Bob: I believe the flood was global because that is what the Bible actually saysRickD wrote:Why are you guys trying to get Daniel all riled up?
Daniel,
Just ignore them. They're big bullies!
Frank: SHUTUPYOUBIGBULLY
![Confused :econfused:](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
![Waving :wave:](./images/smilies/wave.gif)
Bob: I believe the flood was global because that is what the Bible actually saysRickD wrote:Why are you guys trying to get Daniel all riled up?
Daniel,
Just ignore them. They're big bullies!
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Wow! You're getting tough! Congratulations, I'm sometimes under the impression that Christians are wimps. We should stand up for sound doctrine and call a lie, a lie.Danieltwotwenty wrote:If you actually have anything intelligent to say, I'm all ears.
Actually, I don't care if the flood was worldwide or just local because it is in no way important. Ditto as to whether the word yom can mean ''era'' as well as its more common meaning of ''day''. Such subjects are best left for small talk while sipping drinks because we are probably all wrong. We'll find out the truth about such things when we get to heaven and by then it won't matter one bit. So why should it matter now?!
FL
There are many places in the Bible where is speaks of the natural world revealing the nature of God. Science is the study of that natural world which is understanding the mind of God.Jac3510 wrote:We only know about the revelation given in Christ through Scripture, so (1) and (2) boil down to the same thing (except for your phrasing of (1) suggests that you don't really even believe in the full revelation of that one in the first place--sounds like you are setting it up for dismissal on the basis that people make mistakes, and if so, it's pretty clear where your error is).
Yes we do have different authorities, yours is scripture which you have elevated to the level of God and mine is God himself who has been revealed through scripture, nature and best of all Jesus Christ.And if you are going to suggest that silliness about nature being the 67th book of the Bible, then I guess there's absolutely no point in having a conversation on these matters because, frankly, we have different authorities. Mine is Scripture, and yours is something else which you claim to be on par with Scripture.
The text simply says nothing, your interpretation says something.You feel free to accuse those of us who believe what the text actually says of foolishness. You wouldn't be the first . . . not the first in about six thousand years of recorded history.
RickD wrote:Why are you guys trying to get Daniel all riled up?
Daniel,
Just ignore them. They're big bullies!
And Jac,
Don't be silly! We all know the 67th book of the bible is Sirach.
Of course there are problems in translation. There are copiest errors and other such things. But those are all red herrings. There's nothing in Gen. 6 that suggests that a copiest made a mistake. The only thing that matters is how we understand what the text actually says. Appealing to science to disqualify what the text actually says just shows that you don't believe Scripture as it is written.Danieltwotwenty wrote:There are many places in the Bible where is speaks of the natural world revealing the nature of God. Science is the study of that natural world which is understanding the mind of God.
I am not setting anything up other than humans are fallible and make mistakes. I do believe in what the Bible has revealed, but at the same time I understand that there can be translation issues, interpolations and copying errors that are products of our human fallibility. Not all doctrine, theology or interpretation is going to be correct otherwise we have some major issues on our hands.
And how do you know anything about God or Jesus other than or more fully than what has been said in Scripture? You believe Jesus died for your sins. Why? Because Scripture says so. You believe He said, "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." Why? Because He said so. You believe that He is coming back someday. Why? Because Scripture says so. There is nothing of substance you know about Jesus other than what Scripture says.Yes we do have different authorities, yours is scripture which you have elevated to the level of God and mine is God himself who has been revealed through scripture, nature and best of all Jesus Christ.
Ah, "YOUR INTERPRETATION!!1!11!" The last bastion of the typical postmodern drivel I've come to expect and love from people who don't like what the Bible actually says!The text simply says nothing, your interpretation says something.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
YEC dogma?Danieltwotwenty wrote:It's ok their Y.E.C dogma has no effect on me.
So? Do you think Sarah Palin is pretty?Danieltwotwenty wrote:I wasn't referring to you FL.
I suppose so in a general sense, but me personally I prefer the quirky looking girls, I like a bit of character rather than the typical.Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:So? Do you think Sarah Palin is pretty?Danieltwotwenty wrote:I wasn't referring to you FL.
FL
Oh...OK. Are you some sort of marginal...you know, with piercings and tattoos all over?Danieltwotwenty wrote:I suppose so in a general sense, but me personally I prefer the quirky looking girls, I like a bit of character rather than the typical.
haha no, I prefer no makeup, piercings, tattoos etc... I like a more simple look, but I am not against such things, I just prefer not. I like women who have features that make them standout, like natural features that give them character instead of looking like every other person.Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Oh...OK. Are you some sort of marginal...you know, with piercings and tattoos all over?Danieltwotwenty wrote:I suppose so in a general sense, but me personally I prefer the quirky looking girls, I like a bit of character rather than the typical.
FL