Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    There is no question about what a catastrophic flood could accomplish. That's not the problem with the idea of a global flood.

    And why didn't you respond to my question? You have not responded to the many problems that make the idea of a global flood impossible.
    What makes a global flood impossible but the limitations of man's science. Is God unable to flood the earth and restore it? Is He restricted to the method's of man? Millions of years are not necessary to account for the devastating amount of erosion which could be caused by a flood beyond your ability to comprehend.

    Yes, fossils usually are buried quickly because otherwise they would rot, be eaten by scavengers, or otherwise not preserved.
    What buried them so quickly?

    But the geological strata most certainly were NOT laid down in a global flood, so your point is irrelevant.
    That opinion is not shared by all geologists. Before Charles Lyell introduced his theory of Uniformitarianism, the majority of geologists attributed the earth's scars to Catastrophism.

    And why didn't you address my points? It is impossible that there was a global flood for many many reasons. I just listed three of the most obvious that anyone should be able to see and understand. What is your answer to those points?
    Impossible? Can you prove that? Why is it impossible? Impossible for man or impossible for God? Which is it?

    I never said animals were "unable" to repopulate the planet! I said that there is NO EVIDENCE of a genetic bottle neck that would have occurred IF all the modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
    What are you talking about? There were male and female of each species preserved. They had plenty of time to repopulate and variate within species. What scientific theory prohibits that from occurring?

    This is why all your creationist arguments are so weak. They contradict VAST BODIES OF EVIDENCE. This shows, yet again, that creationists are radically ignorant of science. They make claims that are completely inconsistent with the overwhelming body of evidence.
    What's so overwhelming about multiverses, dark matter dark energy, etc. I find pseudo science rather "underwhelming". When I consider the Awesome Creative Power of the Living God, then my mind is overwhelmed with wonder. Now, if you want to be overwhelmed, consider His handiwork vs the puny ideas of men.


    Yes, absolutely! Ice core samples show ANNUAL LAYERS from yearly snowfall.
    And these same tests yielded results of hundreds of thousands of years when the known time span was less than 100 years.

    I have presented a few of the most obvious reasons, and you have not responded to them, let alone refuted them. And there are many more I could present. Have you given any evidence of any kind that supports a global flood? I have not seen any as yet.
    I have responded to them all.

    There is good evidence that there have been supercontinents. But that doesn't help your theory at all because the supercontinents existed billions of years ago. They certainly did not exist in recent history!
    How can you make that statement? You were not there. You cite Wiki as if they would ever support anything Biblical. Were the Wiki writers there to document this global catastrophe which would have disrupted the earths formations and transformed the entire planet. You cannot conceive of this event brought upon the earth by a Mighty God because your faith is in science. You simply elevate it above what God had revealed. None of these things are impossible with God, only with man, who prefers life without God.

    All science is contrary to the idea of a recent global flood.
    Men are contrary to the idea that the Biblical God exists. That is the problem.

    Well, that only proves that Paul Simon got it right when he sang "A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest."
    And Bob Dylan got it right when he said, "The answer my friend is blowing in the wind" and "you gotta serve somebody".

    And you didn't answer my question (again!) - what did the carnivores eat after the flood?
    Well, what do you think? The answer is pretty obvious to me. There would have been plenty of dead carcusses to feed on, including human remains not digested by sharks and other ocean predators, in fact there were probably even some large ocean creatures who found themselves trapped within the inland waters as the large body of water retreated. Yes, I suspect there was plenty of meat to go around.

    Don't you believe that God created something from nothing?
    Of course, Who else could do it... the tooth fairy? Better not call on him again because he has already granted numerous requests from scientists thinking outside the box.

    Don't be absurd. I do NOT "believe" in BB cosmology like you believe in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Well, what do you believe in?

    And I don't "believe" in the constancy of the speed of light. The evidence for any change is very weak and not conclusive, and I measured the speed myself and found it to be consistent with the established results. And even if it were changing, the change is very slight so it would not significantly alter the calculated age of the universe. You are just straining at gnats while swallowing the camel of creationist absurdities.
    Your kidding about the absurdities right? We have enough of that from atheists in their attempt to escape God. Barry Setterfield could not get a paper published on his theory of the decreasing speed of light because it was deemed "unscientific" when in reality, Barry was a Creationist and his theory, if popularized would've undermined science at almost every level, which only proves to demonstrate the fragile sand upon which the science of man is erected. His theory by the way predicted a dramatic decrease in light speed from the time of original creation. It is important to consider the possibility of how much different things were before the fall. Light could have been "instantaneous".

    I find it outrageously ironic that creationists lift themselves up in such ludicrous pride and think to challenge the results of 21st century relativistic cosmology (which they don't even understand) in their efforts to support their dogmas based on ancient religious texts written by men utterly ignorant of all science
    .

    Again, you insult anyone who disagrees with the direction that godless science is heading. I understand the premise of the Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory, I just think they are both problematic when it requires inventions such as hyper-inflation, dark matter dark energy and multiple universes. These are hypotheticals, not science.

    Your appeal to the 2nd law amplifies the absurdity of your war against science, truth, and reality beyond all measure. It is not an "excuse" when I EXPLAIN that the second law does not apply to an open system. If it did, you would be DEAD because your body fights decay ONLY by utilizing the low entropy food you take in. THE GROSS TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE and WILLFUL DECEPTION of creationists on this point really gets under my skin because my Ph.D. dissertation was on the topic of the 2nd Law in Quantum Systems. I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that corrupt creationists have made a FOOL of you and all Christians who have believed their lies.
    The second law is skirted around for living things because it undermines evolutionary theory. Evolutionists need it to be this way. Things in nature do not assemble themselves, they degrade. Living forms survive because of genetically coded instruction, not because they are an exception to it. The debate over the 2nd law between evolutionists and creationists is nothing more than philosophical, not scientific.

    The earth is on OPEN SYSTEM because it receives LOW ENTROPY ENERGY FROM THE SUN.
    Yes, and this low entropy energy from the sun degrades everything else in the world. Do you have evidence otherwise?

    You can prove the absurdity of your comment to yourself in a nano-second. Imagine that the earth were a CLOSED SYSTEM. This would mean that no energy comes in from any source. There would be no input from the sun. Life would be impossible.
    I never said it was a closed system.

    You have CONSTANTLY implied that I "believe" in science in the same way that religious people "believe" in their religion. If you now say that you no longer believe that, then GREAT! I'm glad we finally destroyed that false characterization of my understanding of science.
    Everything is of faith. EVERYTHING.

    We are not talking about "miracles." If miracles happened that left no evidence, then neither you nor I have any REASON to believe in them.
    "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear".

    Your have never given any reason for your outrageous presumption that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. What if you are wrong? If the Bible contains error and you attribute it to God, then you are calling God a liar. Doesn't this concern you at all?
    Where else does one go when He has tasted that the Lord is good. When he, Whom to know is Eternal Life holds the keys to heaven and hell. When the debt you owe exceeds your ability to pay, and He steps in and covers it for you. All this and more give me every reason to trust Him completely and lean on His promises. I accept the Words of Scripture as His divine revelation to whosoever will, and if that one will, let him take of the water of life freely. These words are not cleverly devised fables designed to deceive, but are from Him, who cannot lie. You know the power of this sacred book, you have just set it aside for a while. You will return.

    I'm very glad for that. But I do wish that you would work with me to get your feet on the ground of reality. I don't understand how you could base your eternal life on things that are demonstrably false. You have NOTHING to gain by aligning yourself with deliberately deceptive creationists.
    Richard, don't worry about me, I'm in better hands than Allstate. It is my hope that one day you and I will reflect back on these exchanges and recognize how foolish we both were. God is Good.

    All the best to you, my good friend,

    Richard
    And to you too good friend.

    John

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    What makes a global flood impossible but the limitations of man's science. Is God unable to flood the earth and restore it? Is He restricted to the method's of man? Millions of years are not necessary to account for the devastating amount of erosion which could be caused by a flood beyond your ability to comprehend.
    It is not the "limitations" of science that prohibit the idea of a global flood, but rather the SUCCESS of science. There is no evidence supporting the idea of the global flood and there is a massive body of evidence that contradicts it. The only reason you believe in it at all is because your primitive pre-scientific mythological book says it happened. How are you beliefs any different than a Muslim who believes Muhammad rode a horse to heaven? They make up exactly the same kinds of absurdities to support the Koran that you invent to support the Bible. You have no reason to believe the mythological claims in that book and you have every reason to believe the results of modern science, so your position strikes me as quite irrational.

    Your attempt to establish the truth of the Bible by yapping at the heals of science is quite foolish. You will NEVER convince any rational skeptic with such tactics. On the contrary, you only convince us that your religion requires a irrational belief in endless absurdities.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    What buried them so quickly?
    Please post a link to the evidence you would like to have explained.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    But the geological strata most certainly were NOT laid down in a global flood, so your point is irrelevant.
    That opinion is not shared by all geologists. Before Charles Lyell introduced his theory of Uniformitarianism, the majority of geologists attributed the earth's scars to Catastrophism.
    Yes, the geologists from 150 years ago believed a lot of things that geologists have since corrected. Many of them were looking for proof of the Bible. Creationists have a very bad habit of quoting out of date science in their attacks. It makes them look very foolish.

    If you want your assertion to stand, you will need to cite some modern geologists published in peer reviewed journals who reject the geological column and are not motivated by religion. Good luck with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    And why didn't you address my points? It is impossible that there was a global flood for many many reasons. I just listed three of the most obvious that anyone should be able to see and understand. What is your answer to those points?
    Impossible? Can you prove that? Why is it impossible? Impossible for man or impossible for God? Which is it?
    Impossible for the reasons stated. The reasons that you have not refuted.

    Impossible for God unless he is intent on deception.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    I never said animals were "unable" to repopulate the planet! I said that there is NO EVIDENCE of a genetic bottle neck that would have occurred IF all the modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
    What are you talking about? There were male and female of each species preserved. They had plenty of time to repopulate and variate within species. What scientific theory prohibits that from occurring?
    That's exactly what I'm talking about. The flood story says that the pairs of males and females preserved on the ark repopulated the planet. This means there would be a genetic bottleneck at the time of the flood. No such bottleneck exists, therefore the flood did not happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Yes, absolutely! Ice core samples show ANNUAL LAYERS from yearly snowfall.
    And these same tests yielded results of hundreds of thousands of years when the known time span was less than 100 years.
    Please provide a link to the evidence supporting your assertion. I have no idea what you are talking about. This page says that various ice core samples go back 110,000 years to 750,000 years.

    I get the impression you reject any and all science that contradicts the pre-scientific mythology of the Bible. I can't think of anything more absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    There is good evidence that there have been supercontinents. But that doesn't help your theory at all because the supercontinents existed billions of years ago. They certainly did not exist in recent history!
    How can you make that statement? You were not there. You cite Wiki as if they would ever support anything Biblical. Were the Wiki writers there to document this global catastrophe which would have disrupted the earths formations and transformed the entire planet. You cannot conceive of this event brought upon the earth by a Mighty God because your faith is in science. You simply elevate it above what God had revealed. None of these things are impossible with God, only with man, who prefers life without God.
    How can I make that statement if I were not there? Man! You're really blowing my mind John. You exhibit RADICAL SKEPTICISM towards established science and no skepticism of any kind towards the Koran as the very Word of God! Oh ... excuse me, I meant "The Book of Mormon." .... Ooops ... I mean the Roman Catholic Bible! Oooops. I mean the particular religious book that you have arbitrarily declared to be the "Word of God."

    And there you go again - FALSELY EQUATING YOUR uncritical belief in Bible mythology with my critical understanding of demonstrable science. This demonstrates how fundamentalist religion corrupts the minds of believers. I've corrected you on this error a dozen times now, but you refuse to learn. I do not have "faith" in science the way that you blindly believe whatever you read in the Bible! Man! Get with it! How can you repeat the same error time after time and time???

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    All science is contrary to the idea of a recent global flood.
    Men are contrary to the idea that the Biblical God exists. That is the problem.
    Don't be ABSURD John. You are a man. The world is filled with people like you who wish the Bible were true but they have INTEGRITY to admit the truth that the Bible says many things that contradict science and so are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    And you didn't answer my question (again!) - what did the carnivores eat after the flood?
    Well, what do you think? The answer is pretty obvious to me. There would have been plenty of dead carcusses to feed on, including human remains not digested by sharks and other ocean predators, in fact there were probably even some large ocean creatures who found themselves trapped within the inland waters as the large body of water retreated. Yes, I suspect there was plenty of meat to go around.
    OK - you found an answer. Congrats. But you seem to have forgotten about something called DECAY. If you want me to believe your little story, then all you need to do is go outside, shoot a cow, throw it in a pond for one year, and then serve it to your family. Then maybe I'll believe you really believe the ludicrous stories that you need to make up to salvage your religion.

    And you still have not answered how all the animals, like kangaroos, got back to their native lands. There are unique populations of animals that evolved on isolated locations all over the planet. Like the Island Night lizard found only on the Channel Islands by California. And the unique animals on all the little islands dotting the world's oceans. Like I said, the flood is a scientific impossibility. It contradicts TEN THOUSAND facts, or more.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Don't you believe that God created something from nothing?
    Of course, Who else could do it...
    So now you say that something can come from nothing?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Don't be absurd. I do NOT "believe" in BB cosmology like you believe in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Well, what do you believe in?
    I believe in gravity, that I exist, that fire is hot ... The word "belief" is not very meaningful other than as a synonym of "opinion" or "think." I "believe" the sky is blue means I think the sky is blue means I am of the opinion that the sky is blue. The Christian doctrine that "belief" is required to get to heaven is perhaps the worst error in the religion. It has destroyed countless minds.

    I wish you could see that your apologetic methodology is only convincing me that the best decision I ever made in life was to quit Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    And I don't "believe" in the constancy of the speed of light. The evidence for any change is very weak and not conclusive, and I measured the speed myself and found it to be consistent with the established results. And even if it were changing, the change is very slight so it would not significantly alter the calculated age of the universe. You are just straining at gnats while swallowing the camel of creationist absurdities.
    Your kidding about the absurdities right? We have enough of that from atheists in their attempt to escape God. Barry Setterfield could not get a paper published on his theory of the decreasing speed of light because it was deemed "unscientific" when in reality, Barry was a Creationist and his theory, if popularized would've undermined science at almost every level, which only proves to demonstrate the fragile sand upon which the science of man is erected. His theory by the way predicted a dramatic decrease in light speed from the time of original creation. It is important to consider the possibility of how much different things were before the fall. Light could have been "instantaneous".
    I was not kidding at all. Creationists are the most blatant proof that fundamentalist Christianity corrupts both the minds and the morals of believers.

    Your assertion that atheists are trying to "escape God" is one of the most ludicrous comments you have ever made. The reason I am an atheist is because all the evidence proves that the biblegod DOES NOT EXIST. So there is nothing for me to "escape from." Your religion is making you sound delusional. I can't relate to anything you are saying. It sounds utterly insane to me.

    Barry Setterfield was ONE MAN who INVENTED a theory in his vain attempt to prove the Bible. Your assertion that his theory was rejected because it "would've undermined science at almost every level" only shows how ignorant you are of the CONSILIENCE of science. It is not "fragile" at all! That's the most absurd thing anyone could utter. Science is exceedingly strong and robust because it has been confirmed by millions of observations. It is your RELIGION that stands on "fragile sand." Again, you reveal that you don't care about science at all. You show no skepticism for wild claims if they are put forth by creationists whereas you reject established science for no reason other than your need to defend your fairy tale religion. This conversation is becoming grotesquely absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    I find it outrageously ironic that creationists lift themselves up in such ludicrous pride and think to challenge the results of 21st century relativistic cosmology (which they don't even understand) in their efforts to support their dogmas based on ancient religious texts written by men utterly ignorant of all science
    Again, you insult anyone who disagrees with the direction that godless science is heading. I understand the premise of the Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory, I just think they are both problematic when it requires inventions such as hyper-inflation, dark matter dark energy and multiple universes. These are hypotheticals, not science.
    I insult no one. I am stating the facts. My statement stands. Creationists exhibit ludicrous pride when they challenge science of which they are radically ignorant.

    There is evidence for inflationary cosmology. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Your appeal to the 2nd law amplifies the absurdity of your war against science, truth, and reality beyond all measure. It is not an "excuse" when I EXPLAIN that the second law does not apply to an open system. If it did, you would be DEAD because your body fights decay ONLY by utilizing the low entropy food you take in. THE GROSS TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE and WILLFUL DECEPTION of creationists on this point really gets under my skin because my Ph.D. dissertation was on the topic of the 2nd Law in Quantum Systems. I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that corrupt creationists have made a FOOL of you and all Christians who have believed their lies.
    The second law is skirted around for living things because it undermines evolutionary theory. Evolutionists need it to be this way. Things in nature do not assemble themselves, they degrade. Living forms survive because of genetically coded instruction, not because they are an exception to it. The debate over the 2nd law between evolutionists and creationists is nothing more than philosophical, not scientific.
    What are you talking about???? No scientist "skirts around" the second law! It is FUNDAMENTAL to science. If it contradicted evolution, then evolution would be rejected in a heartbeat. Here is what real scientists say about the second law:
    The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. ~ Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4
    "If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

    There is absolutely NO contradiction between evolution and the second law. You have been totally deceived by lying corrupt creationists. It sickens me to see you believe such lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    You have CONSTANTLY implied that I "believe" in science in the same way that religious people "believe" in their religion. If you now say that you no longer believe that, then GREAT! I'm glad we finally destroyed that false characterization of my understanding of science.
    Everything is of faith. EVERYTHING.
    So now you pretend you don't even understand the difference between evidence vs. faith???? What then did Paul mean when he said "we walk by faith and not sight"? Your insistence on grossly irrational falsehood is becoming quite tedious. You have convinced me, and I presume every rational reader of this thread (for years to come) that Christianity is one of the primary enemies of all that is good and true. Congrats.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    We are not talking about "miracles." If miracles happened that left no evidence, then neither you nor I have any REASON to believe in them.
    "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear".
    So Muslims have every REASON to believe that Muhammad rode a horse to heaven and the Koran is the Word of God. Great. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Your have never given any reason for your outrageous presumption that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. What if you are wrong? If the Bible contains error and you attribute it to God, then you are calling God a liar. Doesn't this concern you at all?
    Where else does one go when He has tasted that the Lord is good. When he, Whom to know is Eternal Life holds the keys to heaven and hell. When the debt you owe exceeds your ability to pay, and He steps in and covers it for you. All this and more give me every reason to trust Him completely and lean on His promises. I accept the Words of Scripture as His divine revelation to whosoever will, and if that one will, let him take of the water of life freely. These words are not cleverly devised fables designed to deceive, but are from Him, who cannot lie. You know the power of this sacred book, you have just set it aside for a while. You will return.
    Says who? You? You are now the spokesman for God? The Bible does not even define the Bible, let alone say that it is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. So what? Everyone is supposed to take your word for it? You are the ultimate authority?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    I'm very glad for that. But I do wish that you would work with me to get your feet on the ground of reality. I don't understand how you could base your eternal life on things that are demonstrably false. You have NOTHING to gain by aligning yourself with deliberately deceptive creationists.
    Richard, don't worry about me, I'm in better hands than Allstate. It is my hope that one day you and I will reflect back on these exchanges and recognize how foolish we both were. God is Good.
    My heart aches for you. I can't imagine how you could choose to write such absurdities and claim that they are God's own truth. You have convinced me that Christianity breeds a CONTEMPT for the truth. It is one of the the most corrosive and corrupting ideologies out there.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    And to you too good friend.

    John
    Well, I'm glad we're still friends.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    They went into the Ark by two's, and Jesus sent out the seventy by two's. Two brothers, two prophets (1K13), two Saul's, two Enoch's and Lamech's, Rachel & Leah, Mary & Martha, Peter & Paul, Elijah & Elisha, Esau & Jacob, Eldad & Medad, Jannes & Jambres, male & female, Old & New, Clean & Unclean, Good & Evil, Alpha & Omega, Theophilus-twice, the double portion, two-edged sword, and on and on and on...

    2 pillars (Boaz & Jachin) on Solomon's Temple, and 2 on the temple that Samson pulled down -- now in the NT we are a temple! Walking on 2 legs! Anybody 'pulled your leg' lately??

    Gen41:32 -- "By 2 it's established", BY GOD! ain't gonna be no more no more...
    The Two (2) Covenants (Jew first--then Gentile) of Gal 4:24, and the two (2) Witnesses and Olive Branches of Rev 11 should be included, doncha think?
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow
    Actually, 2 floods, when Peter speaks of the one prior to Day One... Gen1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.2Pet3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:The "replenish" in Gen 1:28 confirms this for me; likewise Jer4:23. No problem for dinosaurs and neanderthals to live in the pre-Adamic age. Right?
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    They went into the Ark by two's, and Jesus sent out the seventy by two's. Two brothers, two prophets (1K13), two Saul's, two Enoch's and Lamech's, Rachel & Leah, Mary & Martha, Peter & Paul, Elijah & Elisha, Esau & Jacob, Eldad & Medad, Jannes & Jambres, male & female, Old & New, Clean & Unclean, Good & Evil, Alpha & Omega, Theophilus-twice, the double portion, two-edged sword, and on and on and on...

    2 pillars (Boaz & Jachin) on Solomon's Temple, and 2 on the temple that Samson pulled down -- now in the NT we are a temple! Walking on 2 legs! Anybody 'pulled your leg' lately??

    Gen41:32 -- "By 2 it's established", BY GOD! ain't gonna be no more no more...
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    The Two (2) Covenants (Jew first--then Gentile) of Gal 4:24, and the two (2) Witnesses and Olive Branches of Rev 11 should be included, doncha think?
    I think the symbolic meaning of the Number 2 is quite plain in Scripture. But I don't see how it could support your original comment that there were two floods. That idea simply is not in the Bible, and I see no value in making things up.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855

    Laughing!

    Making things up?
    Considering that our Holy Ghostwriter included the part about "ribbing us", and about 'pulling our leg', and about the great mirth in Neh 8:12, don't you suppose the Two Floods 'theory' gives us reason to accept the scientific evidence of dinosaurs and other pre-Adamic life forms?
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •