Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 2:20 AM
198 online now:
dwise1, GDR, PaulK (3 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,440 Year: 15,263/29,783 Month: 1,207/1,502 Week: 205/492 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Where Science And The Bible Meet
Modulous
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 121 of 208 (444672)
12-30-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by IamJoseph
12-30-2007 2:13 AM


It is definitely one of the 613 laws

My bad - I see it now.

but the world does not follow this law, deeming it a ritual, dietary law.

So your argument that "there are 613 laws in the OT - all of them being active and accepted by the world at large today" (emphasis mine) is trivially false, agreed?

The law of capital punishment for wanton murder is a good law

My point being that not everybody agrees with this ethical principle. In fact many many people disagree strongly with it. Thus: your argument is falsified.

There is no law which says meat consumption is unethical

OK, but it is definitely an ethical principle that exists outside of the Torah. I was talking about principles when you replied to me, since you didn't raise this objection then, I assumed you were happy to go with that.

However, it is law to treat homosexuals as complete equals, which is not, as you claim, a ritual law.

Yes, there is no requirement for the ritual laws to be observed by the world. But I say, the law not to mix a kid in its mother's milk surpasses the ritual factor.

As I pointed out. A simple 'do not be cruel to animals' would be a much better ethical principle for maintaining relevance and sidestepping ambiguity.

This is a ritual law, not a moral/ethical one

Since you now accept that all of the 613 laws are not accepted by the world at large, could you actually give me a number of laws which are accepted?

It is not forbidden.

In the most used list of 613 laws it states "Not to intermarry with gentiles (Deut. 7:3)"

Many confuse this as a jewish law, but it predates Judaism, and is a Noahic law: it is encumbent upon all humanity to believe in ONE God.

1/5 of the world is Muslim. 1/3 is Christian. Jews are negligible. Hindus make about a 1/10. That's a slight majority of monotheists, but Hinduism doesn't really keep in line with the laws on the nature of God and Christians often don't either (god is three is one is different than god is one). Either way that still leaves billions of people that simply don't agree that god is one and the subsequent laws regarding said one god. Only the Muslim world has made it a crime to not follow this law, so your idea that these laws have to enshrined in civic law to be counted topples you entirely here.

Only 20% of the world's religions have enshrined this into law, and not all of them have it either since many Muslims live in areas without such a law. A minority of the world have this as law: thus your claim that this is 'accepted by the world at large today' as being 'mandated as a law' is false yet again.

These are all ritualistic laws, and as with all things, the degree to follow is accordingly subject to one's orthodoxy. Some murder and steall too: this does not make the law wrong.

Gender equality and the fair treatment of transexuals are mandated by law - thus I gave you examples of ethicial principles mandated by law that do not come from the 613 laws. I also gave you some examples of 613 laws that are not mandated by law in many places.


The ancient form of sorcerors is different from today. Then you could buy a spell to have a wife poisoned for a price, and her oragans have to be eaten to please the spirits. This was a vile faculty, and millions were killed on the dictates of these sorcerors - this occured even in native America with the aztecs and mayans. The OT is the first document which forbid sorcery and human sacrifice.

Repeating yourself isn't going to make the problem go away. You claimed that it wasn't sorcery or mediumship or what have you that was being forbidden (on pain of death) but the vile deeds associated with them. Why could god not foresee that the mediums would change their vile practices once a crackdown on vile practices had taken place (thousands of years later)? Why not just make the laws about vile practices, listing them, rather than just give a broad statement forbidding sorcery and witchcraft?

No such thing as science w/o the OT; no such thing as bible/religion with the OT laws. The world will simply not operate anymore if the OT laws were discarded. It is the most comprehensive list of laws in existence. It is not a matter of rejection or ridicule, but a document which has prevailed many tests, and acquired acceptence without any enforcement on anyone.

You made a hypothesis that "there are 613 laws in the OT - all of them being active and accepted by the world at large today" and added that 'active and accepted' meant mandated by law. I have shown your hypothesis to be false. Accept it and move on, that is science. Deny it and repeat it, that is faith. Your choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 12-30-2007 2:13 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 12-31-2007 5:05 AM Modulous has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1591 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 122 of 208 (444850)
12-31-2007 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Modulous
12-30-2007 9:57 AM


quote:

So your argument that "there are 613 laws in the OT - all of them being active and accepted by the world at large today" (emphasis mine) is trivially false, agreed?


Those who do not follow these laws, are deemed outside the law, or to put it differently, follow laws which are rejected by the west and its judiciary, civil and civic institutions.

quote:

The law of capital punishment for wanton murder is a good law

My point being that not everybody agrees with this ethical principle. In fact many many people disagree strongly with it. Thus: your argument is falsified.


Everyone agrees that wanton, unwarrented murder is the greatest crime. Any disputation is limited to what mode of punishment must apply. I say, as long as the alternative punishment fits the crime, it is fine.

quote:

There is no law which says meat consumption is unethical

OK, but it is definitely an ethical principle that exists outside of the Torah. I was talking about principles when you replied to me, since you didn't raise this objection then, I assumed you were happy to go with that.


Meat consumption by humans began post-Noah; previous to this, all humans were vegos - their fingers too were stuck together for a long time. The OT appears to say that observing the laws of animal rights, transcends being a vegetarian, as far as premises such as animal cruelty is cncerned. In any case, those laws are far more onerous to observe than not consuming meat. Try this for size: FEED THE ANIMAL BEFORE YOURSELF [this refers to an animal in your possession, which is now totally dependent on you], and 'ASSIST AN OVER-LOADED ANIMAL - EVEN IF IT BELONGS TO YOUR ENEMY' [this can call for a war or battle, a syndrome of compulsion we see in fervent animal rights groups]. Other laws such as NOT TO LEAVE AN OPEN HOLE IN AN ANIMAL'S VICINITY [means clean, safe environment even when transporting animals for slaughter]; NOT TO MUZZLE AN ANIMAL WHILE IT WORKS THE FIELDS; NOT TO TAKE THE MOTHER WITH THE OFFSPRING; etc show great respect for animals, which transcend vegetarianism.

quote:

However, it is law to treat homosexuals as complete equals, which is not, as you claim, a ritual law.

Yes, gay rights are good; equal rights are not, and a lie: this will hurt gays far more. The punishment of death/stonings etc refer to the modes of ancient times, whereby stealing bread resulted in hand choppings. The punishment factor is upto each generation's norms. The law of capital punishment, seen in the OT, was successfully prevailed upon by Israel 3200 years ago, by using the by-laws. The OT sages declared the applicable here, with the preamble the death penalty is correct, but will be conditional upon the law of kindness, forebearence and mercy [enshrined OT premises]. They declared any nation which conducts more than 1 death sentence in 70 years must be deemed a cruel nation, which is against the premise of the OT. Basically, laws are sometimes the testers how one will go: a cruel person will deduce cruely, and commit a crime.

quote:

As I pointed out. A simple 'do not be cruel to animals' would be a much better ethical principle for maintaining relevance and sidestepping ambiguity.


I don't agree. Everyone knows it is wrong to murder and steal, but this is not real till mandated in writ. Besides, do not be cruel to animals is very subjective and open to corruption and failure. They both amount to the same thing, but the OT enshrines it, making cruelty to an animal equal to murder of a human {there is difference of status between the OT laws. This also means, where a law is not specifically and clearly put to writ and enshrined in the judiciary - one cannot be charged for a crime.

quote:

Since you now accept that all of the 613 laws are not accepted by the world at large, could you actually give me a number of laws which are accepted?

Of the 10 Commandments, for example, some are ritual laws, or can be posited as such, namely the first two and the 4th, which relate to Creator; Monotheism and the Sabbath; the rest are moral/ethical/family laws which are accepted. All the judiciary laws are accepted in the west systems, as well as worker's and animal rights, war and border laws, environmental laws, and most of the family laws - there are variants what constitutes incest, and this is very copiously listed in the OT: a man can marry his neice while a woman cannot marry her nephew, and when all blood lines are traced, it appears correct.

quote:

In the most used list of 613 laws it states "Not to intermarry with gentiles (Deut. 7:3)"


This refers to 'THEIR WAYS' - meaning not to abandon the laws. But yes, this can be seen as you do, because it concludes in the same premise. How can one maintain Monotheism, for example, while one spouse cannot operate without images and dieties?

quote:

Many confuse this as a jewish law, but it predates Judaism, and is a Noahic law: it is encumbent upon all humanity to believe in ONE God.

1/5 of the world is Muslim. 1/3 is Christian. Jews are negligible. Hindus make about a 1/10. That's a slight majority of monotheists, but Hinduism doesn't really keep in line with the laws on the nature of God and Christians often don't either (god is three is one is different than god is one). Either way that still leaves billions of people that simply don't agree that god is one and the subsequent laws regarding said one god. Only the Muslim world has made it a crime to not follow this law, so your idea that these laws have to enshrined in civic law to be counted topples you entirely here.


Monotheism is very difficult when this is tried the first time. Equally, once it settles, it becomes impossible to discard. I see all polytheists ultimately believing in ONE God, and the numerous dieties are aspects of God, or agents of spiritual forces. This is the breakthrough seen with Abrahamism: in his space-time, it was a greater leap to think mono, than today, thus it says he had to flee a death sentence, along with his entire family, for even thinking such heresy. Monotheism is a scientific, logical, intelligent and truthful advocation and belief in the Creator, whereby the buck must stop at one. However, a good polytheist is better than a bad monotheist, based on the law, ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNEST SHALL PAY.

quote:

Gender equality and the fair treatment of transexuals are mandated by law - thus I gave you examples of ethicial principles mandated by law that do not come from the 613 laws. I also gave you some examples of 613 laws that are not mandated by law in many places.


Gender equality is OT enshrined. The first femenist deliberation occured between Moses and four sisters who lost their father and there were no sons. The women argued that their rights were not represented with the law, and not clarified. They won the case. The pnly impacting factor here is, that women have an immunity from any law which requires obervance by a specific time factor or specific place - because she may be pregnant and thus not able to fullfill responsible duties elsewhere. This can also have a negative perception with today's mordern world, whereby some sectors allow women Rabbis. This issue has become highlighted today, because it is applied very differently under Islam, whereby work, education, driving a car, etc is forbidden. This has no equivalence in the OT. The law to educate offsrping is not marked as MEN ONLY. The oT record numerous female prophets, judges and war Generals. In the OT, the female is deemed the highest and final point of creation, and even the greatest Prophets were told: 'WHGATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT' [Gen].

quote:

Repeating yourself isn't going to make the problem go away. You claimed that it wasn't sorcery or mediumship or what have you that was being forbidden (on pain of death) but the vile deeds associated with them. Why could god not foresee that the mediums would change their vile practices once a crackdown on vile practices had taken place (thousands of years later)? Why not just make the laws about vile practices, listing them, rather than just give a broad statement forbidding sorcery and witchcraft?

The law was correct. It primarilly impacts on the belief in God. Thus, 'ISRAEL [OR ANY NATION OR INDIVIDUAL] IS NOT RULED BY THE STARS'. These are signs and omens, but whatever is claimed by a medium is not conclusive, and usually totally false.

quote:

You made a hypothesis that "there are 613 laws in the OT - all of them being active and accepted by the world at large today" and added that 'active and accepted' meant mandated by law. I have shown your hypothesis to be false. Accept it and move on, that is science. Deny it and repeat it, that is faith. Your choice.


What am I deny, I stated that a law is not a law unless enshrined in writ and constitionlised in its judiciary. Ritual laws are not included here, while these are active nonetheless. If the west is seen as the applicable factor here, it is correct even when some nations and philosophies do not follow these. The ratio is similar to one whp commits murder - it does not make the law less credible. if China does not observe a moral/ethical/judiciary law - it means it is acting outside of the accepted law. Also, the time factor must be considered: the majority of the world is not educated enough even to understand their own laws and scriptures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 9:57 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by AdminPD, posted 12-31-2007 5:33 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 7:55 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 123 of 208 (444853)
12-31-2007 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by IamJoseph
12-31-2007 5:05 AM


Getting Off Topic
Note to Participants: I feel the Old Testament Law discussion has moved away from fitting under this thread.

There is a thread started to discuss the OT Laws.
"The OT...contains all accepted moral laws"

I suggest further discussion be taken to that thread so this one can get back to "where Science And The Bible Meet."

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.

Thank you Purple


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 12-31-2007 5:05 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 124 of 208 (444865)
12-31-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by IamJoseph
12-31-2007 5:05 AM


To conclude the discussion: You made a claim that all 613 laws were mandated into law around the world. You have now admitted that not all 613 laws have been mandated into law around the world: eg., the dietary ones. If a person chooses to not follow the restriction on eating lobster or something, they are not considered outside the law of the land. Your claim has been falsified. You may accept this or deny it and repeat it. You seem to be denying it, I don't feel like repeating it.

We have also discussed some ethical principles that have not come out of the OT. You may take that discussion to "The OT...contains all accepted moral laws" - calling out IamJoseph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 12-31-2007 5:05 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by IamJoseph, posted 01-01-2008 1:55 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1591 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 125 of 208 (445066)
01-01-2008 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Modulous
12-31-2007 7:55 AM


I excluded the dietery laws, which comes under 'ritual' laws. However, these ritual laws are still all active today, excepting only those which refer to the Temple sacrifices: indicating the advent of all animal sacrifices by early mankind has ended. These are now replaced by prayer and deeds:

'EXCEPT THE SACRIFICE OF MY LIPS' [PSALMS]

Cheers.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 7:55 AM Modulous has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 126 of 208 (446226)
01-05-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Force
12-29-2007 5:17 PM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Hi tthzr3,

What occurs when a "being" has, simultaneous, removal of their nervous tissue ?

Removal of nervous tissue and WHAT simultaneous? Need 2 things for it to be simultaneous removal.

I do not have the foggiest idea at the point you are trying to make is. If you are saying the life is in the nervous tissue I would have a question.

Is the nervous tissue made up of cells and if so where do they get their energy and oxygen from to exist?

But what does that have to do with the Bible statement that the life of the flesh is in the blood.

If I remember correctly the human body is a very intricate piece of machinery.

Food is taken into the mouth or introduced intravenously. This food is then turned into energy the body can use. But for it to be useful it must reach the cells. Oxygen is taken into the nose or mouth into the lungs this oxygen has to reach the cells to be useful. We have a system of tubes that is filled with what we call blood. In that blood is a bunch of cargo submarines. Some take the energy to the proper cell, others take the oxygen to the proper cells. These cells then convert and put to use this energy and oxygen.

If you remove this energy and oxygen there is no life. In fact if you remove either one there is no life.

When the car runs out of gas there is no life in the engine.
If it has no oxygen there is no life in the engine.

I have heard that the sun will burn up all of its energy one day and die.

Now I may be wrong and if so I am sure some of the faithful around here will correct me.

But remember the Bible does not say that the blood is life. It says that the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Enjoy


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Force, posted 12-29-2007 5:17 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Force, posted 06-02-2008 4:20 PM ICANT has responded

    
Force
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 208 (468957)
06-02-2008 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
01-05-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
ICANT,

You're missing the point entirely. Life is not simply in the blood of Biological beings. What if you remove the brain?

Edited by Force, : No reason given.


Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2008 11:02 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2008 8:10 PM Force has responded
 Message 164 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 7:36 AM Force has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 128 of 208 (469099)
06-03-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Force
06-02-2008 4:20 PM


Re-Science and Bible
Force writes:

You're missing the point entirely. Life is not simply in the blood of Biological beings. What if you remove the brain?

I don't know what point I missed.

You did miss what I said.

I Said: "But what does that have to do with the Bible statement that the life of the flesh is in the blood."

What does the brain have to do with whether the life of the flesh is in the blood or not.

Flesh has to have energy and oxygen to operate all cells even the ones in the brain are supplied these by the corpusles in the blood. Then the cells send their waste to the disposal system.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Force, posted 06-02-2008 4:20 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Force, posted 06-03-2008 9:24 PM ICANT has responded

    
Force
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 208 (469104)
06-03-2008 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
06-03-2008 8:10 PM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
ICANT,

life is not simply in the blood. I suggest you do a little research on what life is considered now days in contrast to what life was considered 4000 years ago.

Edited by Force, : No reason given.

Edited by Force, : edit


Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2008 8:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2008 10:41 AM Force has responded
 Message 138 by Peg, posted 04-20-2009 7:08 AM Force has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5971
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 130 of 208 (469172)
06-04-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Force
06-03-2008 9:24 PM


Re-Science and Bible
Force writes:

life is not simply in the blood. I suggest you do a little research on what life is considered now days in contrast to what life was considered 4000 years ago.

Would you please explain to me what life has to do with life of the flesh?

Are you saying that you could take all the corpusles out of your blood (the little supertankers that carry oxygen and energy supply to each cell in your flesh) and your flesh could still exist?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Force, posted 06-03-2008 9:24 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2008 3:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 132 by Force, posted 06-04-2008 4:30 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2113 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 131 of 208 (469219)
06-04-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
06-04-2008 10:41 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Force writes:

life is not simply in the blood. I suggest you do a little research on what life is considered now days in contrast to what life was considered 4000 years ago.

Would you please explain to me what life has to do with life of the flesh?

Are you saying that you could take all the corpusles out of your blood (the little supertankers that carry oxygen and energy supply to each cell in your flesh) and your flesh could still exist?

What he is saying is that there are other factors besides the blood that factor in to the "life of the flesh." Take away any of a number of organs or systems and the flesh dies. Try living with no liver, lungs, digestive tract, kidneys, or brain.

Edited by bluescat48, : grammar

Edited by bluescat48, : ditto


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2008 10:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Force
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 208 (469231)
06-04-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
06-04-2008 10:41 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
ICANT,

you are reading a book that came from a primitive people and believing that somehow those people/or their God understood that there is DNA in "blood of the flesh". The reality is, those primitive people/or their God in the book of Leviticus, had the knowledge that flesh-beings can bleed to death and that is exactly what is being referenced in Leviticus 17:11. Hence "the life of the flesh is in the blood".

Please also reference post 131 for more information on my responses.

Edited by Force, : edit

Edited by Force, : edit

Edited by Force, : add

Edited by Force, : add


Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2008 10:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 3655 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 133 of 208 (473204)
06-27-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Zhimbo
04-22-2007 9:54 AM


Re: God's A, B, Cs
If you would learn your A, B, Cs; then you would know that the "sun" (king) was "Antipas" lilled in AD 66; and the "moon" was the "priesthood" killed in AD 69; and the "stars" were the Jewish propets, of whom, the high priest Caiaphas (Jn 11.49-50) was the last.

"... not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" - 2Cor 3.6.

sl33w


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Zhimbo, posted 04-22-2007 9:54 AM Zhimbo has not yet responded

    
DD2014
Junior Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 17
From: Cali, USA
Joined: 01-06-2009


Message 134 of 208 (504608)
03-31-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Larni
04-23-2007 6:26 AM


Re: Bible predicts blockage.
quote:
Don't forget that the lible also tells us that something larger than the diameter of the eye of a needle (such as a camel or rope) cannot actually pass through it.

(Matthew 19:24)
~And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.~(Jesus speaking)

Most christians will argue that the 'needle' was a small opening/door in the wall surrounding a city (can't remember the name) and it was intended for the use of foot traffic only, not large animals used for transport.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Larni, posted 04-23-2007 6:26 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 03-31-2009 3:12 PM DD2014 has responded
 Message 136 by Larni, posted 03-31-2009 3:55 PM DD2014 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 135 of 208 (504614)
03-31-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by DD2014
03-31-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Bible predicts blockage.
Most christians will argue that the 'needle' was a small opening/door in the wall surrounding a city (can't remember the name) and it was intended for the use of foot traffic only, not large animals used for transport.

Well most christians would be wrong. The again I know a lot of christians, was one myself for a few years, and have never heard this theory before. When you use words like 'most", you really should have some sort of evidence to back it up, or at least use a different word. Maybe use "some" or "I know christians that". "Most" without any evidence is just bad form.

Source

According to InterVarsity Press's Bible Background Commentary (Craig S. Keener ed., 1993), those who support this interpretation are mistaken because the gate in question was not constructed until the Middle Ages - well after the Gospels were written.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by DD2014, posted 03-31-2009 2:00 PM DD2014 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by DD2014, posted 04-19-2009 9:48 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 145 by John 10:10, posted 04-24-2009 3:37 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018