wade-w

Would you care to substantiate that? You have made that claim many times. You have never bothered to back it up.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: wade-w ]</p>

lpetrich

A gigantic load of camel dung.

There are many Greco-Roman historians who did at least as well as the Bible in their recording of history. And who were often tons more rational.

<a href="http://www.geocentricity.com" target="_blank">The Geocentricity Site</a> contains some Biblical evidence for geocentrism, like the famous Joshua story. As the first Protestant, Martin Luther, had pointed out, Joshua had told the Sun and not the Earth to stop moving when he wanted to win one of his battles. And another early Protestant, John Calvin, pointed out Psalm 93:1, which states that "the earth is stabilized; it will not be moved", and asked who will put the authority of Copernicus over that of the Holy Ghost.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

blakader

------It has also been refuted, and remains unanswered.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the question remains unaswered


-----Bats are mammals, not birds. The Bible is in error. So what you're really saying is that God is deliberately imprecise.

God knew the people he was talking to. This nitpicking really doesn't belong here. There wasn't a mammal classification back then. Don't eat these things with wings. I cant believe this is even a discusion. God is being exacly precise be listing each creature with a wing not to east



----Unsupported assertion. Prove it. Furthermore, the text doesn't specifically refer to locusts. There are plenty of flying insects.

<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/buglegs.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/buglegs.html</a>
"It is clear that the Hebrews regarded the two large, hopping hindlimbs of the locust and the other insects of the same type, which are the only types of insects mentioned here (we now translate "beetle" as "cricket"), as something different than the other four limbs - perhaps because they were used primarily for vertical propulsion, whereas the other limbs were for scurrying around.

Unacceptable? The alternative is to say that the Hebrews - who ate these things raw, for crying out loud - didn't see that these bugs had six legs. Maybe they closed their eyes before putting them in their mouths...?"


-----It's still incorrect. God's correcting Jacob says nothing at all about the fact the the Bible still says that genetics in livestock can be altered by looking at pattered sticks.

Ummm didn't you read my answer? The Bible does NOT say that. It records what Jacob did and the result. GOD did the genetic altering. NOT the sticks God punished Jacob for thinking that the sticks worked. This is a clear example of not raeading the context

----Could be?" There's still no snake that can kill at a glance.


It doesn't say it will kill you with a glace... the Hebrew means a kind of adder, more venomous than the asp

I'm not saying there is a word for word exact translation from the ancient hebrew or Greek. We as thinking people should realize this...Just as people from the far future will read our texts on how the sun rises and sets. Won't they still think that we think earth is the center of the universe. and wouldn't they be wrong?

blakader

The current lack of evidence is not evidence agaist it

Yes I was speaking of Christian miricles. I dont know of any Islamic miracles. I cant speak for the others

DivineOb

Muhammed allegedly caused the moon to be split in two as a sign to unbelievers, as described here <a href="http://www.thewaytotruth.org/prophetmuhammad/splittingofthemoon.html" target="_blank">http://www.thewaytotruth.org/prophetmuhammad/splittingofthemoon.html</a>

I especially like this paragraph

"The majority of the foremost scholars of meticulous research such as Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani concluded that like the flowing of water from the fingers of the Prophet, upon him be peace, and his satisfying the thirst of a whole army with that water, and the grieving of the dry wooden pole-against which the Prophet used to lean while delivering sermons-because of its separation from him, and its being heard by a whole congregation, the splitting of the moon, too, is mutawatir, that is, it has been transmitted by one truthful group at each period to another, forming such a vast community that their agreement on a lie is inconceivable. It is as certain as a famous comet-named Haley-having appeared a thousand years ago, or as the existence of an island which we have not seen but exists. Therefore, it is unreasonable to foster baseless doubts about such certain, witnessed matters. In fact, it is sufficient for their acceptability that they are not impossible. As for the splitting of the moon, it is quite as possible as a mountain’s being split by a volcanic eruption."

Sound like any reasoning you've heard to describe christian miracles? Do you see now why we don't find such talk compelling?

Jack the Bodiless

The authors of the Bible had no motive to lie about purely mundane historical details (except, of course, for declaring nonexistent military victories and suchlike, which they appear to have done). I doubt if many scholars have attested to the "amazing" reliability of the Bible.

Even so, it contains known historical errors. Such as mangling the sequence of Persian kings, or anachronisms such as Abraham coming from "Ur of the Chaldees" (who did not yet exist).

There is also the Noachian Flood, which simply did not happen. We can date it from Biblical genealogies to about 4300 years ago: Egyptian and other ancient records make no mention of it (and, of course, there is no geological evidence either).

And I see that you are still avoiding mention of the Genesis creation account. Presumably even you cannot deny that this is false. Though it would be amusing to see you try.

K

DivineOb:

Great work. If that isn't a splash of icewater in faces of Christian apologists, I don't know what is. Those Islamic apologetics would fit right in with the Christian apolgetics we've seen here.

Vibr8gKiwi

Sorry, but this begs for oneliners. Are you unaware of history? Are you unaware that the bible was used to support such arguments when a geocentric view of the earth was thought to be fact? Do you deny history?

Does anyone else get the feeling that in 20 years or so (when Van and everyone else has finally accepted evolution), Van is going to argue the bible doesn't go against evolution?

Radorth

Personally I do not accept as proof any but multiple first or second hand accounts, which is why I generally reject the flood story and creation stories. Please provide at least 2 eyewitness accounts of the above. I don't recall reading Muhammed himself saying he did this either or claiming to work any miracle. This is a very simplistic comparison.

Rad

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Mageth

Vander:

I just realized something, you are always criticizing. Most often, you don't substantiate your claims. So, why should we take them seriously?

And your claim in the post that my post was in reply to that "the denial of a spherical earth is similar to a denial of God's existence" was substantiated how?

Typical, rather than responding to the point I was making, you respond with an ad hom attack.

Here's my question again, for your edification, discussion, and debate:

If the denial of "modern technological and explorative advancements" in astronomy call flatearthers' worldview into question, does the denial of "modern technological and explorative advancements" concerning origins call creationists' worldview into question?

That seems like a personally reasonable question to me. From your nasty non-response, I can only assume it's a hard one for you to answer.

The few times I've attempted to have substantial discussions with you, you've ended up with ad hom attacks on me, insults, and finally putting me on your little "black list" because I don't cowtow to your tactics. You deserve criticism.

We must wonder: are you capable of participating in a discussion, or a genuine debate? Or, are you content to shoot spitwads from the sideline?

I think other posters have seen me participate in plenty of discussions and genuine debates here. And so have you; you're just pissed because I've several times called you on some of your BS.

I also notice that you don't start any threads. Why is that?

What difference does it make whether I start threads or not?

I would love to see you start a thread on either of these topics. If you do, you'd better have your armor strapped on in advance.

Hipboots, perhaps.