Page 4 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 351

Thread: Crazy Bible Stories

  1. Top | #31
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,121
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,177
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Not really, especially if its false... my opinion of course.
    Oh, of course.
    But how you came to that opinion does, in my opinion, involve some serious bullshit.
    Sure but your opinion of BS is false to me.

    [Accuracy AND method, actually. Suggesting they needed a date-stamp to get a number.
    A method is automatically expected when an accuracy is mentioned what else? Making the suggestion they need a date-stamp really ? ... And not the suggestion (and hinting a little sarcasm) and expecting that you CAN'T actually get that number?

    not a guess , (a good guess if you must)
    Say rather an 'educated' guess.
    That will do for me.

    it was just an instant response, being so-called called-out for a biblical response to a biblical narrative.
    But no. That's wrong. There's no biblical account of how much sediment was kicked up by The Flood. How could there be, with the biblical cosmology of the Earth being a flat mat of dirt floating on the Waters Below.
    Only the modern creationist model uses, actually depends on this churning of the Earth's surface material in a bid to account for all the layers and the fossils.
    So my non-biblical-account response to a previous non-biblical-account post gets your (plural) attention. Ok..

    You tried to introduce a tiny bit of modern geology into covering up an unexplored consequence of the biblical narrative. YOu can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't claim you were offering a biblical answer when your answer isn't biblically sourced.
    So the previous little bit of "natural science" mentioned in the post I responded to, If you can muster taking it in the context it was (i.e. that the flood was true hypothetically). Steve posts : it must have quickly stunk to 'high heaven' to to speak. And all the rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded....
    (A flawed theory imo )

    You and Atrib must have overlooked steve's post #18 again shown: it must have quickly stunk to 'high heaven' to to speak. And all the rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded.... a consideration that there was a flood i.e. his biblical narrative. I don't think I made anything outrageous replying in kind. Oh yes ...but it was something else to you (plural) ...or.. you must both agree with Steve's witha bit of natural-science in post#18.
    Last edited by Learner; 10-15-2019 at 11:34 PM.

  2. Top | #32
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,847
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,347
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Sure but your opinion of BS is false to me.
    which you knew before you offered your 'just my opinion' qualifier. So why throw out that derail?
    [Accuracy AND method, actually. Suggesting they needed a date-stamp to get a number.
    A method is automatically expected when an accuracy is mentioned what else? Making the suggestion they need a date-stamp really ? ... And not the suggestion (and hinting a little sarcasm) and expecting that you CAN'T actually get that number?
    you need to choose. Are you going to defend the biblical whoppers with biblical support, or defend them as historical events? This mix of a little bit of both just looks silly.
    There's no biblical account of how much sediment was kicked up by The Flood. How could there be, with the biblical cosmology of the Earth being a flat mat of dirt floating on the Waters Below.
    Only the modern creationist model uses, actually depends on this churning of the Earth's surface material in a bid to account for all the layers and the fossils.
    So my non-biblical-account response to a previous non-biblical-account post gets your (plural) attention. Ok..
    How us it non-biblical?
    The listed purpose of the Ark was to save those included animals, and only those animals, from the mass slaughter of the world-moistening Flood.
    It would be an included consequence of mind-numbing slaughter to have piles upon piles of the Waterlogged Dead afterwards, unless God was mentioned specifically mopping them over the side.

    The sediment comment, however, violates biblical cosmology.
    You tried to introduce a tiny bit of modern geology into covering up an unexplored consequence of the biblical narrative. YOu can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't claim you were offering a biblical answer when your answer isn't biblically sourced.
    So the previous little bit of "natural science" mentioned in the post I responded to, If you can muster taking it in the context it was (i.e. that the flood was true hypothetically)
    no, Steve's comment did not violate yhe biblical narrative. Yours did.
    Steve posts : it must have quickly stunk to 'high heaven' to to speak. And all the rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded....
    (A flawed theory imo )
    actually, i do believe that there were no rotting plants in the story. Because biblically, 'living' is limited to things that breathe thru their nostrils. To the authors of the Flood, the plants would not have suffered from being drowned.
    Thus, the olive branch was green as soon as the water receeded.

    But that issue is not solved by introducing sediment

    You and Atrib must have overlooked steve's post #18 again shown: it must have quickly stunk to 'high heaven' to to speak. And all the rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded.... a consideration that there was a flood i.e. his biblical narrative. I don't think I made anything outrageous replying in kind.
    but that's the point. You were not replying in kind. Steve stuck to the wr itten conditions.
    You were interpreting the story you read into the world as you understand it, the science you're willing to accept. But you know a lot more about the world than any biblical author. So you fouled.

  3. Top | #33
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,121
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,177
    Rep Power
    24
    but that's the point. You were not replying in kind. Steve stuck to the wr itten conditions.
    You were interpreting the story you read into the world as you understand it, the science you're willing to accept. But you know a lot more about the world than any biblical author. So you fouled.

    No I replied in kind,... no foul on my part nor steve I should say.

    I'll Just say for the night,

  4. Top | #34
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,847
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,347
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    but that's the point. You were not replying in kind. Steve stuck to the wr itten conditions.
    You were interpreting the story you read into the world as you understand it, the science you're willing to accept. But you know a lot more about the world than any biblical author. So you fouled.

    No I replied in kind,... no foul on my part nor steve I should say.

    I'll Just say for the night,
    And you can show this by....?

    I mean, if required, i can assemble a list of the verses supporting the flat Earth cosmology of the bible, or the one about how many dead there would be after tge Vlood.
    Your source for vast depths of sediment covering the dead is....?

  5. Top | #35
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,121
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,177
    Rep Power
    24
    After my guest is gone and a good nights sleep.

  6. Top | #36
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,683
    Rep Power
    17
    I think it goes without saying that millions of drowned animals/humans would sink to the bottom of the flooded area where they died and eventually be covered by Flood sediment.

    Sorry the bible doesn't explain this simple concept more clearly for those who can't grasp the basics.

    https://www.google.com.au/search?sou...21.hoql57dCXaI

  7. Top | #37
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,965
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,871
    Rep Power
    70
    There is no evidence for a world inundating flood as described in the bible. It cannot have happened for many reasons.

  8. Top | #38
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,683
    Rep Power
    17
    There is plenty of evidence for a world inundating flood as described in the bible.
    It happened for one reason.

  9. Top | #39
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,965
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,871
    Rep Power
    70
    Your link doesn't show any evidence for it.

  10. Top | #40
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,892
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,736
    Rep Power
    55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •