|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,489
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,489 |
i'm glad that i'm a pagan. i don't care, but i'm pretty sure that homo sapiens came out about 300,000 years ago.
"Russia sucks."
---- Me, US Army (retired) 12B & 51B
Russian Admiral said, after the Moskva sank, "we have the world's worst navy but we aren't as bad as our army".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 28
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 28 |
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains. Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are. Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation. This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think. ![[Linked Image from waterknowledge.colostate.edu]](https://waterknowledge.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/08/CO-Sedimentary-Rock-Book-Cliffs-CGS.jpg) ![[Linked Image from grandcanyontrust.org]](https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/blog/Blog_Grand_Canyon_Butte_Foreground_Ed_Moss.jpg) Your post is confirmation of a worldwide flood. All those layers photographed were water born sediment at one time. Read up on the velocity of some of the currents produced by tides when there are no continents in the way. Sediments come from high elevations down to lower elevations. So how did the entire earth get covered in layers of sediment?? How did high mountains get sedimentary layers? Did mud come from space during this one worldwide flood? Even if mud did come from space how did it form many many layers on mountain tops? Mountains are actually MADE of layers! We also have layers way down deep in the Grand Canyon and other canyons. Have you ever thought about these things? The Earth must of gotten much bigger from all these sedimentary layers over all of the Earth?
Last edited by Durango_Dave; 04/12/24.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859 |
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains. Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are. Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation. This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think. Your post is confirmation of a worldwide flood. All those layers photographed were water born sediment at one time. Read up on the velocity of some of the currents produced by tides when there are no continents in the way. Sediments come from high elevations down to lower elevations. So how did the entire earth get covered in layers of sediment?? How did high mountains get sedimentary layers? Did mud come from space during this one worldwide flood? Even if mud did come from space how did it form many many layers on mountain tops? Mountains are actually MADE of layers! We also have layers way down deep in the Grand Canyon and other canyons. Have you ever thought about these things? The Earth must of gotten much bigger from all these sedimentary layers over all of the Earth? Apparently you never heard of Pangia. During the Flood the supercontinent broke apart. The mountains did not exist until very late in the Flood. God says He pushed down the low places and raised up the high places. That's why fossils are found from sea level to the highest mountains.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639 |
Pangea? That was over 200 million years ago. There were no people around, nor was there a flood that covered the whole earth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,890
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,890 |
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains. Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are. Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation. This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think. Your post is confirmation of a worldwide flood. All those layers photographed were water born sediment at one time. Read up on the velocity of some of the currents produced by tides when there are no continents in the way. Sediments come from high elevations down to lower elevations. So how did the entire earth get covered in layers of sediment?? How did high mountains get sedimentary layers? Did mud come from space during this one worldwide flood? Even if mud did come from space how did it form many many layers on mountain tops? Mountains are actually MADE of layers! We also have layers way down deep in the Grand Canyon and other canyons. Have you ever thought about these things? The Earth must of gotten much bigger from all these sedimentary layers over all of the Earth? Apparently you never heard of Pangia. During the Flood the supercontinent broke apart. The mountains did not exist until very late in the Flood. God says He pushed down the low places and raised up the high places. That's why fossils are found from sea level to the highest mountains. Rich, this is the explanation offered by "young earthers" today. What was the explanation in the year 1900? Before the discovery of continental drift and plate tectonics? Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift." Wegener proposed that the continents plowed through crust of ocean basins, which would explain why the outlines of many coastlines (like South America and Africa) look like they fit together like a puzzle.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion. What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it. The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago. Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... You're presuming there was a body. You're presuming there was a Jesus. Oh, ok, back to you. Prove there wasn't a Jesus, prove there wasn't a body....... Not that again. Kindergarten logic, FFS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,639 |
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly...
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist... They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…?  If a voice can be heard, anyone in earshot can hear it. What theists believe to be the voice of God is something they experience in their mind, a subjective experience specific to them, neither objective or verifiable. And as we know, the mind can and does play tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,760
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,760 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros?
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 1,905
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 1,905 |
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident. ''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel. The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed. This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have. https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/But explain where the body of Jesus went. We'll wait....... If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew. Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time. ''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times. Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3) Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.'' https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/One witness said there were two bank robbers. Another said there were four...... Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened. You are an idiot. A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot...... Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros? Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots. The ones that earn it......
I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children may live in peace. ~~ Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,034
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,034 |
Atheists are only self proclaimed atheists ....,
because they hate that the Bible clearly states that sexual perversions are sin
the sins that self proclaimed atheists rebel against God for, are
Pedophilia
Homosexuality
Bisexuality
Crossdressing
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole? He really is this unhinged. His hate is so strong he's lost the ability to employ his reason. This makes people like him and GunChamp perfect targets for foreign influence campaigns such as those Russia's been running against the US since the beginning of Cold War. Of course Russia doesn't only target the right. He has counter parts on the Left equally susceptible to different kinds of propaganda operations, but they are typically yelling "Orange Man Bad". The very first thing the self proclaimed atheists always do, is ridicule and paint those who speak up with "hate" "anti-semite" "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "transphobe" etc & etc .. and they keep making up and weaponizing new -ist & -phobe words at their convenience all designed to shut you up your kryptonite doesn't work on everyone You're the one who began a rant about: Pedophilia Homosexuality Bisexuality Crossdressing and it was a Christian who said: Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole? That's what happens when you respond with your emotions, not your logic. You make unforced errors. Now stop and think for a moment how that can be harnessed by nefarious foreign actors. Now think about how those same actors can harness "Orange man bad" against you. Dumbing down .... is exactly what creates zombies like you .. There is no better explanation than what you see here .. you are but a temporary useful fool .. oops sorry, I mean tool !
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,276
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,276 |
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly...
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist... They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…? If a voice can be heard, anyone in earshot can hear it. What theists believe to be the voice of God is something they experience in their mind, a subjective experience specific to them, neither objective or verifiable. And as we know, the mind can and does play tricks. While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly...
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist... They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…? If a voice can be heard, anyone in earshot can hear it. What theists believe to be the voice of God is something they experience in their mind, a subjective experience specific to them, neither objective or verifiable. And as we know, the mind can and does play tricks. Since you addressed me: Psalm 18 1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. And Romans 1 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,487
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,487 |
The video posted earlier of Richard Dawkins is a clear example that the atheists…especially the one’s who are most active here, as we’ve clearly seen…simply do not want there to be a God. Period. Their position clearly has nothing to do with logic or reason or science or evidence or truth. As we’ve seen, their position is strictly emotional and volitional. Period. They clearly aren’t the beacons of logic and reason searching for truth that they claim to be.
In the video, Dawkins (the most prominent atheist in the world) wants so badly for there not to be a God, but he accepts an alien civilization as a plausible explanation and cause for the creation of life on earth.
lol
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 28
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 28 |
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
JMHO You can believe in God without having to take the Bible literally. Even an 8 year old looking at the rock layers and other evidence can see the earth is extremely old. Some people seem to think you must believe every word of the bible or you won't get into heaven. The young earth theory is worse than the flat earth conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,107
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,107 |
To be clear, I believe that there is a Supreme Being. Call it God, or whatever makes sense in the language that you understand. The Bible has several names for the same Being. As to the alien part of the previous post, God, Angels, the Devil, all are from somewhere other than earth, Thus Aliens in our current language. How the come and go is mostly a mystery, Space ships are a possibility. Did Angels have wings? Or to the uneducated of thousands of years ago, they flew, so they must have had wings. Trying to make sense of how things were back then, compared to life now, takes an open mind, study, and faith that you have it correct. miles
Look out for number 1, don't step in number 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,802
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,802 |
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Last edited by JoeBob; 04/13/24.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 28
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 28 |
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past. Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense. Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah." That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
Last edited by Durango_Dave; 04/13/24.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,802
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,802 |
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past. Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense. Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah." That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas. Native Americans also have legends of medicine men turning into birds and other assorted bullschit. So detailed accuracy isn’t necessarily their thing. The point as to the flood legends is that they exist. It would be a stupid and foolish exercise to attempt to look for detailed accuracy in Native American legends about events that if they happened, were five thousand years in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,963
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,963 |
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
JMHO You can believe in God without having to take the Bible literally. Even an 8 year old looking at the rock layers and other evidence can see the earth is extremely old. Some people seem to think you must believe every word of the bible or you won't get into heaven. The young earth theory is worse than the flat earth conspiracy theory. The flat earth conspiracy is also primarily a Christian phenomenon.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
107 members (14idaho, 10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 24HourCampFireGuy50, 300_savage, 673, 17 invisible),
1,421
guests, and
996
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,865
Posts18,478,668
Members73,948
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
