Source of biblical flood water?

no, wmscott actually knows what he's talking about most of the time. we just respectfully disagree on some matters of how divine it's origin was. in his case, it affects his willingness to see certain problems.as you may have noticed, he's a jw. jw's annoy me for one solitary reason: god's name is NOT jehovah. other than those two bit...well, no. that pretty much means we debate on everything. however, he does have a competant and skilled knowledge of the text, which makes our debates more of a "fun challenge" than an "annoying schooling."

---

אָרַח

i'm gonna address this bit a little different. the first shall come last, so to speak. i believe you're referring to Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon and their list of contradictionsi've read it. THOROUGHLY. i checked every contradiction. roughly half of them are flat out bullshit, and stem from pure misunderstanind.however, the other half are entirely valid. in fact, in my last post, i showed that one of your verse clearly contradicted your point. we've just run into one such valid discrepancy. but hey, collect a set of books over 2000 years, and they're bound to disagree some. and i suppose my hebrew prophesor, who indeed believes in the text himself, is one such occult type trying to make the bible or god sound silly.also, a good fact to remember:the bible = a book.
god ≠ a book.
qed, the bible ≠ god. absolutely false. and to prove THAT point, i present to you with two even harder contradictions that bothered me for the better part of a year, each. so, you tackled them. tell me what you come up with, cause this stuff seriously bugged my personal faith for a while, until... as i will demonstrate, i found a way to sort them out, and one that made sense in the contexts. but just to especially obnoxious, i'm not going to give you any hints.

---

contradiction number one

quote:

---

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

---

quote:

---

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

---

feel free to check the stories, also. other than that bit, they're pretty much word for word the same story, with one HUGE problem. you think whether it was the lord our god, or satan our enemy would be an important detail. how could they mix the two up? ... you tell me.

---

contradiction number two

quote:

---

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

---

quote:

---

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

---

since you might have missed this one, "lucifer" is latin for the planet venus the half of the year it comprises it's role as the morning star.

---

so, figure those ones out, and then we'll talk about my inability to understandm and unwillingess to do so. no dodging these ones, they have to be read absolutely literally. and no cheating!This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 11:33 PM

---

אָרַח

like i said. his philosophical and theological need for the bible to be the word of god and literally accurate in some fashion is biased his reading of the text.i'm trying to get him to read it for what is, and love it like a child loves their parents -- faults and all. and not this blind worship of a book in place of god.if you want to see some heated debate between us, go look for a thread called "hashem - yahweh or jehovah?" on the proper name of god.

---

אָרַח

i can go to jerusalem. they have a prime minister, not a king, and he is not descended from david in any way. i think the philosophy that we need to "readjust our ideas" of what certain things are is CHEATING. we can "readjust" our ideas of anything to anything.what if when when god said "thou shalt make no graven images" he -really- meant "no message boards." we'd all be screwed! you can't just change stuff, because you feel like it. oh. my. god.no, it says it will never be shaken. it says the planet will never change. that's what "abides" means. it stays the same. so no merged state. period. you have to lose on one of these accounts. sorry. yes. meaning the word of god. did the hebrews know that the little points of light in the sky where the same thing as the really, really big one? i suspect that they did not. and even still, these are NEW eternal stars. not the old ones. book, chapter, verse? depends. does decay include molecular collapse and fission? if so, a little more than color will change -- them existing will change. gog and magog, not the earth. that's especially contradictory to your point of them lasting forever. recreation, not restoration. "all thing" would include the earth. i don't see anything about a merged spiritual-physical state on earth. it seems to speaking about "the rapture." it just says, basically they'll get taken up to heaven. same as enoch and elijah. i don't see that claim much of anywhere. there is the occasional talk of the physical body being resurrected. and maybe even the spirit joined with it. but where is our spirit now if not in our bodies?

quote:

---

I don't know, apparently our spirits in heave are somehow still incomplete till they merge with the body.

---

makes no sense. i'm sorry. if our spirits are in heaven NOW, why bother with this salvation stuff? kinda pointless. our bodies are going in the ground anyways. possibly. but it's not any kind of different reality. it's just a relocation.

---

אָרַח

no, rather, their list gets about 50%. there are some contradictions still. who's jesus's earthly grandfather, joseph's dad? i understand a good deal about the almighty, as much as he has allowed me at this point and as much as i am ready for. and what i understand is that he is often misunderstood. case in point. kind of an unconvincing way to proselytize, don't you think? i find you literalists to be an "in the box" kind of crowd. does reason profit nothing? does logic and understanding profit nothing?(oh, and god still say you're wrong. and i think he would know!) well, god spanked them for it, but yes! good job. satan opperates under the authority of the lord, according to the will of the lord.good solution, because otherwise it'd be a really nasty problem, wouldn't? mistaking "yahweh" for "hasatan." nope, actually, they are using the same terms. see, "the morning star" although referred to in different languages, is still the star (planet) on the horizon the heralds the dawn 6 months out of the year. the name "lucifer" was translated into latin because the hebrew heavily implied that's what they meant. the word heylel ("lucifer") means "bearer of light" and "lucifer" means "bearer of light." the isaiah verse also refers to him as "son of the dawn" further proof they're referring to the same thing in the sky symbolically.we could, i suppose chalk it up to a translation issue, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on, and there's a MUCH better explanation for it. (it'll also explain that job verse you posted much better too, i promise.) well, we've already demonstrated above that satan is in the service and control of the lord at the point in sam/chron. so no rebellion yet (not until at least jesus, probably revelation) hmm. nice. close, hit some of the symbolic meaning, but not quite there. still missing to very important aspects of this story, so you don't quite appreciate the beauty of this yet. if you don't reply (vacation or whatever) i'll explain in a day or two.

---

אָרַח