Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/02/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    What y'all fail to understand is that the word of god doesn't mean what it says unless you use the right translation. And read it in the proper context. And only read certain passages. And skip over the uncomfortable bits, with all the rape and genocide and never-ending begetting. Seriously, did you really think that god could properly oversee the accurate translation of his meaning, when he was providing his own divine revelation of himself to all of humanity for the sake of saving our eternal souls from everlasting damnation and hellfire? Y'all must think god is omnipotent or something.
  3. 2 points
    "This is important because in textual criticism the goal is to determine as close as possible what the author actually wrote. A paraphrase will not provide this." Don't people paraphrase in order to understand something? Isnt a small group of Christians doing a bible study and concerned with a particular passage using paraphrasing to get at the meaning of it? If someone asks, "What does that scripture mean?", do you repeat the scripture back to them and call it a day? Or do you use other words to describe it. Sermons in church usually involve discussion about the scriptural passage at hand. Seems like a lot of paraphrasing...what do I know.
  4. 1 point
    As a result of global warming funding, an ancient rocky structure related to a major newly discovered geologic fault line and zone has been discovered at the heart of the Ross ice shelf in Eastern Antarctica. This discovery will help geologists determine where ice will melt and where it will stay frozen. The additional ice melting and possible sea rise as a result of this new-found fault and related ice fractures and splitting, would be unrelated to any global warming. But for global warming estimates an adjustment would need to be made to any possible ice loss in this area thought to be the result of global warming. Whether this newly found fault line and zone is more active now than it was in known geologic history is still unknown. This discovery is related to, but separate from the well-known volcanic activity under Antarctica. There is still debate as to whether Antarctica is gaining, losing, or having about the same amount of ice over the recent decades as more accurate measurements are made. This can relate to the global warming debate when some highly respected scientists of NASA are predicting global cooling in the coming decades instead. "According to new research published May 27 in the journal Nature Geo-science, this boundary protects the ice shelf's grounding line, the point at which it is thick enough to extend all the way to the sea floor. The geology created by the boundary keeps warm, melt-promoting ocean water away from that part of the shelf. But the ocean circulation driven by that same geology drives intense summer melt along the shelf's easterly edge." "We could see that (this) geological boundary was making the seafloor on the East Antarctic side much deeper than the West, and that affects the way the ocean water circulates under the ice shelf," study leader Kirsty Tinto, a research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said in a statement" concerning the related study, paper, and photos. Antarctica: The Ice-Covered Bottom of the World] https://www.livescience.com/65588-ancient-rocky-structure-beneath-antarctica.html https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-expects-global-cooling-SJDpCv3V4EqKSOY11A378Q/ https://cornwallalliance.org/2019/02/climate-reality-forces-doomsday-alarmists-to-restructure-warming-narrative/
  5. 1 point
    So now we're in a battle of sources. "PhD level...scholarship." Well, obviously there can be only one side to any PhD level scholarship; "that which promotes my view. Don't offer any other." While we're all encouraged to "read through" this PhD level scholarship, I'm willing to bet money that this http://www.sent2all.com/Archer-Introduction to Bible Difficulties.pdf will be lightly skimmed over for disagreeable terms and then abandoned. ... 'Battle of sources' - Is this a bad thing? Why? "that which promotes my view. Don't offer any other." - This IS a debate, isn't it? Josh provides the side against Christianity, you present the side in favor of Christianity. Well, that link points to a 443 page document, so if you expected more than skimming, that's kind of silly. Btw,I hope there's no paraphrasing in that 443 page document. Maybe Jesus should just lay out the facts. Jesus? Thoughts?
  6. 1 point
    As I said, I'm only using the names of god bible because instead of using generic terms like, "God," or "The Lord," it shows where "Elohim," and "Yahweh," for instance, occur in the original Hebrew. It's not as if any translation of the bible doesn't encounter contradictions in Genesis from the very outset. So Luth is welcome to provide any translation he chooses for us to consider. I wager that all of the contradictions remain.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.