Larsguy47

You can forget it! The BIBLE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. If that is true then nothing can disprove it. Now you may have a "lack of evidence" for certain things, like no evidence of the Jews in the wilderness of Kadesh-Barnea in the LBIIA period, something the non-believers like to hold onto for dear life so they don't worry so much about not believing the Bible, but the fact is, a lot of things, especially historical things in the Bible are very much established by extra-Biblical records or archaeology, especially when those records are more complete, such as throughout the Assyrian and Babyonian Periods.

Other issues just aren't possible to confirm or deny, like the global flood or the actual age of life. Case in point, one method of dating organic materials is RC14 (radiocarbon 14) and that is accurate back so far, 30-50,000 years I understand.

BUT my position has always been that if something is really big news, it's right out there. The fact that the debates are still going on back and forth shows there is no clear absolute disproval of anything that the Bible says, it's only relative and circumstantial.

A finally thing is that most of the "science" that is used to contradict the Bible is very sophisticated and can't be "double checked" by Christians very easily as a lay person and so it is not trusted and not considered contradictory because it can't be fully understood. So the debates continue.

LG47

3DJay

When was beer invented, Lars?


Peace

Larsguy47

Not exactly. It's like closing your eyes and not having to face reality. It's like postponing the question. More accurately: "I don't understand something could be true, so I can't confirm it to be true or false."

Now this is where the "practical application" comes in. When I was discussing some issues on the Evolution vs Creation broad, I could barely begin researching some of the issues before being confronted with many Christians groups that had angles on practically every evolution or radiometric dating or fossile issue. So immediately one is faced with all these old and confusing discussions to wade through. What turned me off immediately though, was that the usually very calm and objective evlutionists suddenly turned into evolution 'apologists' and started saying the Christian counter-arguments were fraudulent and fabricated, etc. much as the Biblical apologists were saying. How how do you sort through that? It's an extra hurdle to the truth. So as I said, if the reality of those things directly challenging the Bible were more profoundly correct, the arguments wouldn't continue. So, I think until the experts finally get past the high-level tit-for-tat, us sideliners, the Biblicalists at least are content to leave well enough alone: "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it."

LG47

3DJay

Finally, something we can agree on. :thumbs:


Peace

Larsguy47

This is not so. There was no enmity between Canaan and the Jews based on this. This was just an incident involving Ham and his already born son, Canaan. After the flood the ecological order was different, the water canopy over the earth (solid ice) was now not blocking the sun. One can presume that this affected various organisms, including spores and fungi, some of which must have gotten into the wine of Noah so that he became delusional, passed out and hyperexcited sexually. This fungus was perfected in later times to mix with wine as an aphrodesiac which was used by temple prostitutes while having sex with patrons. Like VIAGRA, only the men went into convulsions and passed out with the side effect of a continuous orgasm. This is the wine mixture used by Lots two daughters on their father so they could get pregnant by him without him knowing it.

Having noted, that is what Ham came in and saw. He'd seen his father naked many times before, no doubt, which was no big deal. But this was different. He was in his tent, covers kicked off, passed out having an orgasm and continuous ejaculations. It was this scene, that younger brother Ham, who was the first to have a son, Canaan, went outside the tent to get his two older brothers to witness. They were shocked and refused to and likely told Ham to "Get back in there and cover him up!" Ham was put off by this and likely though he'd force the issue by refusing to: "You go do it!" So the brothers devised a way to back into the tent without looking at their father's "nakedness" (his erection) and cover him up.

Later this was told to Noah, who certainly was not pleased. So he blessed Shem and Japheth and left off a blessing for Ham. And as part of the punishment for Ham, his firstborn son, who would have been a servant in Ham's tent before the other two had children, was to become a servant in the tents of Shem and Japheth. That was it. So if anything can be read into this, Ham (Hamitic peoples) would do as well as Shem (Semitic) and Japheth (Caucasian) peoples.

But the Canaanites themselves were not cursed. They had to give up their land, but some of them were quite friendly with the Jews. In fact, the king of Tyre who was Phonecian was a Canaanite and he helped build the temple.

Since it is clear that Melchizedek who was king of Salem, at Jerusalem was a high priest of Yhwh, it is likely that the Canaanites had some form of Yhwh worship and corrupted themselves and thus when their time was up in the Land God removed them. But not all of them were removed, obviously.

So (do you have pen?), this story with Noah really happened, and it was just his actual son Canaan that was cursed and not the descendants of Canaan any more than Hamitic peoples not being blessed like Shem and Japheth. Please reference that it was the father Ham who actually committed the gross disrespect. His son just would pay for this directly by essentially becoming the firstborn of Shem and Japheth and becoming a servant in their tents. That way, even if Ham had the oldest grandon, he couldn't lord it over his brothers who had waited a little longer before having children.

LG47

Toto

Whatever Larsguy is writing about, his alternate history will not help the person who asked about backup in a debate with a Christian.

3DJay

Holy crapoly, batman! Noah was a drug addict?

I think it's great, that the Earth came with artwork. It was nice of God to decorate, for us.











It came with tools, weapons, and instruments, too. Very handy.







Ahhhh, the good old days...when God would make stuff for ya, rain down bread, if you were hungry, have water pour out of a rock, if you were thirsty...man...that was the good life, for sure.

Strange though.....wonder why he didn't just put them in all the towns and villages, he made? Why decorate and leave tools, etc...where there weren't any people?

http://www.studylight.org/se/maps/normal/015.jpg

Ahh well, I'm sure he had his reasons.


Peace

Larsguy47

I didn't say he was an addict. It was an accident. He didn't know the wine would have that affect on him. Things were different right after the flood.

LG47

3DJay

Oh sure.....if some fungus gave you "continuous ejaculations", as if you wouldn't keep taking it.


Peace

David B

If the bible were absolutely true, then why does it contain false prophesies, a couple of differing creation myths, three (IIRC) versions of the 10 commandments - none of which are literally compatible with varves and ice layers, even if one takes a view that a day for god is 7000 years for people?

Other issues just aren't possible to confirm or deny, like the global flood or the actual age of life. Case in point, one method of dating organic materials is RC14 (radiocarbon 14) and that is accurate back so far, 30-50,000 years I understand.

Annual ice layers going back hundreds of thousands of years do it for me. Along with lots of supporting evidence, may of which are sufficient in their own rights.

I'd also point out that there are Koranic absolutists who also dispute evolution on theological grounds, which overwhelm their critical faculties regarding what is good evidence.

So what makes the Bible more reliable than the Koran?

Annual layers of ice, going back hundreds of thousands of years, which can be seen and counted is not really all that sophisticated. Especially when nit picks about 'how do you know it's annual' can be answered by correlating the ice dates of layers of dust, and other changes, with known volcanic events. Is that really difficult?

Ice layers, correlated with known volcanic events can't be double checked? what is hard about that? There are legitimate scientists who are Christians, but you won't find many of them (there's always the odd nutter, in any field) who are YECs. Even with a 7000 year alleged day. Because the ice ring thing is so obvious that you don't actually have to be very bright to understand it.

Science is not fully understood is a given for all scientists. Nonetheless, science is trustworthy enough for most churches to rely on lightning conductors rather than prayer to protect their buildings from lightning.

Ice rings are easier to understand, IMV, than how lightning conductors work.

And the make the earth minimally hundreds of thousands of years old. Fossils in rocks underneath massive thickness of ice show that life is also much older than your semi biblical (I don't recall anything in the Bible saying that a day in the Genesis account should be taken as 7000 years) dating.

Really Lars - think about the ice layers. You are much too articulate to be a really stupid man, even if you are, IMV, obsessive about one among several ancient traditions written down long after the events.

And the ice layer thing is not sophisticated or difficult (though a lot of the stuff that can be learnt from the ice layers really is sophisticated).

David B