EPT
New series: The historical accuracy of the Bible
| Blogs > JesusCruxRH |
|
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44124 Posts
| ||
|
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
| ||
|
Rayzorblade
United States1172 Posts
for instance, when God rebukes Job near the end of the book, He says certain things that we should now marvel about - when God asked "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?" was He referring to the natural (and rather mystic) creation of a snowflake; today we now know that no two snowflakes are alike ever and just why this happens. . . well, we just don't know. similarly, God's reference to the "behemoth" in Chapter 40, verses 15-24 are also interesting - God describes this monstrous creature (to cite some of it) whose bones are like iron and his thirst unquenchable even by the Jordan river. a creature of this kind of magnitude could have only been some kind of dinosaur, but science tells us that their dynasty ended well before man crawled out of the jungle. what is it then? just some other mysteries of the Bible I remembered. . . | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
quite accurate indeed. | ||
|
intotherainx
United States504 Posts
On October 28 2007 06:10 Kwark wrote: Circle doesn't mean sphere. It means circle, which in this context would be a disc. When they mean sphere they'll say sphere, the Bible is after all infallible. If it were fairly close to the truth but not quite there then maybe they could say circle and mean sphere. But it can't be doubted the Bible says circle and as such the world is a disc. Why would it mean a disc "in this context"? Because you say so? It could also mean something like a sphere. Even if you were "correct," which I don't think anyone can be for sure, what if 2000 years ago the word "circle" meant something different in contexts? What if the word for sphere never even existed? Lol, I can't believe I just entertained a superficial, poorly-thought-out argument about a wrong definition of a circle. Props to you for being bait to waste my time. | ||
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
| ||
|
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
| ||
|
BalloonFight
United States2007 Posts
Signed, TL.net | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
I can't imagine any rational being taking the bible serious. Even considering it's historical acurateness is a joke. I wish people would shut the fuck up about the bible already. | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
On October 28 2007 07:33 intotherainx wrote: I think if you post a religion-related topic on teamliquid, there are bound to be many people who will disagree with you because they just don't like religion (and conversely those who support you because they like religion). It is very hard to find people who will discuss the topic without flaming each other or just acting irrationally. Why would it mean a disc "in this context"? Because you say so? It could also mean something like a sphere. Even if you were "correct," which I don't think anyone can be for sure, what if 2000 years ago the word "circle" meant something different in contexts? What if the word for sphere never even existed? Lol, I can't believe I just entertained a superficial, poorly-thought-out argument about a wrong definition of a circle. Props to you for being bait to waste my time. You don't have to defend the ill-informed assertions of our ancestors to make you feel good about your beliefs. Arguing semantics to support 'scientic' 'evidence' (Don't argue that you never said scientific evidence, please) of the bible is just... backwards. | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
On October 28 2007 08:22 BalloonFight wrote: Rebelheart, please stop trying to impose your beliefs on this forum. We don't care. Signed, TL.net No , its his blog | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
On October 29 2007 07:48 Meta wrote: I believe the bible said a man survived being eaten by a whale for three days. Am I mistaken? Or that there was a flood which covered the earth, and then the waters miraculously... disappeared? Since it did cover the earth, there would have been nowhere for the water to recede to. Any child could point out the flaws in the bible scientifically, if he were to think about it hard enough. Perhaps all of the layers of strata that we see around the world were formed by that world-wide flood? | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On October 29 2007 08:16 TesisMech wrote: Perhaps all of the layers of strata that we see around the world were formed by that world-wide flood? except that isn't how it would work. There wouldn't be multiple strata layers and we would see all different types of animals in the same strata layer. The fact is we don't, because most of these animals did not exist at the same time;( You are also ignoring all the other affects a global flood would have had. It would be VERY evident. And of course the question "where did the water come from?" Most creationists say there was a layer of water above the earth in pre flood times........ ... that shouldn't even need to be argued against;( | ||
Chill
Calgary26003 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
On October 29 2007 08:16 TesisMech wrote: Perhaps all of the layers of strata that we see around the world were formed by that world-wide flood? Are you seriously arguing that the earth used to be 100% covered in water? Do you really believe that noah went out and got two kinds of all the spicies of animals on the earth today (since evolution doesn't exist, right? all the animals that exist today must be direct descendants from the animals on the ark?) including the over 250,000 spicies of beatles from all over the world? And then these wild animals from completely different ecosystems survived for fourty days and nights on a wooden boat without dying/eating each other? Please don't insult your intellegence. | ||
LosingID8
CA10832 Posts
no one is forcing you to read it stop complaining | ||
| ||
