10 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut I read an awful lot of you guys as you defend your fantasy stories. Am I to understand that all of you suck so badly at explaining the bible then, because none of you theists are at all convincing when you speak about the bible??
Serious study under a pastor teaching from the original languages of scripture began in my mid 20s and continues today.
and yet the most vocal opponents of scripture are those who never read it!
In fact the opposite, you people have the remarkable gift of making the bible less and less relevant and more and more ridiculous.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyTo GKR: "[I owe you the reference.]" Matthew 6: 22-23 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 “But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" New American Standard Bible
"Whether you realize it or not, apprehending absolute spiritual reality is the singularly most important priority in our lives."
[What greater decision do human beings make during their lives on earth other than their permanent eternal address?]
and
"What other contributors to this forum believe or reject for whatever reason is strictly their bus ...[text shortened]... f the light that is in them be darkness, how great is that darkness." [I owe you the reference.]
"C H Spurgeon's comments... 22, 23. The motive is the eye of the soul, and if it be clear, the whole character will be right; but if it be polluted, our whole being will become defiled. The eye of the understanding may also be here understood: if a man does not see things in a right light, he may live in sin and yet fancy that he is doing his duty. A man should live up to his light; but if that light is itself darkness, what a mistake his whole course will be! If our religion leads us to sin, it is worse than irreligion. If our faith is presumption, our zeal selfishness, our prayer formality, our hope a delusion, our experience infatuation, the darkness is so great that even our Lord holds up his hands in astonishment and says — “How great is that darkness! “ Oh, for a single eye to God’s glory, a sincere consecration unto the Lord This alone can fill my soul with light." (Commentary) http://www.preceptaustin.org/matthew_622-23.htm
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by finnegan“You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work. [b]We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.”
........
What do you think about science proving the Bible true?"
Nothing is proved "true" in this post, as stated explicitly by the scientists.[/b]"Nothing is proved "true" in this post, as stated explicitly by the scientists." -Finnegan... Please tell me more.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes, I know. And you quoted them. And I agree with them ~ both when I originally wrote them ~ and when you quoted them.
[In reply to "Originally posted by FMF Many of the Christians in this community do not accept the doctrine of "The Trinity". Thread: "Christianity is not a religion"]... they're your own words.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe researchers said "We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.” In other words, the research does not prove that the Bible story is true, it only proves that a really big wooden boat could have the buoyancy needed to carry a large cargo.
"Nothing is proved "true" in this post, as stated explicitly by the scientists." -Finnegan... Please tell me more.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by Great King Ratgee thats hard to respect dude.
But I read an awful lot of you guys as you defend your fantasy stories. Am I to understand that all of you suck so badly at explaining the bible then, because none of you theists are at all convincing when you speak about the bible??
In fact the opposite, you people have the remarkable gift of making the bible less and less relevant and more and more ridiculous.
10 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnyhow lets get to the point, the common misconception among our somewhat self assuming although well meaning friends is that the ark carried every kind of species, but this is not necessarily the case, the different kinds could have easily been accommodated according to their respective classes. Please consider this:
Wonder why.
The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.
These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.
Insight on the scriptures, volume 1, pages 164-165 courtesy of Jehovahs Witnesses.
10 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneGenesis 7:1-3 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; Notice that the Lord did not say to Noah, “Go into the ark,” but “Come,” plainly implying that God was himself in the ark, waiting to receive Noah and his family into the big ship that was to be their place of refuge while all the other people on the face of the earth were drowned. The distinctive word of the gospel is a drawing word: “Come.” Jesus says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest;” and he will say to his people at the last, “Come, ye blessed of my Father inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” “Depart” is the word of justice and judgment, but “Come” is the word of mercy and grace. “The Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark;” — Gen 7:1. For thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Therefore God drew a distinction between him and the unrighteous, for he always hath a special regard for godly people. Gen 7:2-3. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. Of the clean creatures which might be offered in sacrifice to God you see that there was a larger proportion than there was of the unclean, that there might be sufficient for sacrifice without the destruction of any species. The unclean beasts were mostly killers and devourers of others, and therefore their number was to be less than that of the clean species. Oh, that the day might soon come when there would be more of clean men and women than of unclean, when there would be fewer sinners than godly people in the world, though even then there would be the ungodly “by two” like the unclean beasts."
"And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed ali ...[text shortened]... male: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."
Exactly what I said.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/spurgeon's_exposition_genesis.htm
Thank you, Suzi. Now I know the reason God commanded some creatures by twos and others by sevens: "Of the clean creatures which might be offered in sacrifice to God you see that there was a larger proportion than there was of the unclean, that there might be sufficient for sacrifice without the destruction of any species."