Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 151 of 316 (504336)
03-27-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rrhain
03-27-2009 3:44 AM


quote:
Suppose it was intentional. How does that affect our reading of Genesis?
Matthew's usage gives us information about how Hebrew cultures viewed genealogies. Mt 1 is pertinent to our reading of Gen 5.
quote:
Um, you do realize that Matthew wasn't written in English, yes?
Of course. Why is this relevant?
Do you realize that the OT had been translated into Greek, and was available to the NT writers? Do you realize that the Greek word for "begat" in Gen 5 (gennaoo) is the same word used by Matthew in Mt 1?
quote:
Are you seriously claiming that culture didn't change over the intervening 1600 years?
Of course not. I said:
But the cultures of the authors were very similar
Note the word "similar". This does not mean "identical".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2009 3:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 7:05 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 152 of 316 (504378)
03-27-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Rrhain
03-27-2009 4:31 AM


Well, I'll give you that. When people bring up Pascal's Wager, I often point out that it assumes people understand god's motives. How can we not be sure that god isn't testing us, seeing who will blindly follow a poorly constructed, self-contradictory book simply because the book threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't as opposed to those who find their own way, even if they make mistakes along the way.
But for this thread, I'm taking the book sincerely. Is there a reason to think generations were skipped in Genesis 5?
I didn't notice any passage "threatening" eternal damnation because someone scratched their head at some of the geneological information, trying to add up years.
If you take the book "seriously" could you point out these threats?
Where is the demand or command to not question geneological information in the Bible upon pain of eternal damnation?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2009 4:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2009 10:28 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 7:10 AM jaywill has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 153 of 316 (504406)
03-27-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by jaywill
03-27-2009 7:10 PM


quote:
I didn't notice any passage "threatening" eternal damnation because someone scratched their head at some of the geneological information, trying to add up years.
If you take the book "seriously" could you point out these threats?
Where is the demand or command to not question geneological information in the Bible upon pain of eternal damnation?
If anything, the Bible cautions AGAINST too much emphasis on genealogies:
1 Tim 1:3-4
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jaywill, posted 03-27-2009 7:10 PM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 154 of 316 (504421)
03-28-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by kbertsche
03-27-2009 8:09 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
But it is not the word "begat" (yalad) that establishes Adam as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4
Yes, it is:
כה וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד, אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת: כִּי שָׁת-לִי אֱלֹהִים, זֶרַע אַחֵר--תַּחַת הֶבֶל, כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן.
va.ye.da a.dam od et-ish.to va.te.led ben va.tik.ra et-she.mo shet ki shat-li e.lo.him ze.ra a.kher ta.khat he.vel ki ha.ra.go ka.yin:
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: 'for God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him.
כו וּלְשֵׁת גַּם-הוּא יֻלַּד-בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ; אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה.
u.le.shet gam-hu yu.lad-ben va.yik.ra et-she.mo e.nosh az hu.khal lik.ro be.shem a.do.nai:
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
This isn't the only use of "yalad" to refer to direct birth in Gen 4:
א וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה.
ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-a.do.nai:
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.
[for some reason, the Hebrew is refusing to display for this one passage and I don't want to transliterate it into escape sequences]
va.to.sef la.le.det et-a.khiv et-ha.vel va.ye.hi-he.vel ro.e tson ve.ka.yin ha.ya o.ved a.da.ma:
And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
All of these passages use "yalad" to mean a direct birth. So since we've established the context of "yalad" to mean a direct birth, and since the most common meaning of "yalad" is a direct birth, you're going to have to explain why the context has changed in the space of two sentences. What is it about saying that god blessed the generations of Adam that changes the context?
quote:
it is the descriptions of events in the rest of the narrative.
The only word used to describe the emergence of the new person into the world is "yalad." Eve "bore" ("yalad") Cain. Eve "bore" ("yalad") Abel.
quote:
The word "begat" means "ancestor" BOTH in Gen 4 and in Gen 5.
Incorrect. The only word used to describe the various people involved in Genesis 4 is "yalad." Nobody, not even you, seems to think this means that Cain and Abel were distant great-grandsons of Adam and Eve. Instead, they were direct offspring. And the word used to describe how they came into being is "yalad" because "yalad" means to give birth to.
By your logic, you are saying that these passages should more correctly be translated as "she conceived and 'ancestored' Cain," "she 'ancestored' his brother Abel," "she 'ancestored' a son," "to him also there was 'ancestored' a son." Hebrew does not use "yalad" in this way. You do not "ancestor" a child. You give birth, you sire, or to use an older, more poetic way of speaking in English, you "beget." Of the 498 times "yalad" is used in the Bible, over 400 of them are in reference to direct parentage of a child. Fewer than 25 refer to "bringing forth" in a more metaphorical sense.
quote:
There is no change in meaning.
And you wonder why I keep asking you if Adam was the father of Seth and if Seth was the father of Enos. If there is no change in meaning, then the description of the relationships between the people in Gen 4 is carried over into Gen 5 because a context has been established.
Since Adam is the father of Seth and since Seth is the father of Enos and since the exact same words are used without any change of context, this necessarily means that Jared is the father of Enoch, not some distant relative.
Jared did not "ancestor" Enoch.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2009 8:09 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2009 2:24 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 155 of 316 (504423)
03-28-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by kbertsche
03-27-2009 8:37 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
Matthew's usage gives us information about how Hebrew cultures viewed genealogies.
Matthew was written nearly two millennia after Genesis. What sort of "information" could a Greek of the time have told us about ancient Hebrews?
quote:
quote:
Um, you do realize that Matthew wasn't written in English, yes?
Of course. Why is this relevant?
Because Matthew was writing in Greek from a perspective of how Greek describes the world. Now, I am of the opinion that any idea can be expressed in any language, but certain concepts need to be worked. You can't just take a translation from Hebrew into English and a translation from Greek into English, especially when those translations are trying to be poetical, and declare them to be referring to the same things simply because the words are the same.
Of course, you realize that you are shooting down your own argument, yes? Since the English term used in both is specifically referencing direct parentage of father to son in both places, then that means the point of the passage is to show direct parentage of father to son. "Begat" in English doesn't mean "ancestor," certainly not as an active verb. You do not "ancestor" a child in English. If you want to describe a non-direct relationship, you would use another phrasing.
So are you saying the English translations of the Bible that we have that use English words that directly and specifically indicate father/son relationships among the people involved are incorrect?
quote:
Do you realize that the OT had been translated into Greek
Indeed...and not very well. The Septuagint has many problems. It adds verses wholesale to the text.
quote:
Do you realize that the Greek word for "begat" in Gen 5 (gennaoo) is the same word used by Matthew in Mt 1?
Indeed. And it's used in Gen 4 to describe Seth fathering Enos. You do realize this shoots down your claim, though, yes? "Γενναω" is very strongly tied to fathers having children, not "ancestoring."
quote:
Note the word "similar". This does not mean "identical".
Let us not play dumb. Do you really think two cultures separated by nearly two millennia are going to be "similar"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2009 8:37 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 156 of 316 (504424)
03-28-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by jaywill
03-27-2009 7:10 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
I didn't notice any passage "threatening" eternal damnation because someone scratched their head at some of the geneological information, trying to add up years.
Thus showing that you completely missed the point.
Hint: It's not about specific interpretations of individual phrases within a book. It's about something much larger than that.
Bonus hint: There are people who have never heard of your god.
quote:
If you take the book "seriously" could you point out these threats?
Let's not play dumb and pretend that the Bible does not speak of being cast into hell.
quote:
Where is the demand or command to not question geneological information in the Bible upon pain of eternal damnation?
I am asking you nicely to not play dumb.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jaywill, posted 03-27-2009 7:10 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 8:51 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 158 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 9:02 AM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 157 of 316 (504430)
03-28-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rrhain
03-28-2009 7:10 AM


Thus showing that you completely missed the point.
I don't think I missed your point. I think some kind of bitterness in you is coming through in your sarcastic and exagerated caricature of divine judgment and salvation.
IE. in essence you are saying - "God is so harsh, that if I don't blindly accept these numbers as part and partial of believing the Bible, I am threatened with eternal damnation."
Hint: It's not about specific interpretations of individual phrases within a book. It's about something much larger than that.
Bonus hint: There are people who have never heard of your god.
This to me is not a "hint". This is somewhat a change in the subject matter altogether.
Now you are complaining, ie. in essence, "Geneological puzzles have little to do with it. God is eager to damn those who never heard of your god."
I don't agree with that premise, mainly because of what I read in the Bible itself. It is really another topic. And I suspect that to persue it will win the "Off Topic" flag.
But let me ask you this. If I could show you why I believe, from Scripture, something perhaps radical in evangelical circles, ... if I could show you that some people will live forever who were not "born again" would that have any effect on your attitude of the "too harsh, too eager to damn" God ?
Now my little hint to you:
The book of Revelation says that the sons of God (born of God) will reign forever and ever (Rev.21:7;22:5).
Now it is unlikely that this means that they reign forever over each other. So who are those over whom these sons of God reign for eternity ? Think on it. Maybe I'll give you some other hints.
But if not or you don't give a hoot one way or another,... (more to topic of the thread,) yes, there are some years left out in the accounting in some passages.
A book entitled Number in the Scripture by one E.W. Bullinger, deals with this matter. Often God's accounting of years are according to His priorities. If there are some years apparently dropped, some of us ask the question "Why were these years not accounted for?"
In many cases that yields to some insightful answers. That is theories of why, in the Bible, God omitted some years of certain people in the divine accounting.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 7:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 3:47 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 158 of 316 (504431)
03-28-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rrhain
03-28-2009 7:10 AM


Let's not play dumb and pretend that the Bible does not speak of being cast into hell.
I don't play dumb. Some people are going to be punished in eternal perdition.
But neither should you play a fickle Judge who is totally unreasonable wanting "blind" following.
You are attempting to make Jesus into Baal.
I am asking you nicely to not play dumb.
I am up to your challenge on the matter of the so-called "ignorant of God" complaint.
If you want to open up a topic "Is God Eager to Damn the Ignorant?" we can discuss it. It is somewhat different from the Timeline matter.
I will nicely not play dumb. I am not doing so now. But I didn't allow your exagerated caricature to pass without a question of "Where is That?" I note that you didn't show us where. That's a start, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 7:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 3:58 PM jaywill has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 159 of 316 (504451)
03-28-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jaywill
03-28-2009 8:51 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
I don't think I missed your point. I think some kind of bitterness in you is coming through in your sarcastic and exagerated caricature of divine judgment and salvation.
And thus, you miss the point again.
Hint: When was the last time god was involved?
quote:
IE. in essence you are saying - "God is so harsh, that if I don't blindly accept these numbers as part and partial of believing the Bible, I am threatened with eternal damnation."
Incorrect.
Hint: What are my statements in response to?
quote:
Now you are complaining, ie. in essence, "Geneological puzzles have little to do with it. God is eager to damn those who never heard of your god."
Incorrect.
Hint: Remember that the question has to do with people who think they know god's motives. Is this really about god?
quote:
But let me ask you this. If I could show you why I believe, from Scripture, something perhaps radical in evangelical circles, ... if I could show you that some people will live forever who were not "born again" would that have any effect on your attitude of the "too harsh, too eager to damn" God ?
No, because my attitude has never entered into it. This isn't about what I think.
quote:
(more to topic of the thread,) yes, there are some years left out in the accounting in some passages.
And your evidence of this is what, precisely? Chapter and verse, please. The text provides specific spans of years between events. If you're saying that something has been skipped, then you're going have to show where and why.
quote:
If there are some years apparently dropped, some of us ask the question "Why were these years not accounted for?"
"If"? OK...where's the evidence? I need more than "Bullinger says so."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 8:51 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 6:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 160 of 316 (504452)
03-28-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by jaywill
03-28-2009 9:02 AM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Some people are going to be punished in eternal perdition.
Really? You know god's motives so well that your opinion can be substituted?
quote:
But neither should you play a fickle Judge who is totally unreasonable wanting "blind" following.
Who said that was my opinion? I don't recall saying I could speak for god.
quote:
But I didn't allow your exagerated caricature to pass without a question of "Where is That?" I note that you didn't show us where.
Does "Pascal's Wager" ring a bell?
Now, back to the topic. Where do you find evidence that time has been skipped? When the text says that Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, he wasn't? He was older?
Where is the evidence?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 9:02 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 6:22 PM Rrhain has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 161 of 316 (504457)
03-28-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rrhain
03-28-2009 3:47 PM


I see. However your wrote this:
How can we not be sure that god isn't testing us, seeing who will blindly follow a poorly constructed, self-contradictory book simply because the book threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't as opposed to those who find their own way, even if they make mistakes along the way.
Answer: We know because of all the "motives" of God in the Bible this is never mentioned as one.
I asked you for evidence of it being a motive and you have none.
Now if you want to make up stuff and say "Aha. Here is God's motive" That's your problem. Isn't it?
Some of us intend to discover "motive" of the Divine Will by examining the Divine words.
Other comment, I'll respond to latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 3:47 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Rrhain, posted 03-29-2009 3:37 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 165 by Rrhain, posted 03-29-2009 3:42 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 162 of 316 (504458)
03-28-2009 6:13 PM


Another comment on this:
How can we not be sure that god isn't testing us, seeing who will blindly follow a poorly constructed, self-contradictory book simply because the book threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't as opposed to those who find their own way, even if they make mistakes along the way.
1.) Many of us don' acccept your characterization of the Bible as "poorly constructed, self-contradictory book".
There may be some paradoxes and even some apparent contradictions. What long book doesn't have some ?
I don't think it is poorly contructed.
2.) I don't think walking by faith and not by sight is "blind" following. It is percieving that there are realities more substantial than what the five senses can detect.
3.) God doesn't "test" people to ek out what they have in their natural being. He knows that the Adamic fallen nature is a failure at its best. There is no need to "test" it.
He may raise up or allow you to fall into circumstances which press you to depend upon God.
4.) The whole "fickle tyrant" suspicion of God, is to me, kind of sick.

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 163 of 316 (504459)
03-28-2009 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rrhain
03-28-2009 3:58 PM


Really? You know god's motives so well that your opinion can be substituted?
For motives of God, I look for His declaration of what those motives are. No need to second guess. There is just the need to search out and find what God says about His motives in the Bible.
That would include the revelation conveyed by the apostles and prophets.
Wouldn't there be plenty of disclosure about the motives of God in the teachings of Jesus the Son of God ? Sure there would be.
But if you have a problem believing that Christ is Son of God or is speaking for God, then you might fall back into the dispair of second guessing the Divine motives.
Maybe the problem is your side. Why don't you take what God says about His motives at face value? Why complain that no one knows the motives of God when God has stated the intention of His will in both Old and New Testaments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2009 3:58 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rrhain, posted 03-29-2009 3:59 AM jaywill has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 164 of 316 (504467)
03-29-2009 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jaywill
03-28-2009 6:02 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
quote:
How can we not be sure that god isn't testing us, seeing who will blindly follow a poorly constructed, self-contradictory book simply because the book threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't as opposed to those who find their own way, even if they make mistakes along the way.
Answer: We know because of all the "motives" of God in the Bible this is never mentioned as one.
Oh, really?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Oh, but that's too vague. OK...you want something more concrete. Just a few off the top of my head:
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Believe or go to hell.
At any rate, you're still missing the point. It doesn't really matter what the book says. How can we be sure god isn't testing us, seeing who depends upon others to do their thinking for them and who relies upon the gifts god gave them to find their own way?
quote:
Now if you want to make up stuff and say "Aha. Here is God's motive" That's your problem. Isn't it?
No, for I am not speaking for god. I am simply questioning why you think you can.
quote:
Some of us intend to discover "motive" of the Divine Will by examining the Divine words.
What makes you think god wants you to?
Now, back to the topic: Do you have any evidence that generations are skipped?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 6:02 PM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 165 of 316 (504468)
03-29-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jaywill
03-28-2009 6:02 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
There may be some paradoxes and even some apparent contradictions. What long book doesn't have some ?
Shouldn't the word of god be better than that? Shouldn't it not have any paradoxes or contradictions?
quote:
I don't think walking by faith and not by sight is "blind" following.
But you assume you know your faith is directed toward god. What makes you think you understand god's motives?
quote:
God doesn't "test" people to ek out what they have in their natural being.
Why not? What makes you think you can speak for god?
quote:
The whole "fickle tyrant" suspicion of God, is to me, kind of sick.
But who are you to say god isn't? When did you become god's spokesman?
Now, back to the topic. Where do you find evidence that time has been skipped? When the text says that Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, he wasn't? He was older?
Where is the evidence?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 03-28-2009 6:02 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024