Axxman

btw...its one thing to argue it never happened and they should be aquitted. Its another thing altogether to say you don't care if they assaulted a defenseless detainee who was bound and hooded. We are a nation of laws, and our military has a code of ethics that should be upheld no matter what terrorist scumbags do.

He was found not guilty. I hope every police agency in the country learns from this. Remove all camera's from all police cars and detention facilities. As long as you don't take pictures of the "alleged" beatings...you can't prove they ever happened...even with witnesses.

*sigh* I tried...unfortunately "christians" like Shiloh lead me to sinful thoughts and I really struggle to maintain my composure. My flesh so desires to strike back...pray for me! "you don't believe the Bible" "butcher the Word of God to justify your unbelief." "to intelligent of a phrase for you to handle" "You should read your Bible... Oh wait... you don't believe it, so that would be waste of time." "Your pitifully ignorant notion" etc...etc...etc

Of course I believe the bible. However, just like everything in the story of the Great Flood...I don't adhere to the narrowest definition of every word that the english translators used. I believe it rained for 40 days...alot. I just don't believe it rained non-stop.

It was an estimate of high mountain ranges. You clearly believe it was at least 17,000ft all over the globe. Nice!...I was wondering how long before u started with this nonsense. Just because you post the english version doesn't mean the words mean exactly what they say. It could just as easily read "And the waters prevailed so mightily on the region that all the high hill country under the whole sky was covered. The water was higher than the hills, it was at least 22 feet deep. And all flesh died that moved on the ground, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the land, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the region." Weird...and I didn't have to distort the intent or the meaning of the words at all to arrive at that. Every word I re-translated fits perfectly with the Hebrews word from which it would be transliterated. Unfortunately...your "textual modifiers" are all based on a flawed premise that "earth" means global...and "all" means "all." I mean "erets" doesn't even specifically mean "all dry land"...lol. If you can't even be specific about something so simple, then I don't know what to say. Your still stuck on the concept that "ALL" mountains must have been covered...when the word "har" doesn't mean "mountain" all the time. I gotta go to work...I'll continue tomorrow

LOL...I don't believe it rained non-stop for 40 days.

Well...thats the problem...you keep reading the plain english words of the text. I'm looking at the literal hebrew meanings of the word. You read the word "earth" and apply that to its most limited and plain sense...and completely erase the fact that the word "erets" is not hardly that limited because it undermines your narrow view of the story. He is displeased with mankind...and since mankind clearly isn't in canada (a point you conveniently ignored) there is no reason to flood the whole earth. Thats ridiculous. The size of the flood is certainly relevant or we wouldn't be discussing it. If you can point to one other flood of the magnitude we are discussing...then I'll stand down. God promised he would never again do what he did in passing that type of judgement on man...and he hasn't. We are not talking about local flooding here. We are talking about a supernatural flood of God's design...that is a judgement upon the corruption and violence of men...it represented a total reset of human history. This was a ctrl-alt-delete on human history...God promised he wouldn't do it again. Quit trying to make it sound like I believe it was some little local deal. I know because its logical. God didn't kill "all" humans. God didn't kill "all" animals. It stand to reason that God didn't flood "all" the earth either. It is common knowledge that "all" often doesn't represent an all-incompassing intention. The wording in this case is NOT all inclusive because God clearly didn't do what you think he did. Methuselah wasn't a man of God? He lived right up to the flood. Enoch was so righteous that God took him to heaven rather than let him die. What about Enos? In his time "men bagan to call on the name of the Lord." These are contemporaries of Noah...they lived at the same time. Related even. Noah was NOT the only righteous guy walking around at the time...and while the bible is clear that God was angry at the human condidtion and was going to exact judgement on them...it does not say that Noah was the "only" Godly man on earth. lol...except when its not. Except when a word has about 20 different meanings. I'll completely admit that English is far from a perfect and precise language...which is why you shouldn't take a plain english word like "earth" and use it solely to mean ONE thing...when it clearly has a far more complex meaning than simply "earth"...or "entire area of dry land." You should know, as well as I do, that the word "earth" (erets) is used to refer to specific places and regions in the bible. Of course...Noah built a huge boat! That doesn't change the fact that Noah's building the boat was an act of obedience...and that it was far more convenient than trying to trek a zoo of animals across thousands of miles. God was happy with Noah, and He used Noah, and He saved Noah. We don't disagree at all that this was a miraculous and supernatural event. I'll happily accept any biblical evidence you have that Noah and his contemporaries had popluated the entire globe.

LOL...but you are willing to accept the completely impossible dynamics of water 20,000ft deep all over the globe? I don't believe the waters covered "all" of the mountains...so thats a moot point. I believe some mountians/hills were covered in the region of the flood. I find it interesting that you forgot to mention that the word "har" can also mean "hill country or region"...which again could point to a regional flood. I am delighted to see that you are willing to acknowledge that the word "hills" can have multiple meanings. Of course it can include mountains, or simply hill country...I would never claim otherwise. The Bible does not tell us that the boat floated above Mt Ararat...only that it stopped there. It doesn't tell us at what elevation either...so it could have been anywhere in the vast area of the mountain range at any elevation. Now if we can just get you to accept that the word "erets" has multiple meanings besides "global."

Exactly? thats a tricky question. The low point of the Arabian Shelf (from the sea, Turkey elevates to the Arabian Shelf) is about 1000ft...but there are drainage rivers that would provide some relief. Those rivers flow from the Arabian shelf (a mountainous plateau) to the Caspain sea, the mediterrainian, and even to neighboring countries. One of the rivers is the Euphrates. Turkey in in many ways a large basin...and in fact has many areas known as basins, such as the Usul basin. As long as the area is flooding faster than the natural run-off can drain it...it will flood until the water flooding the area subsides. However, please keep in mind, even this wouldn't have been completely necessary to create widespread destruction and massive flooding in that region. Just last year a flood that rose the water level just 6 feet devasted Istanbul and put most of the city underwater...imagine what a flood of 20, 50, 100ft would do.

Again, you have to remove the mindset that localized means a small area. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of miles of flood water. We are talking about a massive replanting of the human story. The waters rose to unheard of heights and caused unheard of devastation. This was a GOD event! We also have to get past the idea that "all" means "all." It simply doesn't. God did NOT destroy "all" flesh...anymore than he flooded "all" the world. The entire wording is global only when you imagine that the context is global. Many people have narrowed the definition of a broadly defined word (erets) to mean one thing...and it simply isn't so. This again points to the fact that you keep trying to put the "localized flood" as a small time event that has happened many times over the course of human history. I promise you that is not true. This flood was a massive flood. It was a flood, the likes of which, will never again be seen on the face of the earth.

Not at all. As I mentioned, even in Turkey the mountain regions make a natural barrier to the water. If you look to eastern Turkey (towards Ararat) there are huge mountainous regions, and in the Southern Mediterrainian regions (towards the Mediterrainian Sea) there are Mountainous regions...with narrow valleys that run towards the Mediterrainian Sea. The entire Black Sea area towards Turkey is like a bowl. Floods by nature are localized. Any massive influx of water in an area can cause water to raise to unnatural heights in that area until the rain stops and a natural run-off occurs. I should also clarify, I was only pointing out that the 1500ft measure was only to show that the water didn't have to rise to the top of Mt Ararat to flood the region, or cover the hills. If the waters rose only 150ft it would create a monumental flood and still bury much of Turkey. Everything Noah saw would be underwater all the way to the horizon. The Black Sea itself is 170,000 square miles, every foot of flood water beyond its borders would add to the area flood area indefinitely.

I just want you to know that I will pray for you! We all have various struggles in Christianity. I've learned in those times to focus more on the "Christ" part...and leave the "ianity" alone.

I'll tell ya what...I completely agree! If even only half of them get cold feet and take off...it'll be dramatically better for our state. I hope its true...but i'm a bit pessimistic. We still need to seal the border...for everyone that leaves it seems like two more come in.

There is a HUGE difference between circular and spherical. There is absolutely no indication in the text, or context, that Job knew the earth was a round sphere.

Im a weak weak man....

Oh man...this is just too much fun...and I don't wanna miss out. So here goes... I certainly repsect those that take a literal supernatural view of the "Great Flood." Its a wonderful and exciting story of faith and redemption...and whether you believe it was global or not those terms don't necessarily have to diminish. I believe in a more localized flood. The problem with the term "localized" is most people immediately define it as a small area. In reality, those who think the flood may have been localized believe it covered hundreds of miles, maybe even thousands. Either way, it was a significant event. We also point to the generally accepted term "earth" used in the bible. Most people take that translation as literal and apply it to the whole earth. When in reality, as Nebula already pointed out, the word "earth" generally doesn't refer to the whole globe at all. In fact, the word used "'erets" is used twice as many times in the bible to simply mean 'land' (1543 times) than it is used to mean 'earth' (712 times) and even then the word 'earth' doesn't mean global. If you start to interpret the word "earth' as global everytime you see it in the bible then many parts of scripture just don't make any sense at all. The word 'erets' can mean anything from ground, land, tribal territory, country, district, region, or even simply soil. The mountains...once you begin to see that the event may have been localized, the covering of the hills doesn't seem so extreme. I live in a valley. I live near a 750 ft mountain...it can be seen from a few miles away. Some taller mountains (2000-5000ft) are 20-30 miles away. If God chose to flood our region (erets) for some reason...he wouldn't need to flood the globe to make the mountains in this area disappear. Filling our valley to the brim would pretty much create a sea hundreds of miles wide and long. I don't think there is any reason to assume that Noah had any knowledge of all the mountains of the world being underwater. What Noah knew was that all the mountains in his region, in his land, were underwater...and that was devastating enough. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Noah's boat ever even left the vacinity where he began his journey. It is pretty likely that the Ark never travelled more than 1000-1500 miles from where it was built considering it landed somewhere in the Ararat region. Since we are discussing the Turkey region (where the ark allegedly landed) the water level would only have to rise 1500ft to put 85% of Turkey underwater...were talking 750 miles of water connecting the Black Sea and the Mediterrainian Seas. Thats a body of water almost the size of the U.S. for the ark to float around in, before bumping into Mt Ararat. Thats alot of mountains and earth underwater in 40 days...and it would certainly be enough for Noah to handle...let alone worrying about the Himilayas. Thats a good starting point I guess...before I get too long winded...hehe.

LOL! My apologies sis..u are anything but chopped liver.

What a blessing to know I am not the only one! I totally agree it would be amazing to see her family find Christ through all of this mess. I would love to know more about your evangelization of Muslims sometime.

WOW! My wife...a latino...is against it. You ready to throw her out? How many illegals do you suppose she has snuck in? <----that was kind of hurtful She is one of the kindest, most sincere, loving Christians I've ever had the opportunity to meet. She is also staunchly conservative both morally and politically. She refuses to speak spanish, and won't teach it to our kids. My wife fits the profile of people who will be targeted by this law.

Its not illegal to not be able to speak english...why is that your criteria? I wish they spoke English as much as anyone...but I'm not going to marginalize them for doing something they are perfectly within their rights to do. I'm tired of alot of things that have to do with illegals. I want illegal immigration stopped. I want the Gov to sign a law ordering a wall along the border protected by soldiers...something that will target illegals coming into the country. I'm not so keen on singling out people who have every right to speak spanish and look hispanic and subject them to scrutiny.

Location is just the justification to make race the issue. I agree that the law itself doesn't make race the issue...but you cannot take race out of the equation. Just because you can find ways to justify making race the issue, doesn't necessarily make it right. Like I said earlier, I agree with Jeb Bush that the race issue is an 'unintended consequence' of this law. There is no escaping that fact. Legal, Amercian citizens, who are of latino descent will be caught up in this...that stinks. If America was bordering Sweden...I would be uncomfortable (or have reservations) about a law that specifically targeted whites...even if I understood the intent of the law. Do you even read what you write? Latino's/Hispanics will be looked at closer...because of their actions? I got news for ya...not all latinos participate in those illegal actions. Some of them are even law abiding American citizens. It would be all well and good if only people who were illegal were being targeted. This law targets everyone! Including American citizens who happen to look the part. Its okay that only mexicans are targeted? LOL! You keep trying to say that race isn't an issue..but you can't make your case without introducing caveats such as "location", the "bad guys are mexicans," or if "they don't speak english." Bro...everything you are saying points to ONE race of people. Btw...it is not illegal to not know the english language. You are perfectly okay with the concept that my wife (who is of latino/native american descent) will be subject to more scrutiny by police than most other people...simply because she matches the identity of offenders of latino/hispanic descent. The law was NOT passed or conceived with the purpose of profiling latinos...I agree that anyone who attempts to make that case is lying. The law has good intentions...with side-effects. Like you said, the two cars were pulled over for speeding with NO racial ties involved. However, one of those cars will be subjected to closer police scrutiny (as you admitted) because they are mexicans, close to the border, and it is mexicans actions that are the problem.

I believe it was localized...but... since the mods believe I follow poor Shiloh around simply to pick fights with him...I'll avoid this topic...lol!

Well...apparently the environmental conditions in the Gulf are perfect for the seepage and it breaks down before it hits the shore somehow (again a bunch of science stuff i really don't get.) I was reading that even this oil spill is being called the perfect oil spill because of the environmental conditions in that area. From MSNBC: Crews working to clean up the spill from the Deepwater Horizon have other things in their favor. Oil from the Exxon Valdez can still be found under rocks in the cold water of Prince William Sound, but residue in the Gulf will disappear faster. "You have warm temperatures, strong sunlight, microbial action. It will degrade a lot faster," said Ronald S. Tjeerdema, an environmental toxicologist at the University of California at Davis who's studied the effects of oil on aquatic systems. "Eventually, things will return to normal." And there's another bit of good news: The oil spilling out is sweet crude, which is low in sulfur, unlike the oil from the Exxon Valdez, which was heavy crude. "If you had to pick an oil to spill, this would be it," Overton, the LSU oil spill expert, said. On the flip side...the oil seepage in California, near Santa Barbara, is far less than the Gulf of Mexico. But because of the environmental conditions the oil doesn't break down as fast and the coastline of Santa Barbara is covered in oil.