The tower of Babel

[aik]

2 hours ago, freshstart said:

Another myth.

 

Yep, he ate what was offered. Good man! Too bad Eve didn't yet have the skills to whip up something a little spicier than an apple. The story might have changed dramatically!

I am offered many things. For example when I enter a shop, there are some food there on the selves which I never wish to take and even taste it. Why? because it is dangerous for health. There things which are dangerous if you eat it much, sometimes I buy it. But also there is some natural food which I love, because it is good if it is used in a right way. 

 

The same is in spiritual life. For example I live and believe in Jesus. Every day I am offered so many things to have or to do, so many thought can get into my head, but it in no way is the reason to do somethings. I am choosing what shall I do and what I shall not. Does it make sense for you?

[aik]

7 hours ago, Astreja said:

I like Macintosh for eating, Granny Smith or Gala for cooking.  Never did understand what people see in Red Delicious - nice texture, but don't really taste like apples to me.

 

Mind you, I grew up in a neighbourhood that was one giant orchard, not far from Rougemont, Québec, and we had several apple trees in our yard.  Might be juuust a bit biased...

For the sake of conversation I say. In the place whre I was born the Red Delicious is something awsome. It is very very much dark red, ever its redness gets into it like paintinhg it from inside. It is rigid, and juicy. But here in Russia I never met it. Because in my homeplace we have it growing there, but here it is brought from somewhere. 

[walterpthefirst]

On 11/30/2022 at 5:19 PM, aik said:

If I am telling you that the apple in my hand is awesome sweet and juicy, how are you going to know it without tasting it? Tell me about objective evidences which will give you a taste of it to know it for sure if it is sweet or not. 

 

I'm in England and you are in Russia, aik.

 

What objective evidence can you give me over the internet, that you do have an apple in your hand?

 

 

[aik]

15 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm in England and you are in Russia, aik.

 

What objective evidence can you give me over the internet, that you do have an apple in your hand?

 

 

We say a word like 'overpull'. it means that you want to strengthen the situation for some reason. 

 

Let us say IF i have it. If you do not want to answer it is your right. But I am trying to explain to you and others a very important and a very familiar thing. I am not disputing here just for the sake to bit you or to smash you to a wall. It is not my purpose. I am able to stop disputing when i see that a man with whom i am disputing is going to get a damage. Even if i look like a loser in sight of others. Because all the purpose of my being here is to bring you to salvation from a damage, but not to cause it. 

 

If you are honest enough in your searchings, which brought you to where you are at right now, then continue being honest to yourself and to others. 

[aik]

On 12/1/2022 at 6:03 AM, DarkBishop said:

Here is a brief article on the various ways they date. I am not an archeologist. I did not go to college to learn how to date ancient artifacts so I let them speak for themselves. I know there have been a couple hundred years of research put into this. Much of it done by Christians probably.

 

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/how-do-archeologists-know-how-old-a-site-is.htm#:~:text=One of the best-known,remains like charcoal or bones.

 

Db

Dear Bishop,

 

First of all thank you for a very interesting matierial here. Look what I have noticed.

 

We see here that dating made by archeologists is always approximate and it gives only a rande of time, 

 

 

Scientists acknowledge that there are difficulties in dating of ancient things. The further text shows that archeologists cannot say for 100% place, time or whatever it was there happening. 

 

Then we go for an absolute dating. What kind of problems does it have in it? 

 

 

absolute is just a name. Actually it is as relative as others, but with a use of instruments.

Chemists have approximately determined the rate of the radioactive decay of C-14 atoms and can measure this to arrive at an estimate of how old a site is based on when the organic material stopped absorbing C-14 when it was alive. This is “approximately” determined because calibrations are always needed, such as for solar radiation hitting Earth and atmospheric factors that have not always been constant and thus skew dates, but that’s an in-depth lesson that trained chemists could speak to more! 

Now I push to an underlined word, it is a link to another website.

 

The first carbon test at the dig site was inconclusive, but a second test dated the soil to 28,000 years old. This date seemed too recent because the mammoth herd was much deeper in the soil to be only 28,000 years old. Scientists also dated pollen samples but that test gave a date of only 18,000 years, which was also too recent.

 

They got a dat according to their method which was called an absolute, BUT!!! it is not appropriate or it is not a proper date or it does not fit to what they expected.!!! I want to point on an unobjectiveness here. Sure they have a reason to think that the date should be older. And what is that reason? Because they found a bone in deeper places which they think that if a place is deeper than a bone should be older. But it is disputable very easy. 

 

They think maybe "We don't want thousands of years, we want millions and billions" because we are planning to sell many books about a new sensation.

 

Scientists then tried a new test called optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). Dr. Steve Foreman, former professor University of Illinois, Chicago and current Baylor University professor, is an expert at this newer method. OSL tests the last time quartz within soil saw sunlight. This test dated sediment samples from around, above, and below the mammoth bones. The test determined the soil, and therefore the bones, had last seen sunlight between 58,000 to 73,000 years ago. Based on both of these tests, scientists believe the mammoth herd died in an event between 65,000 and 72,000 years ago. This is the current date range presented at the site.

 

I am asking Why is it preferable method of dating? Iam searching goolgle.

 

The difference between radiocarbon dating and OSL is that the former is used to date organic materials, while the latter is used to date minerals. Events that can be dated using OSL are, for example, the mineral's last exposure to sunlight; Mungo Man, Australia's oldest human find, was dated in this manner.[2] It is also used for dating the deposition of geological sediments after they have been transported by air (aeolian sediments) or rivers (fluvial sediments). In archaeology, OSL dating is applied to ceramics: The dated event is the time of their last heating to a high temperature (in excess of 400 °C).

 

This method is able to date only minerals. It means what? For example if i walk around and fall and die near an archeological site where there are some exposed minerals which are older millions of years than me, and passed a thousand more years, one archeologist finds my bones there, he will say that my bones are millions years old because minerals near my bones were tested by OSL and they are millions of years old. What do you think about it?

 

 

The test determined the soil, and therefore the bones, had last seen sunlight between 58,000 to 73,000 years ago

 

Because the soil is old therefore bones are old also. This is in what you believe. So many allowances so many presumptions. Why because a group of scientists cannot cease to believe in evolution or darwinism. 

 

We are going on the firs text we had in the begiining.

 

including optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), potassium-argon dating, thermoluminescence, amino acid dating, and many, many others. Not sounding like household words? That’s ok! A lot of these are highly specialized and difficult to understand even for experienced archeologists.

Pay attention please.

 

Radiocarbon dating is effective for samples up to 50,000 years old,but provides a margin of error in ± years. Archeologists understand deep time in terms of longer periods of cultural and environmental patterns and trends, so the ± swing is less vital for really old sites than if an archeologist is trying to interpret a site from the more recent past. If an archeologist wants to date a site 500 years old or younger, a margin of error of ± even a hundred years is not useful, so different dating methods must be used.

 

And then is says about a relative dating. They call a relative dating this one: 

 

relative dating is estimating the date range of a site using information from artifacts and features found in situ

 

If it means that information taken from artefacts found in the site give more relative dating than those methods above, then I am not sure it is so. Because if you found a coin and there on the coin it is written any date, and there maybe some picture of a king let us say, isn't it an accurate information to take into account rather than C-14 which can show that this coin was of thousands of years older? 

 

I think this method is more correct though it is also very relative. One can throw a coin in a place with old bones for example. 

 

But when it comes to our study books in schools, we see that they talk about strict dates, not ranges of thousands. 

 

See what you believe in, my friends. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aik]

On 12/1/2022 at 4:33 AM, DarkBishop said:

@aik

 

Since your up and about now, I want to bring this post back up for your attention. 

 

Why does the bible depict an understanding of farming when we know the earliest humans did not farm? It is a fact. They've excavated and they know that humans were hunter/gatherers long before they figured out how to grow and harvest crops. 

 

Thanks 

DB

So your link did not show to me how the scientists get knowledge about the ancient people knowing not how to farm? You say they were hunters and gatherers. How did they come to this conclusion? 

[aik]

On 11/30/2022 at 7:19 PM, DarkBishop said:

I'll reply to this later. Have to take my daughter to the doctor again. 

How is your daughter now? 

[aik]

On 11/30/2022 at 7:19 AM, DarkBishop said:

But seriously AIK. I don't know your situation. Can you tell me a little about who you were before you met jesus? 

 

I live in Russia from 1993. I finished my school here. Than I graduated from the university twice, two faculties. Manager-economist in engineering and production, and English translator in professional communications. So now I work in a design company. We design architecture, structures and MEP. Doing complex design work. I have my family, my wife three children and me, and also my mom is with us. So we live and give praise to the Lord Jesus now. My children 10, 4 and 4 months. 

 

On 11/30/2022 at 7:19 AM, DarkBishop said:

What do you feel that you did that would have deserved hell?

I was a sinner. I thought i was a christian, because I stated that i believed in Jesus Christ. But I was living in sinful life. I was a standart young man, life with friends, alcohol, cigarettes, girls and so on. Though i did not kill anyone, never was in jail. But I was not better than those who were. Anyway it does not matter what we claim to be. Jesus says If you love me then keep my commandments. Also the Bible tells us that the wage for a sin is death. So according to the Bible i was a sinner. No sinner will enter the Heaven, he will give answer to what he had don in flesh before the Judge. Analysing my life and looking at the Bible through Jesus, I was going to be perished. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, aik said:

Dear Bishop,

 

First of all thank you for a very interesting matierial here. Look what I have noticed.

 

We see here that dating made by archeologists is always approximate and it gives only a rande of time, 

 

 

Scientists acknowledge that there are difficulties in dating of ancient things. The further text shows that archeologists cannot say for 100% place, time or whatever it was there happening. 

 

Then we go for an absolute dating. What kind of problems does it have in it? 

 

 

absolute is just a name. Actually it is as relative as others, but with a use of instruments.

 

Chemists have approximately determined the rate of the radioactive decay of C-14 atoms and can measure this to arrive at an estimate of how old a site is based on when the organic material stopped absorbing C-14 when it was alive. This is “approximately” determined because calibrations are always needed, such as for solar radiation hitting Earth and atmospheric factors that have not always been constant and thus skew dates, but that’s an in-depth lesson that trained chemists could speak to more! 

 

Now I push to an underlined word, it is a link to another website.

 

The first carbon test at the dig site was inconclusive, but a second test dated the soil to 28,000 years old. This date seemed too recent because the mammoth herd was much deeper in the soil to be only 28,000 years old. Scientists also dated pollen samples but that test gave a date of only 18,000 years, which was also too recent.

 

They got a dat according to their method which was called an absolute, BUT!!! it is not appropriate or it is not a proper date or it does not fit to what they expected.!!! I want to point on an unobjectiveness here. Sure they have a reason to think that the date should be older. And what is that reason? Because they found a bone in deeper places which they think that if a place is deeper than a bone should be older. But it is disputable very easy. 

 

They think maybe "We don't want thousands of years, we want millions and billions" because we are planning to sell many books about a new sensation.

 

Scientists then tried a new test called optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). Dr. Steve Foreman, former professor University of Illinois, Chicago and current Baylor University professor, is an expert at this newer method. OSL tests the last time quartz within soil saw sunlight. This test dated sediment samples from around, above, and below the mammoth bones. The test determined the soil, and therefore the bones, had last seen sunlight between 58,000 to 73,000 years ago. Based on both of these tests, scientists believe the mammoth herd died in an event between 65,000 and 72,000 years ago. This is the current date range presented at the site.

 

I am asking Why is it preferable method of dating? Iam searching goolgle.

 

The difference between radiocarbon dating and OSL is that the former is used to date organic materials, while the latter is used to date minerals. Events that can be dated using OSL are, for example, the mineral's last exposure to sunlight; Mungo Man, Australia's oldest human find, was dated in this manner.[2] It is also used for dating the deposition of geological sediments after they have been transported by air (aeolian sediments) or rivers (fluvial sediments). In archaeology, OSL dating is applied to ceramics: The dated event is the time of their last heating to a high temperature (in excess of 400 °C).

 

This method is able to date only minerals. It means what? For example if i walk around and fall and die near an archeological site where there are some exposed minerals which are older millions of years than me, and passed a thousand more years, one archeologist finds my bones there, he will say that my bones are millions years old because minerals near my bones were tested by OSL and they are millions of years old. What do you think about it?

 

 

The test determined the soil, and therefore the bones, had last seen sunlight between 58,000 to 73,000 years ago

 

Because the soil is old therefore bones are old also. This is in what you believe. So many allowances so many presumptions. Why because a group of scientists cannot cease to believe in evolution or darwinism. 

 

We are going on the firs text we had in the begiining.

 

including optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), potassium-argon dating, thermoluminescence, amino acid dating, and many, many others. Not sounding like household words? That’s ok! A lot of these are highly specialized and difficult to understand even for experienced archeologists.

 

Pay attention please.

 

Radiocarbon dating is effective for samples up to 50,000 years old,but provides a margin of error in ± years. Archeologists understand deep time in terms of longer periods of cultural and environmental patterns and trends, so the ± swing is less vital for really old sites than if an archeologist is trying to interpret a site from the more recent past. If an archeologist wants to date a site 500 years old or younger, a margin of error of ± even a hundred years is not useful, so different dating methods must be used.

 

And then is says about a relative dating. They call a relative dating this one: 

 

relative dating is estimating the date range of a site using information from artifacts and features found in situ

 

If it means that information taken from artefacts found in the site give more relative dating than those methods above, then I am not sure it is so. Because if you found a coin and there on the coin it is written any date, and there maybe some picture of a king let us say, isn't it an accurate information to take into account rather than C-14 which can show that this coin was of thousands of years older? 

 

I think this method is more correct though it is also very relative. One can throw a coin in a place with old bones for example. 

 

But when it comes to our study books in schools, we see that they talk about strict dates, not ranges of thousands. 

 

See what you believe in, my friends. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I assumed this would be your argument. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess your probably not an archeologist are you? 

 

There are things that can affect the date. And yes it is a range of years. But for your argument to hold any weight every single site that is excavated would have to have circumstances that effected the tests. That isn't going to happen at every site. So when they have good samples and date those samples to 50,000 or 100,000 years ago. The artifacts they find there can date another site. Because every Era of time will have similar artifacts that humans used in day to day life. 

 

The bottom line is that most sites will be dated accurately within a certain time frame. And that time frame is far, far, far older than the biblical timeline. It is impossible for the bible to be accurate about the age of the earth. 

 

We can't ignore scientific fact in favor of religious myths. 

 

Thank you, 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

39 minutes ago, aik said:

How is your daughter now? 

She is getting better. Thank you for asking

 

[aik]

25 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I assumed this would be your argument. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess your probably not an archeologist are you? 

 

There are things that can affect the date. And yes it is a range of years. But for your argument to hold any weight every single site that is excavated would have to have circumstances that effected the tests. That isn't going to happen at every site. So when they have good samples and date those samples to 50,000 or 100,000 years ago. The artifacts they find there can date another site. Because every Era of time will have similar artifacts that humans used in day to day life. 

 

The bottom line is that most sites will be dated accurately within a certain time frame. And that time frame is far, far, far older than the biblical timeline. It is impossible for the bible to be accurate about the age of the earth. 

 

We can't ignore scientific fact in favor of religious myths. 

 

Thank you, 

 

DB

I am not an archeologist. But it does not matter that I cannot read the given text and analyze  what is said in it. You are smart enought understand. I do not need to study archeology for 5 years to have ability to read their article and understand. What is wrong with my arguments?

 

But anyway the aim of my argumentation was not to disqualify scientists to be archeologists, but to note that they have many things which is called hypothesis. Some key factors are taken on faith or an assumption. Or the factors are not analized enough, but one thinks it to be so, 'like with the deeper the bone is the older it should be'. 

 

Well I want you to see that in final stage it brings a new belief. It is a kind of a belief in some sense. But somebody called it a science. Ok. I don't mind. But let us think in what to believe. It is easier for me to believe that an almighty god creates the world in six days than that some experts who are people eager to earn money and to have profit, which will not be given to them if they have no sensation, that such people tell the truth and do not play with facts. 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, aik said:

We say a word like 'overpull'. it means that you want to strengthen the situation for some reason. 

 

Let us say IF i have it. If you do not want to answer it is your right. But I am trying to explain to you and others a very important and a very familiar thing. I am not disputing here just for the sake to bit you or to smash you to a wall. It is not my purpose. I am able to stop disputing when i see that a man with whom i am disputing is going to get a damage. Even if i look like a loser in sight of others. Because all the purpose of my being here is to bring you to salvation from a damage, but not to cause it. 

 

If you are honest enough in your searchings, which brought you to where you are at right now, then continue being honest to yourself and to others. 

 

No, let us not say that IF you have an apple, aik.

 

I asked you a simple, perfectly reasonable and easily understood question.

 

But you are trying to change the terms and conditions of my question.

 

If I did that to you, you would not allow it.

 

So, I will not allow you to change my question.

 

Please answer my question, as it is written.

 

Here it is again.

 

 

What objective evidence can you give me over the internet, that you do have an apple in your hand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

aik,

 

Here's another point for you to consider.  It starts with a question.

 

Do you believe that since you joined this forum you have always told us the truth?

 

If your answer is Yes, I can prove you wrong.

 

You have not always told us the truth.

 

But please answer the question and then I will respond to it.

 

aik, do you believe that since you joined this forum you have always told us the truth?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:21 AM, aik said:

It is easier for me to believe that an almighty god creates the world in six days than that some experts who are people eager to earn money and to have profit

 

Do you understand what you are doing here AIK?

 

Basically you praise God for all the knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the past 500 or so years that have advanced the human species to where we are today. And you accept all of those findings to be true and profitable to the human race, and even claim that God gave us that knowledge. Unless it contradicts what you believe.

 

Think about all the different things we've shown you since you've been here. Many many different things contradict what the Bible says. 

 

It isn't that you just turn a blind eye to the dating scientist use. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to contradictions within the Bible

 

You've turned a blind eye to the physical impossiblity of a tower to heaven. 

 

You have turned a blind eye to the fact that they already know how languages developed over time separately from one another. There is no evidence that languages changed in an instant. They were developed over time. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to a flat earth creation with alleged water above our atmosphere. Which we know does not exist. And we know that our earth, along with all other planets are spherical. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to Gods neglect toward his children Adam and eve. Allowing them to be deceived by the serpent. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to much much more. To much for me to list.

 

It is easy to turn a blind eye to one or two things. But you have decided not to accept anything that doesn't align with your faith. And we have only just begun to show you the many many ways that the Bible fails. 

 

It isn't a problem with science AIK. They aren't trying to attack your faith. They are trying to discover the truth about the earths history. And your faith has one thing in common with all other faiths. They do not reflect the evidence that has been discovered. Your Bible is no more accurate than Muhammad's Quran, Greek mythology, or Norse mythology. It is all myth written by ancient people who had no way to understand the earth or how life started and survived on earth. They had no knowledge of volcanic activity or why swarms of locusts sometimes destroyed crops. It was all attributed to the actions of one God or another. 

 

But don't worry AIK. We will keep discussing these things. Maybe one day your eyes will be opened and you can see the truth. 

 

DB

[aik]

25 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

aik,

 

Here's another point for you to consider.  It starts with a question.

 

Do you believe that since you joined this forum you have always told us the truth?

 

If your answer is Yes, I can prove you wrong.

 

You have not always told us the truth.

 

But please answer the question and then I will respond to it.

 

aik, do you believe that since you joined this forum you have always told us the truth?

The truth is what Jesus says. not me. But i can say for myself that I never scammed or did fraud saying a lie intentionally to mislead you. 

 

But if you have something to reprove me, say it. I am not running. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@aik do you understand what I mean by turning a blind eye toward something? I don't know if that is a Russian expression like it is where I live. It means that you don't want to see it. So instead of looking at it with your eyes that can see. You'll look at it with eyes that are blind.

 

DB

[aik]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

If I did that to you, you would not allow it.

 

Walter, do you feel oppressed anyhow by me? 

[walterpthefirst]

19 minutes ago, aik said:

Walter, do you feel oppressed anyhow by me? 

 

No, you cannot oppress me, aik.

 

But once again you have tried to impose your will upon me.

 

I asked you to answer this question.

 

What objective evidence can you give me over the internet, that you do have an apple in your hand?

 

But instead of doing what I politely requested, you asked me question.

 

In this forum we are all equals and no member, not even you, has the right to impose their will on another.

 

We freely ask and answer each others questions.

 

But you still have not answered mine.

 

Here it is again.

 

Please answer it.

 

What objective evidence can you give me over the internet, that you do have an apple in your hand?

[walterpthefirst]

49 minutes ago, aik said:

The truth is what Jesus says. not me. But i can say for myself that I never scammed or did fraud saying a lie intentionally to mislead you. 

 

But if you have something to reprove me, say it. I am not running. 

 

But you have intentionally mislead us, aik.

 

Just as we have all intentionally mislead each other, here in this forum.  Your true name is not aik and my true name is not walterpthefirst.  None of us here are using our true names - we are all hiding our true identities behind membership names that we have all chosen to use in this forum.

 

So, there is a layer of secrecy and evasion between all of us.  None of us here, including you, have been absolutely truthful in our dealings with each other.  

 

Do you deny this?

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

@aik do you understand what I mean by turning a blind eye toward something? I don't know if that is a Russian expression like it is where I live. It means that you don't want to see it. So instead of looking at it with your eyes that can see. You'll look at it with eyes that are blind.

 

DB

 

DB,

 

On November 13 I asked aik this question.

 

Hello aik.

Assuming that you now have satisfactory answers to your three questions, please answer mine.  Thank you.

Here it is again.

If you are not intending to leave Jesus, can you assure us that you will be entering into debate with an open mind on all subjects?

 

Here is his reply.

 

Fair question. Yes, I do assure. But be sure that not every debate will I enter into. My daily schedule is thick, so don't be upset that I cannot be here online whole day long. That is why I will get acquainted with this platform step by step. 

 

 

Maybe you should ask him about the openness of his mind as well as the blindness of his eyes?

 

Though to be fair, he gave his assurance to me and not to you.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

35 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But you have intentionally mislead us, aik.

 

Just as we have all intentionally mislead each other, here in this forum.  Your true name is not aik and my true name is not walterpthefirst.  None of us here are using our true names - we are all hiding our true identities behind membership names that we have all chosen to use in this forum.

 

So, there is a layer of secrecy and evasion between all of us.  None of us here, including you, have been absolutely truthful in our dealings with each other.  

 

Do you deny this?

 

 

 

 

 

I think you need to show intent to deceive, counselor. 

[aik]

52 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But you have intentionally mislead us, aik.

 

Just as we have all intentionally mislead each other, here in this forum.  Your true name is not aik and my true name is not walterpthefirst.  None of us here are using our true names - we are all hiding our true identities behind membership names that we have all chosen to use in this forum.

 

So, there is a layer of secrecy and evasion between all of us.  None of us here, including you, have been absolutely truthful in our dealings with each other.  

 

Do you deny this?

 

 

 

 

Walter give me a straight answer. What if I prove you that my true name is aik? what will you do? 

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I think you need to show intent to deceive, counselor. 

 

Not so.

 

I am simply showing aik that even though he might genuinely believe that he has always told us the truth, the very nature of this forum and the use of membership names means that he was mistaken.

 

There was no intent to deceive on his part, on my part and on the part of any member.

 

This is just how things are across the internet.

 

What one person genuinely believes to be true is often not the case.

 

And that is why assertions of truth by one person cannot be taken as truth.

 

That is why all members of this forum should try to deal in objective evidence and subjective assertions.

 

I hope that aik learns this lesson.

 

 

 

 

[aik]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

What objective evidence can you give me over the internet, that you do have an apple in your hand?

choose anyone to check whose question was the first one in this narrow topic of apples. Choos a moderator to check it out.

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, aik said:

Walter give me a straight answer. What if I prove you that my true name is aik? what will you do? 

 

My straight answer to you can be seen in my reply to Midniterider, aik.

 

What I have said to him applies to you.  It is a lesson that you should heed.

 

Your words cannot be taken by us as truth. 

 

For your words to be truth they must be supported by objective evidence.

 

And when you write Jesus' words those cannot be taken as truth either.

 

That's because you believe that his words are truth by using your faith.

 

But we have no faith and so therefore cannot see the truth that you see in Jesus' words.

 

Which is why we can only accept objective evidence.