The Problem of Evil?
-
lols... somehow i feel like i can sense some sacasm
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
I believe, taking Genesis literally, the serpent is literally the serpent, nothing else. Unless you can show me otherwise.
You did not show the chronogenealogy from Abraham to Jesus. I have shown you why I did not believe as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Since the 1970s, efforts to reconstruct a patriarchal age for Israel's past have come to an end as most historians of ancient Israel have abandoned the conclusions of earlier scholarship,[10] as there is nothing specific in the Genesis stories that can be definitively linked to known history in or around Canaan in the early second millennium BCE. There is no solid evidence for any date during that period, as none of the kings mentioned are known, neither the anonymous Pharaoh who enlists Joseph into his services. Some scholars argue that historical inaccuracies exist, such as: the reference to Abimelech "King of the Philistines", when the Phlistines had not settled in Palestine until the later end of the millennium. Abraham coming from "Ur of the Chaldeans", when the Babylonians were not known as Chaldeans until a much later time. Laban identified as an Aramean, when Arameans did not become a known political entity before the 12th century BCE.[11]I do not believe in humans concepts like time as much as I believe in Genesis, in the literal sense. Conclusion: Evening and morning makes a day. No more no less. Unless you care to show otherwise.
I have made my believe and disbelieve quite clearly(see bold) now. What do you want me to believe?
So you believe that the serpent just happened to be a creature that talked to Eve? And that other Biblical references have absolutely NOTHING to say about this serpent?
I already told you that the serpent was a real serpent, but that it was no mere serpent. It was also literally the devil in the form of the serpent, or possessing the serpent, just like how the demons could enter into the pigs. See http://creation.com/who-was-the-serpent
Do you believe the Bible or do you depend on what historians can prove before you can trust the Bible? Do you assume the Bible to be false until proven true? Because it seems so to me that this is your approach. If so, it is flawed. Godly historians and scholars have worked hard on this and have laid out the chronologies and genealogies from the Biblical data, regardless of whether every bit is supported by secular evidence. A fine example is Chronology of the OT.
I don't care if you do not believe in time as we know it, you have to live by it and you even order your life around it. You can say you don't believe in gravity or air but you live on it whether you acknowledge it or not. So in this instance you choose not to believe in human concepts but when it comes to Biblical chronology you believe in what historians say about lack of solid evidence and thus have to abandon Biblical chronology regarding Abraham?
Now, since you agree that the days in Genesis 1 are normal ordinary days, why then do you not agree that it is a young earth? Because that is the only logical conclusion. See also http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1
Think About It: Did you know there is no scientific proof that the sun is billions of years old? “There is no evidence based solely on solar observation that the sun is 4.5-5 x 109 years old. I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” (Dr. John A. Eddy, Astrogeophysicist, Solar Astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, CO)
-
"So you believe that the serpent just happened to be a creature that talked to Eve? And that other Biblical references have absolutely NOTHING to say about this serpent?
I already told you that the serpent was a real serpent, but that it was no mere serpent. It was also literally the devil in the form of the serpent, or possessing the serpent, just like how the demons could enter into the pigs. See http://creation.com/who-was-the-serpent"
I don't believe possession a possibility since it would imply that the literal serpent as innocent.
To believe that the literal serpent in Genesis is the dragon depicted in Revelations, one must be:
1) suffering from cognitive disonance to hold a literally belly crawling serpent is the dreadful dragon depicted in Revelations, or
2) Textually blind to see the difference, or
3) Dishonest to ignore the difference, or
4) Believe the devil can undo what God commanded, or
5) a YEC. :pYour link has a resonable answer which you failed to pick up.
"Do you believe the Bible or do you depend on what historians can prove before you can trust the Bible? Do you assume the Bible to be false until proven true? Because it seems so to me that this is your approach. If so, it is flawed. Godly historians and scholars have worked hard on this and have laid out the chronologies and genealogies from the Biblical data, regardless of whether every bit is supported by secular evidence. A fine example is Chronology of the OT."
Failed link: 400 bad request. Try again.
"I don't care if you do not believe in time as we know it, you have to live by it and you even order your life around it. You can say you don't believe in gravity or air but you live on it whether you acknowledge it or not. So in this instance you choose not to believe in human concepts but when it comes to Biblical chronology you believe in what historians say about lack of solid evidence and thus have to abandon Biblical chronology regarding Abraham?"
Time is really a human concept, unlike gravity, air, etc which can be felt and measured. Time can only be recorded. Without a set reference, it is meaningless. There is a time for everything. When its time to be revealed, it will.
"Now, since you agree that the days in Genesis 1 are normal ordinary days, why then do you not agree that it is a young earth? Because that is the only logical conclusion. See also http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1"
Normal ordinary days as in literally "evening and morning makes a day". Young or old relative to what? Each other?
"Think About It: Did you know there is no scientific proof that the sun is billions of years old? “There is no evidence based solely on solar observation that the sun is 4.5-5 x 109years old. I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” (Dr. John A. Eddy, Astrogeophysicist, Solar Astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, CO)"
Nice quote. Thanks for sharing it.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That goes without saying! All the people you spot are those who live in the flesh. People who are not living in the flesh are dead people, ya? ; p
don't pretend you don't know what i mean by in the flesh. Christians are told not to live in the flesh but live through the leading by the holy spirit.
You have been replying all posts in christian forum according to your flesh. Fight fight fight, argue argue argue, defend defend defend for your flesh.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Wait, did you KNOW beforehand that your kids will kill each other with a fruit knife? How did you know that? How could you?
Lame response not according to the holy spirit. lousy.
-
Originally posted by SJS6638:
don't pretend you don't know what i mean by in the flesh. Christians are told not to live in the flesh but live through the leading by the holy spirit.
You have been replying all posts in christian forum according to your flesh. Fight fight fight, argue argue argue, defend defend defend for your flesh.
See 2 Cor 10:5 -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"So you believe that the serpent just happened to be a creature that talked to Eve? And that other Biblical references have absolutely NOTHING to say about this serpent?
I already told you that the serpent was a real serpent, but that it was no mere serpent. It was also literally the devil in the form of the serpent, or possessing the serpent, just like how the demons could enter into the pigs. See http://creation.com/who-was-the-serpent"
I don't believe possession a possibility since it would imply that the literal serpent as innocent.
To believe that the literal serpent in Genesis is the dragon depicted in Revelations, one must be:
1) suffering from cognitive disonance to hold a literally belly crawling serpent is the dreadful dragon depicted in Revelations, or
2) Textually blind to see the difference, or
3) Dishonest to ignore the difference, or
4) Believe the devil can undo what God commanded, or
5) a YEC. :pYour link has a resonable answer which you failed to pick up.
"Do you believe the Bible or do you depend on what historians can prove before you can trust the Bible? Do you assume the Bible to be false until proven true? Because it seems so to me that this is your approach. If so, it is flawed. Godly historians and scholars have worked hard on this and have laid out the chronologies and genealogies from the Biblical data, regardless of whether every bit is supported by secular evidence. A fine example is Chronology of the OT."
Failed link: 400 bad request. Try again.
"I don't care if you do not believe in time as we know it, you have to live by it and you even order your life around it. You can say you don't believe in gravity or air but you live on it whether you acknowledge it or not. So in this instance you choose not to believe in human concepts but when it comes to Biblical chronology you believe in what historians say about lack of solid evidence and thus have to abandon Biblical chronology regarding Abraham?"
Time is really a human concept, unlike gravity, air, etc which can be felt and measured. Time can only be recorded. Without a set reference, it is meaningless. There is a time for everything. When its time to be revealed, it will.
"Now, since you agree that the days in Genesis 1 are normal ordinary days, why then do you not agree that it is a young earth? Because that is the only logical conclusion. See also http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1"
Normal ordinary days as in literally "evening and morning makes a day". Young or old relative to what? Each other?
"Think About It: Did you know there is no scientific proof that the sun is billions of years old? “There is no evidence based solely on solar observation that the sun is 4.5-5 x 109years old. I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” (Dr. John A. Eddy, Astrogeophysicist, Solar Astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, CO)"
Nice quote. Thanks for sharing it.
You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Can you tell me what is the conclusion of the article I linked concerning the serpent?
Bad link fixed http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%20II/Jones%20-%20Chronology%20of%20the%20OT.pdf
Regardless of what you think about how humans make sense of time or delineate time, the fact remains that we all live by the same measurement of time. Yes, time CAN be measured. The set reference would be the sun and the moon which are for signs and seasons. Not reading your Bible eh, even the first chapter of the first book? And if you insist it is meaningless, so be it, but you still check your watch or be on time for your appointments. So what's the fuss about?
Playing daft still huh? Since we know that Biblical genealogy means that Adam to Abraham was about 2000 years, and that Adam was created on Day 6 which is an ordinary day with an evening and a morning, then you only need to add another 5 days to that period to mark the beginning of creation week. Still cannot conclude that it must be a young earth RELATIVE to 4.5 billion years according to evolution? In fact, 6000 years is considered old already!
-
fanciful tales of the highest order concocted by ancient middle eastern men
-
"You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Can you tell me what is the conclusion of the article I linked concerning the serpent?"
I believe you said that^ pending a better ponder on the points I raised. But if that is really your opinion, wouldn't my conclusion be used for being eristic? Contradictory sentences in a pharagraph... confuse me not.
"Bad link fixed http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%20II/Jones%20-%20Chronology%20of%20the%20OT.pdf"
Good read. Still, bias is created when a referenced point is set to a particular history.
"Regardless of what you think about how humans make sense of time or delineate time, the fact remains that we all live by the same measurement of time. Yes, time CAN be measured. The set reference would be the sun and the moon which are for signs and seasons. Not reading your Bible eh, even the first chapter of the first book? And if you insist it is meaningless, so be it, but you still check your watch or be on time for your appointments. So what's the fuss about?"
Pardon my ignorance, you have to tell me how time is measured when "evening and morning makes a day" ?
Midnight sun can throw your rhetoric(Not reading your Bible eh, even the first chapter of the first book?) back to your face.I believe I have been consistent in insisting God's definition of time. So are we sticking to "evening and morning makes a day"? What is the fuss asking me to check my watch as if I have one?
"Playing daft still huh? Since we know that Biblical genealogy means that Adam to Abraham was about 2000 years, and that Adam was created on Day 6 which is an ordinary day with an evening and a morning, then you only need to add another 5 days to that period to mark the beginning of creation week. Still cannot conclude that it must be a young earth RELATIVE to 4.5 billion years according to evolution? In fact, 6000 years is considered old already!"
To me, it doesn't matter if its as old as me, as long as I have hope to a redemption in Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour. Before evidence beyond reasonable doubt, I'll leave the bickering to the respective academia.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Can you tell me what is the conclusion of the article I linked concerning the serpent?"
I believe you said that^ pending a better ponder on the points I raised. But if that is really your opinion, wouldn't my conclusion be used for being eristic? Contradictory sentences in a pharagraph... confuse me not.
"Bad link fixed http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%20II/Jones%20-%20Chronology%20of%20the%20OT.pdf"
Good read. Still, bias is created when a referenced point is set to a particular history.
"Regardless of what you think about how humans make sense of time or delineate time, the fact remains that we all live by the same measurement of time. Yes, time CAN be measured. The set reference would be the sun and the moon which are for signs and seasons. Not reading your Bible eh, even the first chapter of the first book? And if you insist it is meaningless, so be it, but you still check your watch or be on time for your appointments. So what's the fuss about?"
Pardon my ignorance, you have to tell me how time is measured when "evening and morning makes a day" ?
Midnight sun can throw your rhetoric(Not reading your Bible eh, even the first chapter of the first book?) back to your face.I believe I have been consistent in insisting God's definition of time. So are we sticking to "evening and morning makes a day"? What is the fuss asking me to check my watch as if I have one?
"Playing daft still huh? Since we know that Biblical genealogy means that Adam to Abraham was about 2000 years, and that Adam was created on Day 6 which is an ordinary day with an evening and a morning, then you only need to add another 5 days to that period to mark the beginning of creation week. Still cannot conclude that it must be a young earth RELATIVE to 4.5 billion years according to evolution? In fact, 6000 years is considered old already!"
To me, it doesn't matter if its as old as me, as long as I have hope to a redemption in Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour. Before evidence beyond reasonable doubt, I'll leave the bickering to the respective academia.
Well, you believe wrongly. So why are you so reluctant to admit what the article says about who the serpent is in Genesis 3?
If using the Bible as a basis to derive a chronology is biased, so be it then. I'd say it is the best bias to be biased with.
I will gladly pardon your ignorance, but not your playing daft, including trying to act smart by bringing in the midnight sun thing as if that would mean we can't know what a day is. Very disingenuous of you I must say.
It is obvious when you say "it doesn't matter" that you cannot refute my case for the young earth, instead hoping by some pious devotion remark that you can weasel out of that embarassment. Jesus who is the Creator has already revealed to us all we need to know about the who, what, how, when of creation. The evidence for a young earth is beyond reasonable doubt. Even more so that the Word of God clearly teaches that. You simply refuse to take God's Word as it is.
-
"Well, you believe wrongly. So why are you so reluctant to admit what the article says about who the serpent is in Genesis 3?"
The fact remains that my point was not addressed and brush of as eristic. With your link, your believe, my conclusion is
To believe that the literal serpent in Genesis is the dragon depicted in Revelations, one must be:
1) suffering from cognitive disonance to hold a literally belly crawling serpent is the dreadful dragon depicted in Revelations, or
2) Textually blind to see the difference, or
3) Dishonest to ignore the difference, or
4) Believe the devil can undo what God commanded, or
5) a YEC"If using the Bible as a basis to derive a chronology is biased, so be it then. I'd say it is the best bias to be biased with."
"The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed new light on the history of the Masoretic Text. Many texts found there, especially those from Masada, are quite similar to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic Text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BCE. However, other texts, including many of those from Qumran, differ substantially, indicating that the Masoretic Text was but one of a diverse set of Biblical writings (Lane Fox 1991:99-106; Tov 1992:115). §Among the rejected books by both the Judaic and Catholic canons was found the Book of Enoch, the Manual of Discipline or "Rule of the Community" (1QS) and "The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness"" - wiki
"I will gladly pardon your ignorance, but not your playing daft, including trying to act smart by bringing in the midnight sun thing as if that would mean we can't know what a day is. Very disingenuous of you I must say."
You have to tell me how to measure time when "evening and morning makes a day" to have any authority to pardon, lest you be found flatuous....
That is an example to show that the duration of "evening and morning" is different in different places, not 24hrs/day as you claimed based on Genesis. A day is already defined, "evening and morning makes a day." What you are evading is the definition of time where "evening and morning makes a day." I can reject 24hrs/day definition because Genesis is written so.... Its God's pov that "evening and morning makes a day.""It is obvious when you say "it doesn't matter" that you cannot refute my case for the young earth, instead hoping by some pious devotion remark that you can weasel out of that embarassment. "
There were many points raised that couldn't be reasonably answered by your likes and it would be wishful thinking that I'm refutting YEC's belief for your benefit. That kind of argument would be eristic. That kind of thinking would be egoistic. “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult”
"Jesus who is the Creator has already revealed to us all we need to know about the who, what, how, when of creation. The evidence for a young earth is beyond reasonable doubt. Even more so that the Word of God clearly teaches that. You simply refuse to take God's Word as it is."
Mathew 11:25~27: 25At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26“Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
His will be done.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Well, you believe wrongly. So why are you so reluctant to admit what the article says about who the serpent is in Genesis 3?"
The fact remains that my point was not addressed and brush of as eristic. With your link, your believe, my conclusion is
To believe that the literal serpent in Genesis is the dragon depicted in Revelations, one must be:
1) suffering from cognitive disonance to hold a literally belly crawling serpent is the dreadful dragon depicted in Revelations, or
2) Textually blind to see the difference, or
3) Dishonest to ignore the difference, or
4) Believe the devil can undo what God commanded, or
5) a YEC"If using the Bible as a basis to derive a chronology is biased, so be it then. I'd say it is the best bias to be biased with."
"The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed new light on the history of the Masoretic Text. Many texts found there, especially those from Masada, are quite similar to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic Text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BCE. However, other texts, including many of those from Qumran, differ substantially, indicating that the Masoretic Text was but one of a diverse set of Biblical writings (Lane Fox 1991:99-106; Tov 1992:115). §Among the rejected books by both the Judaic and Catholic canons was found the Book of Enoch, the Manual of Discipline or "Rule of the Community" (1QS) and "The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness"" - wiki
"I will gladly pardon your ignorance, but not your playing daft, including trying to act smart by bringing in the midnight sun thing as if that would mean we can't know what a day is. Very disingenuous of you I must say."
You have to tell me how to measure time when "evening and morning makes a day" to have any authority to pardon, lest you be found flatuous....
That is an example to show that the duration of "evening and morning" is different in different places, not 24hrs/day as you claimed based on Genesis. A day is already defined, "evening and morning makes a day." What you are evading is the definition of time where "evening and morning makes a day." I can reject 24hrs/day definition because Genesis is written so.... Its God's pov that "evening and morning makes a day.""It is obvious when you say "it doesn't matter" that you cannot refute my case for the young earth, instead hoping by some pious devotion remark that you can weasel out of that embarassment. "
There were many points raised that couldn't be reasonably answered by your likes and it would be wishful thinking that I'm refutting YEC's belief for your benefit. That kind of argument would be eristic. That kind of thinking would be egoistic. “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult”
"Jesus who is the Creator has already revealed to us all we need to know about the who, what, how, when of creation. The evidence for a young earth is beyond reasonable doubt. Even more so that the Word of God clearly teaches that. You simply refuse to take God's Word as it is."
Mathew 11:25~27: 25At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26“Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
His will be done.
Still refuse to tell us what the article says about the serpent? Simple question also want to evade. Haiz....*face/palm*
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/02/09/satan-the-fall-good-evil-wasnt-satan-the-serpent
Your listing of ad hominem reasons to believe that the serpent in Genesis 3 was the devil is fit to be only brushed aside.
And talking about the Masoretic text is really digressing. The fact of the matter is that Abraham was believed to have lived about 1900s BC, BC means Before Christ, not Bagels and Cookies.
Still playing daft about measuring time and day? Even if you live in the polar regions where you see the sun mos tof the time, you would still know the meaning of what a day is and how long it is. The amount of sunlight one receives each day is no doubt dependent on where one resides on earth, but that in no way negate the notion of a 24 hour day. You have confused daylight with duration of a day. Yes, it is God's POV what a day is, and it is the same POV as man's. If God wanted to tell us a day means a day, this would be the way to say it.
Being a YEC does not mean having all the answers to your questions answered. You also cannot answer questions I raised, so? The point is whether the Bible teaches a young earth (which it does) and not whether YEC can answer all your questions. Such a simple point you also cannot grasp. *face/palm*
You are guilty of quoting Matt 11 completely out of context and which is IRRELEVANT to the issue with regards to Genesis. God has NOT hidden from us the information concerning HOW long He took to create the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He has told us how long He took, you simply refuse to believe what God said.
-
BIC
Huh...
Serpent talking is real and the fruit really destroyed humans?
Then how about the bible talking about dragons and unicorns? Can be real too since serpent can talk?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Huh...
Serpent talking is real and the fruit really destroyed humans?
Then how about the bible talking about dragons and unicorns? Can be real too since serpent can talk?
Dragons are real, just a pre-1841 word used for dinosaurs. As for unicorns I would need to disabuse you of the idea that it can only mean a mythical or fantsay white horse with a sharp spike-like horn on its forehead. No, it simply means an animal with one horn. See http://creation.com/the-unicorn
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Dragons are real, just a pre-1841 word used for dinosaurs. As for unicorns I would need to disabuse you of the idea that it can only mean a mythical or fantsay white horse with a sharp spike-like horn on its forehead. No, it simply means an animal with one horn. See http://creation.com/the-unicorn
BIC
Hahahaha! Serpent talking = real. Dragon = Real. Talking donkey = Real. Unicorn = Fake.
How you decide ah?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Hahahaha! Serpent talking = real. Dragon = Real. Talking donkey = Real. Unicorn = Fake.
How you decide ah?
Strawman argument. Where did I say the unicorn is fake? You never see the link meh? The unicorn is real, just that it is not what you think it is.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Hahahaha! Serpent talking = real. Dragon = Real. Talking donkey = Real. Unicorn = Fake.
How you decide ah?
LOL.. mayb they mistook rhinos for unicorn. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
LOL.. mayb they mistook rhinos for unicorn.Seems like you too need to be disabused of the word "unicorn". The word is simply means One Horn creature. Why do you suppose it can only refer to a fantasy white horse with a long thin spike on its forehead?
-
"Still refuse to tell us what the article says about the serpent? Simple question also want to evade. Haiz....*face/palm*"
The literal serpent was condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust for the rest of its life. What was the question I evaded? I said "Your link has a resonable answer which you failed to pick up." Its your link, your conclusion that matters.
"Your listing of ad hominem reasons to believe that the serpent in Genesis 3 was the devil is fit to be only brushed aside."
You wished it was an ad hominem but it was not targeting anyone negatively, unless you feel being YEC is negative... However calling it ad hominem is actually an ad hominem to avoid addressing the points by personal attack.
My argument: The literal serpent is not the dragon depicted in Revelations as it was condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust for the rest of its life. Its God's command where nothing can be undone."And talking about the Masoretic text is really digressing. The fact of the matter is that Abraham was believed to have lived about 1900s BC, BC means Before Christ, not Bagels and Cookies."
The Masoretic Text (MT, 핸, or \mathfrak{M} ) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed new light on the history of the Masoretic Text. Many texts found there, especially those from Masada, are quite similar to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic Text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BCE. However, other texts, including many of those from Qumran, differ substantially, indicating that the Masoretic Text was but one of a diverse set of Biblical writings.
Still playing daft about measuring time and day? Even if you live in the polar regions where you see the sun mos tof the time, you would still know the meaning of what a day is and how long it is. The amount of sunlight one receives each day is no doubt dependent on where one resides on earth, but that in no way negate the notion of a 24 hour day. You have confused daylight with duration of a day. Yes, it is God's POV what a day is, and it is the same POV as man's. If God wanted to tell us a day means a day, this would be the way to say it.
And you are confused that 24hrs/day is what God meant by "evening and morning makes a day". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitzvah . Man's POV can never rival God's POV... Is it that hard to convince you that time we know now is purely a human concept?
"Being a YEC does not mean having all the answers to your questions answered. You also cannot answer questions I raised, so? The point is whether the Bible teaches a young earth (which it does) and not whether YEC can answer all your questions. Such a simple point you also cannot grasp. *face/palm*"
I already showed what God define "evening and morning makes a day". There never was 24hr/day anywhere in the Bible. 24hr/day is purely a human concept.
"You are guilty of quoting Matt 11 completely out of context and which is IRRELEVANT to the issue with regards to Genesis."
Whatever... judge wannabe...
"God has NOT hidden from us the information concerning HOW long He took to create the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He has told us how long He took, you simply refuse to believe what God said."
And you failed to believe you have been deceived by the purely human concept of 24hrs/day. His will be done.
“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
― Saint Augustine -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Seems like you too need to be disabused of the word "unicorn". The word is simply means One Horn creature. Why do you suppose it can only refer to a fantasy white horse with a long thin spike on its forehead?
P.S: I'm not a brony...
-
dragons are real? Joke, someone is kidding.
-
I won't be surprised if there is god's judgment, I believe very few will go heaven. Too many ignore doing what the god wants them to.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Still refuse to tell us what the article says about the serpent? Simple question also want to evade. Haiz....*face/palm*"
The literal serpent was condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust for the rest of its life. What was the question I evaded? I said "Your link has a resonable answer which you failed to pick up." Its your link, your conclusion that matters.
"Your listing of ad hominem reasons to believe that the serpent in Genesis 3 was the devil is fit to be only brushed aside."
You wished it was an ad hominem but it was not targeting anyone negatively, unless you feel being YEC is negative... However calling it ad hominem is actually an ad hominem to avoid addressing the points by personal attack.
My argument: The literal serpent is not the dragon depicted in Revelations as it was condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust for the rest of its life. Its God's command where nothing can be undone."And talking about the Masoretic text is really digressing. The fact of the matter is that Abraham was believed to have lived about 1900s BC, BC means Before Christ, not Bagels and Cookies."
The Masoretic Text (MT, 핸, or \mathfrak{M} ) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed new light on the history of the Masoretic Text. Many texts found there, especially those from Masada, are quite similar to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic Text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BCE. However, other texts, including many of those from Qumran, differ substantially, indicating that the Masoretic Text was but one of a diverse set of Biblical writings.
Still playing daft about measuring time and day? Even if you live in the polar regions where you see the sun mos tof the time, you would still know the meaning of what a day is and how long it is. The amount of sunlight one receives each day is no doubt dependent on where one resides on earth, but that in no way negate the notion of a 24 hour day. You have confused daylight with duration of a day. Yes, it is God's POV what a day is, and it is the same POV as man's. If God wanted to tell us a day means a day, this would be the way to say it.
And you are confused that 24hrs/day is what God meant by "evening and morning makes a day". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitzvah . Man's POV can never rival God's POV... Is it that hard to convince you that time we know now is purely a human concept?
"Being a YEC does not mean having all the answers to your questions answered. You also cannot answer questions I raised, so? The point is whether the Bible teaches a young earth (which it does) and not whether YEC can answer all your questions. Such a simple point you also cannot grasp. *face/palm*"
I already showed what God define "evening and morning makes a day". There never was 24hr/day anywhere in the Bible. 24hr/day is purely a human concept.
"You are guilty of quoting Matt 11 completely out of context and which is IRRELEVANT to the issue with regards to Genesis."
Whatever... judge wannabe...
"God has NOT hidden from us the information concerning HOW long He took to create the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He has told us how long He took, you simply refuse to believe what God said."
And you failed to believe you have been deceived by the purely human concept of 24hrs/day. His will be done.
“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
― Saint AugustineJust tell us what the article said about the serpent lah.
In Rev 20, what comes to your mind when you see the word "dragon" which was referring to Satan? You picturing a Chinese dragon? Duh...
I know what the Masoretic text is, but again this is completely IRRELEVANT to the issue about how long the time period between Abraham to Jesus. As mentioned more than once, Abraham lived about 2000 BC. From Adam to Abraham is also about 2000 years. So how old is the earth? Do your math and stop throwing red herrings.
And I am telling you that to harp about time being a human concept is a red herring. That's not even the issue. So what if 24hrs is a human concept? Does that change the argument or invalidate my point? Not at all. The issue is that the Bible defined the each day of creation as bounded by an evening and a morning with an ordinal number, and this always means an ordinary day as we know it. And how have I been deceived by the idea of a 24 hr day?
Yes, I will continue to point out your misuse and misquoting of Scripture, and your misquoting of Augustine. How does that Augustine quote invalidate or refute the young earth view? See http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist
-
Originally posted by SJS6638:
dragons are real? Joke, someone is kidding.
Someone is not reading well. I said that prior to the invention of the word "dinosaur" in 1841, the word "dragon" was used.
-
Originally posted by SJS6638:
I won't be surprised if there is god's judgment, I believe very few will go heaven. Too many ignore doing what the god wants them to.
At least you have got one thing right! Jesus taught in Matthew 7 that wide is the gate and path to destruction but narrow is the gate to life.