Magus55

For no other crime than being Jewish? Jews sin too. They committed crimes against God just like every other human. And you're also assuming none of them ever accepted Jesus before they died.

funinspace

I am not asking for an explanation of all of the Flood, nor all of history. I am stating that the parts of Genesis I have already mentioned, clearly state the lineage from Noah to Moses. There are no if's, and's, or but's within those verses. I agree that it is simple and simplistic. However, simple doesn't mean we can change the meaning when it is explicitly clear (and simple). Here is just one section of the text:
Ge 11:10-17 "This is the account of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and had other sons and daughters. When Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah. And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters. When Shelah had lived thirty years, he became the father of Eber. And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters. When Eber had lived thirty-four years, he became the father of Peleg. And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years and had other sons and daughters."

This runs literally father to son, father to son, one after another from Noah to Moses. I assume I don't have to post all 30-50 verses to get you to believe they are there?. What part of this simple text can be construed to not mean what it says? And how do these verses not contradict, even your worldview?

DK

Magus55

And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and had other sons and daughters.

And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters.

Shelah lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters.

Eber lived four hundred and thirty years and had other sons and daughters.

Are you seeing a theme here? This is my exact point. The names listed in Genesis are the direct line of humanity up to Moses (i.e the direct line of the Jews). It is not every human ever conceived. As verses above show, every human listed by name, lived for hundreds of years, and had other sons of daughters besides the ones listed by name.

funinspace

Let's try that again, but this time with bolding in the correct places:
Ge 11:10-17 "This is the account of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and had other sons and daughters. When Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah. And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters. When Shelah had lived thirty years, he became the father of Eber. And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters. When Eber had lived thirty-four years, he became the father of Peleg. And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years and had other sons and daughters."

Do you see the trend? A specific timeline from Noah to Moses, with every father listed. There are no gaps. It does not matter what other sons and daughters they had. It provides a detailed cronology. Do you really need to see all the verses with all the years added up for you to see that it's just around 1000 years?

Or you could even go an address the specif points I mentioned in the other thread instead of taking short potshots here???

DK

myndreach

I'd just like to start by saying that I am an avid student of bible study, and have read it entirely on a number of occasions. I did read these in entirety, the whole chapters in fact, as I always do before saying something is a contradiction. Taking a quote out of context is the best way to discredit yourself.

Ahh, no my friend. You are changing what the book says. It says jesus loves those that love him, and those that seek him will find him. It doesn't say those that love me and seek me.... It is obviously saying those that love him will be loved in addition to the fact that those that seek him will find him. These are two different groups of people here. Sure, some may love him and seek him, but some may seek him but not love him. It's open to interpretation, just like the rest of the bible.

This just shows how open to misunderstanding the damn book is...we can disagree about it and have different interpretations. I'm so glad that a book written by us imperfect men was the infalible god's chosen method to instruct us as to the ways to avoid eternal damnation in the hellfires he created for us.

I'm wondering where in proverbs 8:17 it says that only those that fear and respect the lord can seek and find him?

I'm not even going to get into the implications of different versions saying differnt things...that's proof enough that the bible is nothing more than a book written and translated by infalible man. As I said before, what a great way for the perfect god to send his instructions to us. I know if I wanted to tell my worshipers how to avoid the punishment I had in store for them, I'd probably try to make it very clear and concise. Well, actually if I was a god that made a place for them to be eternally punished, maybe I'd like for them to be confused and lost.

Sauron

Yes, you can. You most certainly can.

Unless you have some evidence to suggest that the world was radically different in the past than it is now, then you're entirely safe in assuming that the world now, and the world back then, operate the same.

You don't get to -- out of the clear blue sky -- pretend that the world has mysteriously changed. Just because your religious belief would otherwise be in deep trouble without such a convenient accommodation - sheesh.

Gregg

You didn't answer my question. You've claimed there's something just about Hitler going to hell for his crimes. But there is nothing "just" about it, because he really isn't being punished for his specific crimes--he's being punished for being a sinner who didn't accept Jesus. In other words, he's being punished for the same reason the Jews he killed are.

Let's see. We're talking some six million Jews. Let's say one in six of'em accepted Jesus before they died ("Oh my God! The gas! The gas! They are killing us! (scream of terror, cough, cough, retch) I'm so sorry for rejecting the Messiah, God! (retch, gag) Jesus, please come into my heart now and save me! Today I will be with you in Paradise! (loss of motor function. Bladder and bowels vacate. Thud. Other naked bodies pile on top))" So that only leaves, what, five million Jews to suffer the torments of hell along with their murderer! Truly God is merciful!

Oh, and let's not forget, if Hitler sincerely repented and accepted Jesus before he died, he's in heaven, while six, no, just five million of the people he killed are in hell! Truly, God is just!

Magus55

Not necessarily. Our actions are judged at the Great Throne at the end of the Tribulation. I can't remember the verse, but I'm also pretty sure there are verses implying that Hell has varying degrees based on how your works are judged. Assuming those Jews are in Hell, their punishment may be far less severe than Hitlers. Ultimately I don't know the exact answer because I'm not God.

Magus55

Um, the world was radically different in the past, even by scientific standards. Less oxygen, molten Earth, gaseous atmosphere, pangea, etc.

Gregg

Magus, the point was not that the Earth was exactly the same millions or billions of years ago as it is now. The point was that the Earth in the past operated according to the same physical principles it operates by today. To postulate a cataclysmic global flood just a few thousand years ago accompanied by massive, incredibly rapid mountain-building and tectonic activity (with the accompanying vulcanism) which somehow did not destroy the Ark, and was followed by incredibly rapid "microevolution" within "kinds," you have to assume that the world just a few thousand years ago operated under physical laws very different from those we know today.