omega2xx Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 11:33 AM, The Barbarian said: You've merely convinced them that "land" always means "entire globe." When they discover otherwise, what then? Why do you assume they will discover otherwise? Are you such a Bible scholar that you can't possibly be wrong in your interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 3:41 PM, one.opinion said: Agreed. However, you continue to ignore that eretz can mean different things in different contexts. It is simply impossible to accurately claim that we know the meaning used in the flood context. The best we can do is state our opinion. What do you think "the mountains were covered"means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 4:49 PM, one.opinion said: Are your children aware that the Bible wasn’t written in English? Are you aware that the good Bible translations were made by teams of expert scholars in Hebrew and are accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 4:55 PM, one.opinion said: While I’m at it, would you acknowledge that you could potentially be mistaken in your interpretation? Could you acknowledge their interpretation could be correct, and that you can't prove it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 5:43 PM, The Barbarian said: If it was plain, then almost all Christians would agree on it. But it's not plain. Since the is used in the Bible in various ways, there's no possible way to make it mean "global." All conservative Christians agree the flood was global, and you can't prove it was not. Since it is used in various ways, why is it impossible one of them couldn't mean global? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/17/2019 at 5:45 PM, The Barbarian said: The problem for you, is that it doesn't necessarily mean what you say it says. The problem for you is that it doesn't necessarily mean what you say it says and you can't prove what he says it says is not what it says. Love, peace joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 27 minutes ago, omega2xx said: What do you think "the mountains were covered"means? Don't overthink it. If eretz is referring to a regional area, then the mountains in the regional area were covered. 22 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Could you acknowledge their interpretation could be correct I have never stated that "their interpretation" could not be correct, so the quick answer is "yes". I have claimed that a global flood is inconsistent with geological, paleontological, and biogeographical evidence. God could have miraculously made geology, the fossil record, and the distribution of living animals only appear to contradict a global flood. 22 minutes ago, omega2xx said: All conservative Christians agree the flood was global False. I'm a conservative Christian and I disagree. 23 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Since it is used in various ways, why is it impossible one of them couldn't mean global? No one I have heard claimed it is impossible that eretz could be used in a global sense. The global interpretation simply doesn't match well with the evidence God has provided us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eman_3 Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 181 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 3 hours ago, omega2xx said: Any one educated in our failed public education systems has been taught about evolution since about the 5th grade. I know as much about evolution as you do and probably more. I certainly know you can't prove even one thing evolution preaches. I can prove "after their kind" and you can't falsify it. Of course our genes are less similar to every other species, and there is no next species. DNA is not about housekeeping, it is about not only identifying species, it is about identifying distinct, different species. It will tell if I am homo sapien, black, white, English, Spanish, German, etc. DNA has nothing to do with controlling the cell cycle or dividing cells. While DNA does have many elements, I doubt if you can support it has hundred of millions of elements in one species. However the number of elements is irrelevant. It will always do its function of identifying the species from which it came.. Genetics is a science discreet from evolution but it totally and completely refutes evolution and proves "after their kind." Love, peace, joy I do not come from your education system, my education extends past secondary school and I am well versed in many sciences. Evolution does not preach anything it is the best explanation for observed phenomena. Your definition of DNA is at odds with the established scientific definition, you are describing speciation. I suggest you educate yourself on speciation. Regretfully omega2xx, we have reached an impasse. I respect the scientific process and you refute what apologists refer as macro-evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eman_3 Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 181 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: our direct statement was on p. 30--- The chimpanzee has 99% commonality with humans. Gorillas have 98% commonality. Orangutans have 97%, and the rhesus macaque 93%. You made 2 on that post. And yes, those are established facts derived from multiple tests from multiple independent sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 19, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,050 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 19, 2019 2 hours ago, omega2xx said: The problem for you is that it doesn't necessarily mean what you say it says and you can't prove what he says it says is not what it says. Instead of putting your new interpretation on it, why not just let it be God's way? Once you set your pride aside, and let it be as it is, it won't trouble you any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts