Open_Minded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Mind you, at one time... not that long ago, I thought that perhaps Noah's Ark could have been real. However, when I really considered the rational thinking of it... could it really have had two of EVERY animal, plants to replenish the earth for food, etc. I now think the whole story is a wonderful metaphor with perhaps a story of a man named Noah superimposed by myth and maybe a real flood to enhance a moral. Perhaps these were teaching stories passed by word of mouth for generations? Now, I'm still in agreement with these wonderful teachings' positive influence for those times, and in no way want to detract from thier inspirational message. Noahs Ark is true and the sotry is that which is presented in the Bible. By saying Noah's Ark never happened as the Bible says it is to disregard God becaue His hand was guiding it the whole way through. Wow ... I asked this question at the beginning of the thread... finally you're willing to address it. If "Noahs Ark is true and the story is that which is presented in the Bible." then how ... How did Moses get two of EVERY kind onto the ark, with ALL the food needed to keep them alive? Besides the fact that he would have had to search the entire earth for EVERY single type of living animal, it would have taken hundreds of years. Then when he got some of the animals rounded up and went to look for more, it would only make sense that a portion of the first set would "escape", or maybe die. And how did he keep the lions from eating other animals onboard the ark? On top of all of that, the weight of that many animals would have sunk the ark. Oh... and I've not forgotten the other (most important) question I've asked you. Come on Sub... just answer the question... it's one question.... Prove to us that the Bible is the only truth!!!!! By what authority - outside the Bible itself - do you take the "presupposition that the Bible is the only truth"? Antlerman... how right you are.... OM, wasn't that his answer? He said he takes the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. In other words hasn't he come out and stated that the reason he accepts it is true is because he just simply presupposes it is that, without requiring any other proof? That's kind of what I'm getting out of that. It's utter blind faith, and he has admitted this in this statement. If this is true then: absolutely everything he tries to put forth and defend is based upon his primary, unsupported presupposition of absolute credibility of the source document. If so, then isn't arguing the specifics of that document acknowledging its validity? Just a thought Unfortunately, Sub doesn't comprehend how absolutely incredulous that whole line of thought is. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. I don't know about you guys ... but I'd like to vote for the moderator to close this discussion and open the debate requested by Asimov???? You name it, what the Bible talks about in the subjects of archeologically or history are all verifiable. Sub_zer0....how about that debate? You and me, 1 on 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 As you guys drop like fly's because apparently you cannot argue with me as you state, I ask again if anybody needs any help understanding any verse in the Bible. I think we generally understand those verses better than you do. We don't twist them, or interpret them to say what we want them to say. I.E. - we read the word more literally than you can ever hope to. So, how about that debate with Asimov, or are you chicken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Wow ... I asked this question at the beginning of the thread... finally you're willing to address it. If "Noahs Ark is true and the story is that which is presented in the Bible." then how ... How did Moses get two of EVERY kind onto the ark, with ALL the food needed to keep them alive? Besides the fact that he would have had to search the entire earth for EVERY single type of living animal, it would have taken hundreds of years. Then when he got some of the animals rounded up and went to look for more, it would only make sense that a portion of the first set would "escape", or maybe die. And how did he keep the lions from eating other animals onboard the ark? On top of all of that, the weight of that many animals would have sunk the ark. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bible.asp I think we generally understand those verses better than you do. We don't twist them, or interpret them to say what we want them to say. I.E. - we read the word more literally than you can ever hope to. So, how about that debate with Asimov, or are you chicken? Am I chicken? I am debating up to 5 people on this forum at the same time and you are asking if I am chicken to debate Asimov? Riiight.... lol. He has just as much oppurtunity to debate me as anybody else on this forum. No need for a 1 on 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is called explaining the verse in light of how it is supposed to be interpreted, that is all. Everything that I have said is spot-on and I challenge you to catch me not explaining the verse correctly. Make it so I have nothing to say about it, make it so the verses meaning to you is the only meaning... Until then, I am waiting to be corrected on the Christian interpretation of Scripture. Oh...so you are god then? What qualifies YOU to "interpret" this stuff. Especially when the only parts that seem to need interpretation are the ones whose literal meaning would be in direct conflict with the Christian point of view. Or would be legally inconvenient.......unless you've killed witches recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Oh...so you are god then? What qualifies YOU to "interpret" this stuff. Especially when the only parts that seem to need interpretation are the ones whose literal meaning would be in direct conflict with the Christian point of view. Or would be legally inconvenient.......unless you've killed witches recently. I'm not God, I just believe in Him, you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 As you guys drop like fly's because apparently you cannot argue with me as you state, I ask again if anybody needs any help understanding any verse in the Bible. Eeh... actually, we don't drop like flies because we're so impressed with your arguments, but rather with the humor and sad irony in how you explain things and what you believe. You make me go quiet because of the shock and horror of seeing someone in such deep delusion. I truly feel sad for you, and how fooled you've been by your teachers. I just hope that you one day will wake up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Eeh... actually, we don't drop like flies because we're so impressed with your arguments, but rather with the humor and sad irony in how you explain things and what you believe. You make me go quiet because of the shock and horror of seeing someone in such deep delusion. I truly feel sad for you, and how fooled you've been by your teachers. I just hope that you one day will wake up... Why don't you guys change my mind. Make the Bible say something else that it doesn't mean to convince me some more.... ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Am I chicken? I am debating up to 5 people on this forum at the same time and you are asking if I am chicken to debate Asimov? Riiight.... lol. He has just as much oppurtunity to debate me as anybody else on this forum. No need for a 1 on 1. It's as much for your benefit as it would be an interesting discussion for me. When you only have one opponent, you get to gather and collect your thoughts and present your case more clearly as to the truth of Christianity. For me, I get to discuss issues with you in a more personal manner and rebut your statements. I'm making no claims as to my ability or intelligence, here I am, presenting myself fairly and openly. The moderators in this site will be fair. Right now, you're not debating the truth of Christianity, you're debating theological context in the bible. I'm offering you the chance to show your religion as true, where things wont go off-topic. You shouldn't pass this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Why don't you guys change my mind. Make the Bible say something else that it doesn't mean to convince me some more.... ;p Before that can happen, you need to concede that you are not god who knows it all, and that perhaps your opinion and interpretations of the Bible might be wrong. How about you do that in a debate with Asimov? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 How did Moses get two of EVERY kind onto the ark, with ALL the food needed to keep them alive? Besides the fact that he would have had to search the entire earth for EVERY single type of living animal, it would have taken hundreds of years. Then when he got some of the animals rounded up and went to look for more, it would only make sense that a portion of the first set would "escape", or maybe die. And how did he keep the lions from eating other animals onboard the ark? On top of all of that, the weight of that many animals would have sunk the ark. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bible.asp Well those sites are about as scientific as a five year olds imagination..... But, oh well, it's where you're at So, I've a question for everyone here.... The sites Sub set me to were claiming that .... What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera). <snip> For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind. Doesn't this reasoning use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the ark 1000s of years ago, as he would have to today????? Anyway .... I'm ready for that debate with Asimov ... how about the rest of you. As I said before ... I vote this thread be shut down at least until Sub debates Asimov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 In my experience it is actually harder to debate someone 1 on 1 than take on a number of people....but if you're not willing to debate me, then that's fine. I just thought it would be interesting for both of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It's as much for your benefit as it would be an interesting discussion for me. When you only have one opponent, you get to gather and collect your thoughts and present your case more clearly as to the truth of Christianity. For me, I get to discuss issues with you in a more personal manner and rebut your statements. I appreciate the offer, but I am presenting myself to the whole of this forum. I am presenting my case as well which in turn is the truth of Christianity to more than just an individual. I'm making no claims as to my ability or intelligence, here I am, presenting myself fairly and openly. The moderators in this site will be fair. Right now, you're not debating the truth of Christianity, you're debating theological context in the bible. I'm offering you the chance to show your religion as true, where things wont go off-topic. You shouldn't pass this up. I am debating the theological context of the Bible which in turn validates the truth of Christianity. I have a chance to show my religion as true and that is what I am doing. No need for a 1 on 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 As you guys drop like fly's because apparently you cannot argue with me as you state, I ask again if anybody needs any help understanding any verse in the Bible. Eeh... actually, we don't drop like flies because we're so impressed with your arguments, but rather with the humor and sad irony in how you explain things and what you believe. You make me go quiet because of the shock and horror of seeing someone in such deep delusion. I truly feel sad for you, and how fooled you've been by your teachers. I just hope that you one day will wake up... I agree with you and with O_M when he said this: Unfortunately, Sub doesn't comprehend how absolutely incredulous that whole line of thought is. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. It is very sad indeed but understandable. Maybe someday a small crack will open and a tiny ray of light will hit him with an epiphany that knock him over. Until that time, all we can do is to try to say things that might help him. We can do no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 "What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera). For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind." Doesn't this reasoning use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the ark 1000s of years ago, as he would have to today????? Anyway .... I'm ready for that debate with Asimov ... how about the rest of you. As I said before ... I vote this thread be shut down at least until Sub debates Asimov. No it doesn't use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the Ark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No it doesn't use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the Ark. Swooooosh! And the serve went over your head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No it doesn't use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the Ark. Swooooosh! And the serve went over your head... And he never saw it. That is exactly my point. He won't see it...he can't see it. It's not his fault. He was looking the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 And he never saw it. That is exactly my point. He won't see it...he can't see it. It's not his fault. My point as well. Evolution never happened and was not needed to repopulate the earth after the flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No it doesn't use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the Ark. I feel quite sad for you, Sub, I really do... that is why I keep coming back to the most important question I've asked you. Just answer the most important question I've asked you, Sub.... Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that! "You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth." PROVE IT ... Prove to us that the Bible is the only truth!!!!! Don't just say it, PROVE IT. Prove it - or debate Asimov - you've reached a crossroads here, Sub. We're not letting you off the hook. The questions you ignore will keep coming back to you. We want you to be honest with yourself, so PROVE what you are saying. That - or release yourself from this thread and do the debate..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 And he never saw it. That is exactly my point. He won't see it...he can't see it. It's not his fault. My point as well. Evolution never happened and was not needed to repopulate the earth after the flood. I understand that you understand it that way. But that is not what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is called explaining the verse in light of how it is supposed to be interpreted, that is all. Everything that I have said is spot-on and I challenge you to catch me not explaining the verse correctly. Make it so I have nothing to say about it, make it so the verses meaning to you is the only meaning... Until then, I am waiting to be corrected on the Christian interpretation of Scripture. I will argue the principle of what you are saying. I find your statement above to be extremely flawed. How are you getting these infallible, "spot-on" interpretations, through an angel of God whispering to you? You are stating as fact what no theologian or scholar has ever claimed to able to do, and rightly so, which is claiming to find the one, and only one interpretation for everything! If I am mistaken in reading what you're saying here, then please, I'd like to see where you actually feel there may be several possible ways to read something, even though you may feel one interpretation may be more supportable than another? If you say you feel this way, or can show me you've said that, it will make a difference. Otherwise, how can any sane, rational human being accept you as the perfect interpreter of God's word? If you mean exactly what statement above says, I have to say you sound completely self-delusional. No real scholar ever speaks in such absolutes! I hope I'm just reading your words too literally? Please tell me I am? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I appreciate the offer, but I am presenting myself to the whole of this forum. I am presenting my case as well which in turn is the truth of Christianity to more than just an individual. It wouldn't be to just an individual, everyone would read it. I am debating the theological context of the Bible which in turn validates the truth of Christianity. I have a chance to show my religion as true and that is what I am doing. No it doesn't, it validates the harmony of the Bible, which presents no truth. It is impossible for you to verify anything that the bible says has happened, because they never did, and there is no evidence for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Prove it - or debate Asimov - you've reached a crossroads here, Sub. We're not letting you off the hook. The questions you ignore will keep coming back to you. We want you to be honest with yourself, so PROVE what you are saying. That - or release yourself from this thread and do the debate..... I am merely defending my faith in God and Christ as my Savoir. No need for a 1 on 1 debate, ask them here. I have literally answered dozens of questions already. That is the point of this thread, so go ahead and ask, no crossroads but a straight path, none of you have put me on a hook because the truth I am telling you sets me free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 My point as well. Evolution never happened and was not needed to repopulate the earth after the flood. Pop - Swiiiiisch... another ball flew over your head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 And he never saw it. That is exactly my point. He won't see it...he can't see it. It's not his fault. My point as well. Evolution never happened and was not needed to repopulate the earth after the flood. There was no flood. No evidence for it, nothing. You're stacking yourself up in unsupported assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 And he never saw it. That is exactly my point. He won't see it...he can't see it. It's not his fault. My point as well. Evolution never happened and was not needed to repopulate the earth after the flood. I understand that you understand it that way. But that is not what I meant. NotBlinded... that is why this is so sad Everyone knew what you meant except Sub. And - you know that is why we are pressing him, don't you? I'm not trying to be mean here... but .... man ... he came to this forum. He's been here for many days now. Something inside his skull (or heart) must be wanting a wake up call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts