The Inerrancy of the Bible

well, they did supposedly have this giant pillar of fire watching over them all day...

sidelined, It does not say they burned it so they could grind it into a powder, after he destroyed the image he simply ground it into small pieces.kjv Exo 32:20 And he took3947 (853) the calf5695 which834 they had made,6213 and burnt8313 it in the fire,784 and ground2912 it to5704 powder,834, 1854 and strewed2219 it upon5921, 6440 the water,4325 and made (853) the children1121 of Israel3478 drink8248 of it.H2912
טחן
ṭa^chan
BDB Definition:
1) (Qal) to grind, crush
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 802H1854
דּקק
da^qaq
BDB Definition:
1) to crush, pulverise, thresh
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to crush
1a2) to be fine
1b) (Hiphil) to pulverise, make dust of
1c) (Hophal) to be crushed
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root [compare H1915]
Same Word by TWOT Number: 448

\part one, to my knowledge it was.part two... well, it took me alot longer than i thought to find a kjv apocrypha online. the sources i found had the same translation you used. sounds like a theological problem translating...

Not fair, Nosy. You're always sending 'em over to the Dates and Dating forum where the geologists get to play torpedo bomber. How about sending 'em to Biological Evolution where they can discuss the combat loading of the Ark and their evidence for hyperspeciation to accommodate the 10-30 million extent species from whatever starting point in

no, you're wrong. because that's an absolutely truth in itself. if you're right, then you can never prove that statement. if you can, it's false. you espoused the belief that there are not beliefs that are wrong, or can be proven as such. if i said "i believe the bible says that jesus flew around in a time machine watching his dvd player instead driving properly and maimed everal small children in a terrible accident" you could easily ask me to show you such a verse, and i would be unable. therefore, in terms of what the bible says, that belief is wrong: it does not say that.this is a similar argument. no objestions here. i'm not trying to impress anyone. i arguing a counter-point, and addressing beliefs that are not firmly founded in scripture, but are mostly dogmatic. there are hints, yes, but often very misinterpretted out of context. i'm just trying to give that proper context. you're welcome to, but be warned. i do take some scripture with more of a grain of salt than others. and for the exact reasons you described. for instance, i don't see god in the details of john.

Tom It does say they burned it in the fire and ground it to powder so,yes, the did one does follow the other.

ArachnophiliaYep, pity they did not mention it participating.

**SNORKSNORK** err *cough, ahem*Good idea as his presentation is already so confused that if you double back on it ya'll will be going in circles until way into next year. I'm about ready to start banging my head against a wall as it is.lfen

Ned, You better hope they don't quote 2 peter 3:8 and say the fossils are young, the earth old and challenge you to prove otherwise. P.S. Peter the Rock that Jesus used to build his church (Jesus is the cornerstone) Peter said not to be ignorant of this one thing, that one day is as a thousand years to the Lord. 2 peter 3:8Even the Great Kent Hovind acknowledges the genesis creation days might well be 1000 year days. He is standing on other verses, but only thinks its 6 normal days, he really doesn't know. But he knew scripture never said its millions or billion years. Scripture is like that at times, you think and you know. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Hovind: I think the days have to be six normal days because there’s so many other references in Scripture. For instance, Exodus 20:11, in the Ten Commandments. God said, I want you to rest on the Sabbath because I made everything in six days. He wasn’t telling them to work six million years and then finally take a break, and the only two references you referred to about 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90 verse 4, both of them say a day is like a thousand years, they don’t say a million or a billion.

Well, if someone pulled off their two hind legs then they would walk on only 4 legs! And you can pull off two locust legs if they are at all like the grasshoppers here in these parts so that is why they are alright to eat. And you have to agree that if a locust had two legs removed then if it started with the full normal complement of 6 legs it would only have 4 left to walk on.lfen

no, but it DOES say he was the morning star. that is, after all, what lucifer means. if it had said "noctifer" it would mean he was the evening star. parallelism. bringer of light, son of the morning. see. they're a pair. like man and woman, rivers and oceans, heaven and earth, 3 and 4, etc. this is very, very common in biblical poetry, although normally it's on the next line down. pick just about any psalm and look for repitition. most say everything twice, different words -- same meaning. a. enoch was written after the flood. it records the events thereof in the first book.
b. enoch's flood happens in chapter ten, which is well before 29.
c. the first mention of satan in the book of enoch is in chapter 40, which is in plural. the first actual mention of the NAME satan is in chapter 53. but he is not present. angels (of the lord) are preparing his weapons to be turned against man. no mention appears to be in the dualistic fallen sense.
d. this is the 29th chapter of enoch: "And thence I went to another place in the desert, and approached to the east of this mountain range. And there I saw aromatic trees exhaling the fragrance of frankincense and myrrh, and the trees also were similar to the almond tree." yes, that's ALL of it. two verses.
e. the lead fallen angel in the flood myth in enoch is azazel, who may also be found in leviticus chapter 16 as "the scapegoat" in the kjv (mistranslation).so, unless you're talking about a TOTALLY different book of enoch than the one i have, this point can't get any more wrong. yes, ala tower of babel. did satan build the tower of babel? no, but lucifer (nebuchadnezzar) DID, as in historical fact. except there is no indication of time in the verse, and it's surrounded by passages about control over temptation: tests. that IS what satan does, tests. however you believe in him, that is his function. there is no indication that it was punishment either -- his destination seems to have been EARTH. seraphim? i thought he was an angel. leviathan? i thought he was an angel. tanniyn? i thought he was an angel.see, these are all mythological animals. is genesis 1 talking about lucifer when it says god make great dragons in the water? when revelation talks of these, it's using SYMBOLISM, like it is everywhere else in the darned book. liar? ok, i'll go with that one. but there are other lying spirits. look it up, there's a fun story in samuel, i think, in which god sends what would be termed devils in christian mythology to a foriegn king. no proof. except that the passage talking about lucifer is entirely directed at the king of babylon. he *IS* the king of babylon. maybe it's symbolism too, but the idea of a "The Devil" opposition to god seems to be absent from the text. who said that was the idea? satan may well have been working through the king of babylon to test the israelites. but he was operating under god's authority. to say anything else is to grossly misread the entirety of isaiah. also, even if satan is operating through the king of babylon, that does not make him lucifer. that makes him satan. the KING is lucifer. the passage is refering to mebuchadnezzar, and i think it's meant to be SARCASTIC. rome - roman army. santa clause is a derivation of saint nicholas. the man is a SAINT for christ's sake, and he worked his entire life in service to the poor and needy -- a very christian cause. that entire accusation is downright offensive. how could he test men if he were up in heaven? or in hell for that matter? it's not a matter of being cut down, it's a matter of duty. sure, being the riding the back of the garbage truck sucks, but it makes perfect sense if you're the garbage man. it's not punishment, it's what you do. except the passage is refering to height issue of the tower. this *IS* an issue of being cut down, and it is the KING who is being cut down. although this is probably refering to a real person as well, supposing the devil (LOWERCASE i might add) is satan. revelation is apocalyptic, by the very definition it hasn't happened yet (at the time of its writing).

quite, probably would have helped them out some!i dunno, ask eddy penngelly. maybe they're really talking about burning a dvd or something.

cough cough sputter WHAT?hahahahahahahahahahah h a ha h a ha.... omg.tell me you're not serious?

lfen, I'm in agreement if you take away their jumping appendages & wings they could only creep upon the earth.

As you can see from this image the hind legs attach at a lower sagittal elevation than the forelegs:So, no. They're not above; they're below and behind.