Creation

Not to mention the fact that a Prophet that prophesies what already happened is pretty much worthless. So is a Prophet that prophesies stuff that will not happen for thousands of years in the future.

Hi NoNukes, I am going to take that as a complement.When I post something that a person does not even try to refute but instead attacks me personally I get the idea that I have touched a nerve somewhere. Otherwise they would try to discredit the message rather than the messenger.Don't get me wrong I appreciate all the instances where I have been wrong and you pointed me to the correct thinking.You do know that is called the process of learning.God Bless,

Except that you did not actually make an argument. You just claimed that your statements were fact as though we should rely on your expertise and reputation. Well, you don't have a reputation for truth-telling or getting facts correct. I think pointing to the record is exactly the right way to show that.But hey, validate yourself bro.

I have just lost every shred of intellectual respect I may have had for you. And I've been reading you for years. You are beyond absurd and I feel bad for the ones gullible enough to follow your "Teaching" and take it seriously.Really ICANT!!! So my mother-in law in Sevilla, Spain doesn't have a car because she doesn't speak English? She drives almost every day in what she refers to as "el coche," but are you really going to stand there with a straight face and tell me she doesn't have a car because she doesn't speak English? And tell me Moses didn't have nouns because he didn't speak English?This is beyond shameful if you are pretending to be this stupid, and well, it's a shame if you aren't come to think of it.Never mind.

You're missing the point. The point is that you've given no reason to conclude that the space indicates a change in point of view. It can but it doesn't have to. Jeremiah is clearly telling one story about one event, in the future.

You have it backwards. The messenger (you) has no credibility because his messages have been discredited so often in the past. You're like the boy who cried, "Wolf!"It's unfortunate, because if there ever is a wolf - i.e if you ever do say anything that's true - we're unlikely to believe it.

I think this is very correct.
But I wouldn't worry... I don't think many are following such teachings. Although I find the first quote to be spot-on... I think ICANT is making a slightly-different absurd error than the one you're complaining about.ICANT doesn't seem to be saying Moses didn't have nouns because the English word doesn't exist.
(Well, maybe he did at some point, but I don't think he's saying that here and now. ICANT says a lot of really foolish things.)
I think ICANT is saying Moses didn't have nouns because the concept of noun didn't exist in any language.Which, really, is just as absurd.. but only in a slightly different way.You can take it as strictly literal... that Moses didn't have the word "noun" before the word "noun" existed... but ICANT is aware Moses used some sort of concept of the same idea.
...but this doesn't make any sense. Why say anything at all, then, if this is what someone thinks?More likely it's like saying no one counted anything before the Arabic(?) invented the idea of numbers.It's silly.The Arabic may very well have formalized the idea of numbers at some point... but before that, people still counted things. They just didn't have a formal standard (in any language) to draw from. But you don't need a formal number structure to know that 2 goats are not the same as 3 goats in a trade occurring right in front of you. It's still obvious that the different groups aren't "equal" and which one is "lesser." And this is known by some intuitive idea of "counting" regardless of it being formalized.The idea of "a noun" may not have been formalized in any language during the time of Moses.
But if he was writing... he certainly did use nouns. He just wouldn't have been aware there was a specific name for the idea. Or maybe he was aware, and the idea simply didn't end up getting formalized until many ages later for whatever reason. Is really the only reasonable response Also, this post is entirely unnecessary and I'm just bored. So there.

Hi Phat, Naturally he would disagree as he does not believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. How can that be when Science is simply trying to figure out how God did it.The Bible is reality.What you understand the Bible teaches is probably what is wrong, not what is actually recorded in the Bible. You have listened to too many YEC'S, and others here.The Bible in no place teaches that the earth is 6,000+ years old.
That age is determined by doing the math to connect the generations of people who have lived on earth back to the mankind that was created in the image and likeness of God in Genesis 1:27. But that is not the beginning as it took place in Genesis 1:1.According to Genesis 2:4 the things recorded in the following verses took place in the same day God created the heavens and the earth.
During that light period there were at least 7 generations of people that were descended from the man formed from the dust of the ground and the woman cloned from a rib from the man. There had been at least one city built during that same light period.How long was that light period? I don't know.
What I do know is that it started at the beginning and did not cease to exist until God created darkness.

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

---

That period of light in which the entire universe was lit as our noonday earth would account for the cmbr which it thought to be evidence for the BBT. When all it proves is that the universe was bathed in light in the beginning.So that is two points that the Bible and Science agrees.
Both teach the universe is old.
Both teach the universe was immersed in light in the beginning.I also believe that light period in which God's creation took place is where the material was produced and buried in the earth to produce all the natural gas, petroleum, and coal we find in the earth.Maybe some day somebody in science will give me the scientific mechanism in which the material was produced and buried under 5 miles of sediment in places.God Bless,

How does one conclude that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God?

That is yet another utterly dishonest statement from you that seems to have no purpose other than making Christians look stupid. Whoops, I was wrong. You have more statements that seem to have no purpose other than making Christian look stupid. You even have statement making Christians look like really stupid liars.The fact is that there is not even some unique thing that is "The Bible" but rather a broad range of different things containing different content that are all called "Bibles".And top top it off you go on to puts lots more utter bullshit and absurdities and have the cajones to claim you are talking about reality.Sheesh!

ICANT said that he had tried to find out what Moses called those things he used to refer to a person, place or thing, but the terminology had not surfaced in his research. ICANT acknowledges that Moses did use words for that purpose.Maybe that makes some kind of sense to someone, but I think Aussie's comments describe ICANT's position quite well.

Moses simply says what God did and observed via the Creator's own interface. The simple biblical words denote God's days, acts and things in God's creative laboratory, way beyond the human science. Compared to those things, our "material", "carnal" reality (after the Curse in Ch.3) is a mere temporary simulation (with the purpose of our debugging) - it's deceptive, as the Bible warns.

That's awfully helpful Alex.

Hi ringo, It helps to know the source in a personal relationship.
Without that it is impossible to understand God's Word.God Bless,

That happens a lot on the Internet. People develop a "personal relationship" with somebody who turns out to be completely different from the way they portray themselves.So how do you know you can trust the source?