough. It looks like these "days" varied in length from 4.05 billion years to 41,500 years long.

 

[lone wolf]

Wait a minute.... Don't fairy tales start with "Once Upon a Time"?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

While I cannot prove the existence of a Creator, science cannot disprove it either

That's true, but science makes no claims about a creator, it has nothing to prove or disprove in that context, it doesn't use the idea of a creator because it isn't useful. Science isn't the right place to look for a proof or disproof anyway, the existence or non-existence of a deity isn't really a scientific question, it's more fundamentally a philosophical issue and I think philosophy, informed by the findings of science, has answered the question, in the negative.

Nobody from Dex's camp will explain where there jump in time happens to allow for going from pre-cross to the judgment of the Messiah.

That's because nobody in "Dex's camp," whatever you think that is, thinks that's a meaningful question. It's based on a delusional worldview that, as you stated it earlier, holds that the Bible is a statement of what god has in store for us. You've never produced any evidence to support that claim except citations from the Bible itself and your interpretations of them. That's self-referential, and as such is not a legitimate argument, it's a logical fallacy. It's no different from the kind of nonsense eanassir's always laying on us from the Quran, you both make the same error repeatedly. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[MHz]

Exactly. You missed Dex's point. lmao

The vid was Dex's way of reinforcing this part of his post. 'it's been demonstrated to you why that's wrong, you simply deny it and continue to base arguments on that delusion'. His proof is opinion pieces that have been in circulation for maybe 100 -200 years. He doesn't take questions because that is all he was taught and the teacher has left the building. I'm delusional, etc. because I have more objections to his version than he has answers for. The 'denials' also come with a fistful of passages that support my view. That is a lot more ground than what he is functioning from.

Oh, we've had the odd disagreement. We still get along quite well because we both realise that we actually can back up what we say with evidence, not just hearsay.

Is that becoming you 'fav' word? Obviously a trip into theology is a rare treat for you both then. This isn't a physics lab, lol.

I know.

I'm not sure Jews would even attend one of his classes. Any idea what the rest of the vid is like, I hate to think that was the brightest Christian (sorry believer, just in case) in the room.

roflmao The entire Bible is hearsay.

You are still in the wrong room, this is like a mystery quest, you are given a bunch of passages that each contain a tiny bit of info. Put them together they tell a story that flows smoothly with no blaring contradictions. In fact it is very detailed when it comes to the day that 'proof' become available whether or not you want,

You are using hearsay to back up hearsay. lmao

Are you saying that claim was a lie?
It is how you learn what these three verses have in common and how they are different.

Joh:19:30:
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar,
he said,
It is finished:
and he bowed his head,
and gave up the ghost.

Re:16:17:
And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air;
and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven,
from the throne,
saying, It is done.

Re:21:6:
And he said unto me,
It is done.
I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end.
I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

The various connections to those verses tale up more for each verse than the whole length of Ge:1. That is because they are more important as far as wisdom in the Bible is concerned. The day of Christ return is the most written about subject yet it remains a big mystery and many doctrines have various degrees of inner conflict.

How do you know what a god will or will not do?

I find a verse or three that tells me what Scripture says He will do.

So why were you mumbling something about manuscripts if it all just that simple?

What I said was for the authors who want to 'challenge the Bible's version of creation' to sum it up in a document as short as Ge:1. As it is they produce works that are larger than the entire Bible and it still leaves some questions as to 'the facts'. How many books and vids does Hawkins have out now, I can find him on the documentary sites.

Yeah, well, I can say anything I like, too. When someone wants me to prove it, I can say I am me and that is all the proof you need. :roll: It's good for a laugh but goes only so far as people are willing to swallow it.

When claiming the Bible promotes a certain doctrine it also means sooner or later you are going to have to provide some verses as references. As it is you have zero in your hands so that is how much authority I give you. That is fair.

See? The former things have come to pass. That's like saying "history is history". Big whoop! New things I declare, too. I'm going for a cuppa tea.

Actually it says 'before ......' . Imagine what you could do to a complex passage.

lol That's because you are really selective about what you read or you simply don't understand some of what you read.

I read a lot more about a subject than I post so your psychic abilities need some sharpening, if you have any that is.

Are you asking a question or making a statement. lmao

Neither at this point. Didn't intentionally mean to stop your mental processes.

Too bad that the Bible bases an awful lot of what it says on faulty history and faulty "science". After realising that, we should pay much attention to prophecies? roflmao

Nobody is saying anything about why you should be doing anything as far as Bible prophecy goes. Why discuss how to repair a flat tire with somebody who doesn't believe in the wheel?

And it fails. Why? Because the entire thing is hearsay. You cannot reference anything as proof of what it says. That's just plain fool's play. So if I say trees can fart a couple more times between now and when I croak, then it's true. Awesome!

It's a book of words, even if you take it as fiction it still tells the same story.

And the Bible told you this? roflmao Last I heard water vapor turns into ice at 0C. Exactly 1 M years? To the second?

It turns into liquid at 100C, that is liquid.

Fortunately, scientific belief is not based on "ifs" and "maybes" like gods n goblins, but on evidence.

How many things have needed 'revision' in the last 100 years? 1000 years?

Bullshyte.
This is what he said, and it went whizzing over your head. His point was that you make these sillyass claims, provide a whole pile of debatable conjecture about it while ignoring any proofs and evidence against it and keep making the same erroneous claims. Sorry. I didn't miss anything, even the part where his point went zinging over your head entirely unnoticed. lol

What proof that the verses are not about Rome, it is a doctrine that is in theory alone, there are 20 other doctrines. Debatable conjecture to ask if two words that are close to each other reference the same thing. if your doctrine cannot handle little questions like that then you should not be promoting anything. You don't even have a list of the claims I make about Daniel yet you qualify them as sillyass.
Bye

 

[Cliffy]

Wait a minute.... Don't fairy tales start with "Once Upon a Time"?

Or: In the beginning.

 

[MHz]

That's because nobody in "Dex's camp," whatever you think that is, thinks that's a meaningful question.

Actually I was referring to people on other sites that promote the same position you take on most of Daniel 11, some of Daniel 7 and without a doubt Daniel 8. You are a tiny speck as that covers the Evangelicals for the most part, don't stop counting till you pass 50 million. That vanity just can't be kept down can it?

Or: In the beginning.

This is the Bible, lets get some gloom going as it is the fav topic when it comes to God. lol

Joe:2:2:
A day of darkness and of gloominess,
a day of clouds and of thick darkness,
as the morning spread upon the mountains:
a great people and a strong;
there hath not been ever the like,
neither shall be any more after it,
even to the years of many generations.

Zep:1:15:
That day is a day of wrath,
a day of trouble and distress,
a day of wasteness and desolation,
a day of darkness and gloominess,
a day of clouds and thick darkness,

 

[Cliffy]

All those are opinion pieces, you keep harping about the reality, there isn't going to be any proof, that is why it is based on belief at the moment. The part you should stay away from is the threads where prophecy is the issue. It takes a little more than reading something once. This 'overwhelming evidence' you speak so highly of, what is the exact location because so far is it based on belief also.

The overwhelming evidence is based on historical documents and on the books of the ancients. The story of the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection are all based on more ancient texts that bare the same story about more ancient gods.

I doubt that you will read this but here it is anyway: Illuminati News: Fraud in the Bible

 

[AnnaG]

The vid was Dex's way of reinforcing this part of his post. 'it's been demonstrated to you why that's wrong, you simply deny it and continue to base arguments on that delusion'.

Hey, I think you're finally getting it. It musta boomeranged and smacked you in the back of the head. lol

His proof is opinion pieces that have been in circulation for maybe 100 -200 years.

So? Who cares how old it is. It is still logical.

He doesn't take questions because that is all he was taught and the teacher has left the building.

I disagree. I doesn't answer a lot of the time because your questions are ridiculous. And that's likely the result of you basing everything you know on a book whose only authority is itself.

I'm delusional, etc. because I have more objections to his version than he has answers for.

Or is willing to waste his time explaining to you.

The 'denials' also come with a fistful of passages that support my view.

Like I said, your version of the Bible which uses itself as its own reference. Freakin hilarious.

That is a lot more ground than what he is functioning from.

Nah. Logic beats self-referencing bafflegab.

Is that becoming you 'fav' word? Obviously a trip into theology is a rare treat for you both then. This isn't a physics lab, lol.

Obviously. We'd at least be able to figure out how to get in. You'd be still looking for "physics lab" in the library to see what one is.

You are still in the wrong room, this is like a mystery quest, you are given a bunch of passages that each contain a tiny bit of info. Put them together they tell a story that flows smoothly with no blaring contradictions. In fact it is very detailed when it comes to the day that 'proof' become available whether or not you want,

Well, at least according to you and your interpretation, maybe. All I have to say to that is that it'd have been a lot more sensible to have just stated things so people could easily understand them if you wanted to get a message across. Nostradamus disguised his prophecies in poetry, but he had a reason. He didn't want to be tormented and persecuted. What's your god's excuse?

Are you saying that claim was a lie?

Is that what you read?

It is how you learn what these three verses have in common and how they are different.

Joh:19:30:
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar,
he said,
It is finished:
and he bowed his head,
and gave up the ghost.

Re:16:17:
And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air;
and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven,
from the throne,
saying, It is done.

Re:21:6:
And he said unto me,
It is done.
I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end.
I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Was that a question or something?

The various connections to those verses tale up more for each verse than the whole length of Ge:1. That is because they are more important as far as wisdom in the Bible is concerned. The day of Christ return is the most written about subject yet it remains a big mystery and many doctrines have various degrees of inner conflict.

Can you say that in English please?

I find a verse or three that tells me what Scripture says He will do.

Ah, the self-referencing bit again.

What I said was for the authors who want to 'challenge the Bible's version of creation' to sum it up in a document as short as Ge:1. As it is they produce works that are larger than the entire Bible and it still leaves some questions as to 'the facts'. How many books and vids does Hawkins have out now, I can find him on the documentary sites.

And Dawkins (I figure that's who you meant by "Hawkins") is clear when he writes and speaks. He doesn't write his books so that you see a comment and then have to skip here hither and yon throughout the book to find similar comments. It's called "coherency" in writing skills. Similar issues are all in one chapter. Other similar issues have their own chapter and so on. There's a lot more topics to write about nowadays than 2 or 3 thousand years ago.

When claiming the Bible promotes a certain doctrine it also means sooner or later you are going to have to provide some verses as references. As it is you have zero in your hands so that is how much authority I give you. That is fair.

I don't need a book to use reason against folly.

Actually it says 'before ......' . Imagine what you could do to a complex passage.

I know what it said. I'm still not impressed. Like I said before I went to get my tea, "I am going to get a cuppa tea". Are you impressed?

I read a lot more about a subject than I post so your psychic abilities need some sharpening, if you have any that is.

Funny. I was staying on concept and you just veered right off the road. I meant that you are selective in which posts you read here. Especially if they can disprove yours.

Neither at this point. Didn't intentionally mean to stop your mental processes.

You didn't. So it was a nonsense post you made?

Nobody is saying anything about why you should be doing anything as far as Bible prophecy goes. Why discuss how to repair a flat tire with somebody who doesn't believe in the wheel?

roflmao Bad attempt at spin. Your Bible can hardly be called a wheel.

It's a book of words, even if you take it as fiction it still tells the same story.

So?

It turns into liquid at 100C, that is liquid.

Below 0 it is ice, not -200.

How many things have needed 'revision' in the last 100 years? 1000 years?

Does it matter? The point behind revision is that it increasingly gets closer to the facts based on evidence. Religions simply base everything on an assumption and only revise when science makes it look foolish.

What proof that the verses are not about Rome, it is a doctrine that is in theory alone, there are 20 other doctrines. Debatable conjecture to ask if two words that are close to each other reference the same thing. if your doctrine cannot handle little questions like that then you should not be promoting anything. You don't even have a list of the claims I make about Daniel yet you qualify them as sillyass.
Bye

I don't have a doctrine.
I claim they are sillyass because the Bible is sillyass.

 

[lone wolf]

Blind Faith.... It saves thinking....
Dogma.... One reason humans can only use 10% of the brain their mamma gave 'em

 

[AnnaG]

Blind Faith.... It saves thinking....
Dogma.... One reason humans can only use 10% of the brain their mamma gave 'em

lol The rest of us are dead or use the other 90% as well.

snopes.com: Ten Percent of our Brains

 

[petros]

Catholic guilt doesn't make you an atheist. Does it?

 

[AnnaG]

Catholic guilt doesn't make you an atheist. Does it?

It helped in my case. But I didn't quite make it to atheist. Just agnostic.

 

[lone wolf]

lol The rest of us are dead or use the other 90% as well.

snopes.com: Ten Percent of our Brains

So? Yer funny bone broke?



...yeah, I know: Humorous but not very funny.... ;-)

 

[AnnaG]

So? Yer funny bone broke?



...yeah, I know: Humorous but not very funny.... ;-)

I was thinking humerus. Right in the ribs.