DVDizzy Forum

(Referring to yoda_four's siggie): Did Roger Ebert really say that? I don't think it's a matter of anybody "preferring" to have the sides of a movie chopped off. I think it's more that people didn't know that the sides of the movie were chopped off so they didn't realize they were missing anything.

yoda_four wrote:Just like Loomis said, it's like a little refreshing humour break before returning to the discussion

No, the only reason it was funny because it was so stupid. But then it got so stupid it was annoying. Yea...nothing more refreshing than someone stopping the flow of the nice discussion we were having...

And Christian, you are really making this way off topic, start a new one if you want about Roger Ebert.

My my....Luke isn't going to have fun splitting up this thread....

I know, I know. I was just being silly. To get this thread back on topic, yes, I do read the Bible.

let's talk about the trinity that's my favorite subject. I wonder if the passion of christ thread still around?

I haven't seen that movie. I kind of already know how the story goes.

Christian wrote:(Referring to yoda_four's siggie): Did Roger Ebert really say that? I don't think it's a matter of anybody "preferring" to have the sides of a movie chopped off. I think it's more that people didn't know that the sides of the movie were chopped off so they didn't realize they were missing anything.

I'm not exactly sure, i just found this on HTF, so I made it my own. Back on-topic, no i do not read the bible.

awallaceunc wrote:Well, the earth itself existed before those 7 days took place. For millions/billions of years? I don't really know. If that's what science says, then fine, it doesn't conflict with Scripture. It doesn't really matter to me (but then, I was never really fascinated by the subject of science )

Ah, but it does conflict with the scripture. The effects of the Big Bang had created one celled-organisms in what became water (there was a tremendous cooling period). If God had waited millions/billions of years to "let there be light" and all that, surely there would have been life by then. But it is confusing, because to me it seems as if God created the Heavens and Earth on the first day.

awallaceunc wrote:Who said reproduction didn't occur on the ark?

And who said it did? Insects such as bees and flies simply don't survive or reproduce in pairs. And don't even get me started on how Noah could have gathered male and female of each kind when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females But not being interested in science wouldn't help you know that.

awallaceunc wrote:No, everyone spoke the same language prior to the tower's destruction. It was after the destruction that God instituted the different languages. So they wouldn't have been formed within that time period (and again, your timing doesn't quite take into account the age of people). And where are you getting 2 people from? The moral, if you want to call it that, was that they were able to achieve the tower that reached to Heaven because they were able to unify.

Hmmm, I may have to look in the Bible about the language thing. But if there was only one language, how do you explain the different historical documents that pre-date the Tower of Babel and are in different languages? And is it possible that none of the 8 knew any other language besides a common one? I get 2 people from the son of Noah and his wife who chose to go the direction where the Tower of Babel was to be built. I don't think all 8 of them traveled together, even the Bible says they parted their ways and so that would be 2.

And I'd just like to add that terrestrial plants and vegetation could not have survived from the flood. So why was it there when the water had finally receeded completely?

awallaceunc wrote:I find the statement "it would require so many miracles..." interesting. So one miracle you can handle, but two or more gets a little too crazy?

The only miracle I can handle is how the Big Bang occured. But when you have a story in the Bible that requires an inummerable amount of miracles, it just is almost pointless to read. In the story, God commanded Noah to do it, not Himself. I'm beginning to think you are making up a bunch of these miracles yourself, but I guess I'll have to read some of these stories myself.

awallaceunc wrote:Off the top of my head, Job 40:15. There are others, I'd have to research them (I'm no Jack Van Impe ).

Ok, first off...I said BESIDES the biblical text. Second, a "behemoth" then probably meant the hippopotamus or the elephant. A tail then could have meant a trunk now. Bible Gateway uses several footnotes to help "understand" the text.

awallaceunc wrote:Well, not a tremendous number of people were writing things then, and what was written was rarely looked after with the care required for surviving millenia. There are countless references, documents, and stories about the global flood, though. I've even read a few of them from different countries/cultures.

Well, actually there were civilizations concurrently living in the Americas too, don't forget. How could they have not one written document recording a flood that massive? And no, there are no references or documents about any such flood that engulfed the Earth. If that had happened, there certainly would have been indisputable evidence now.

awallaceunc wrote:Quite frankly, I don't care about what happened to the dinosaurs

Poor dinosaurs...

awallaceunc wrote:Daniel 4:10-11 - Daniel clearly states that he was seeing a vision, not reality
Matthew 4:8 - In no way does this suggest the earth was flat. There weren't too many kingdoms of the world at the time. Even if it was flat (though obviously with mountains), you wouldn't be able to see but so far.
1 Chronicles 16:30 - Firmly established and immovable means flat? Don't think so.
Psalms 93:1 - Ditto to 1 Chronicles.

Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream though, and says he is the tree and his dominion extends to distant parts of the earth. But I guess you might be able to say "oh, it says distant, not ends"

About Matt, it would be really hard to believe that he could see ALL the kingdoms of the Earth just being on a very tall mountain. I'll have to do some research, but I may find that there were kingdoms all over the world at the time.

Again, you somehow don't seem to read my sentences clearly enough. I said flat and stationary, not JUST flat! Firmy established and immovable means stationary.

awallaceunc wrote:I'm not talking a few hundred or even three thousand years ago. I'm speaking in terms of the time between Adam & Eve to the Tower of Babel. People lived to be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years old. There is no solid evidence to the contrary for that, and it makes good sense, as well.

There is no solid evidence to the contrary yet, you are right about that. But it is the good sense part that leaves me baffled. Is it good sense for Noah to be able to live 950 years after having to endure a "global flood" and then having to walk everywhere after? It is weird that after the flood, in the Bible people lived much shorter than they did before. It suddenly went from like 950 to 205 to like 70 or something.

[quote"awallaceunc"]It's a thousand years, actually, and it states it twice:

"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." - Psalm 90:4

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - 2 Peter 3:8

But then the question becomes 'does Genesis refer to one day in human years ( ) or God years?'[/quote]

In Psalm 90, that is a prayer by Moses, a man. And in Peter, if a day was a thousand years...7 days would be.....7000 years like I said! But if a thousand years are like a day then.....that would be an extremely short amount of time, I don't feel like calculating it...

Now the quoting of biblical texts to make a point..... (although I did earlier!)!

Be careful.

poco wrote:Now the quoting of biblical texts to make a point..... (although I did earlier!)!

Be careful

Well, in this context of THIS debate it would seem to be justified by the insistence of at least one participant that the bible should be taken literally. I assume all of god's words are equally important, and not just some (in context).

But I take your point.

Loomis wrote:

poco wrote:Now the quoting of biblical texts to make a point..... (although I did earlier!)!

Be careful

Well, in this context of THIS debate it would seem to be justified by the insistence of at least one participant that the bible should be taken literally. I assume all of god's words are equally important, and not just some (in context).

But I take your point.

I wouldn't think that the Bible should be taken literally even if it is "God's Word". Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?

PrinceAli wrote:Ah, but it does conflict with the scripture. The effects of the Big Bang had created one celled-organisms in what became water (there was a tremendous cooling period). If God had waited millions/billions of years to "let there be light" and all that, surely there would have been life by then. But it is confusing, because to me it seems as if God created the Heavens and Earth on the first day.

Well it should come as no surprise that I don't believe in the big bang. As for your confusion, though, Genesis says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light...'" The heavens and earth were around for an unknown period of time, and then the 7 days began when God said "Let there be light."

PrinceAli wrote:And who said it did? Insects such as bees and flies simply don't survive or reproduce in pairs. And don't even get me started on how Noah could have gathered male and female of each kind when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females But not being interested in science wouldn't help you know that.

There's no reason to believe that life just stopped on the ark. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if reproduction occurred, and if these insects with remarkably short life spans survived, then it seems they would have had to. You keep going back to 'how could Noah have done this' reasoning. As I've said before, God brought these animals, in their appropriate numbers and pairings, to Noah.

PrinceAli wrote:Hmmm, I may have to look in the Bible about the language thing. But if there was only one language, how do you explain the different historical documents that pre-date the Tower of Babel and are in different languages? And is it possible that none of the 8 knew any other language besides a common one?

It's quite possible that those elsewhere on the earth spoke different languages than those at the Tower. The languages were given to them there to obstruct the unity, so to speak.

PrinceAli wrote:And I'd just like to add that terrestrial plants and vegetation could not have survived from the flood. So why was it there when the water had finally receeded completely?

Well if it could survive, then it did, and if it couldn't survive, then I imagine it wasn't there when the flood receded.

PrinceAli wrote:I'm beginning to think you are making up a bunch of these miracles yourself, but I guess I'll have to read some of these stories myself.

Adding accusations of fabrication to your list now, eh? Exactly which miracles do you think I made up? I'll be happy to show you that I didn't.

PrinceAli wrote:Ok, first off...I said BESIDES the biblical text. Second, a "behemoth" then probably meant the hippopotamus or the elephant. A tail then could have meant a trunk now. Bible Gateway uses several footnotes to help "understand" the text.

Ok, I thought you were asking for the Biblical reference, but I see now that I misread what you typed in asking for that. I explained earlier the Hebrew root for the words believed to be dinosaurs, no point in re-typing it. I just found this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... meteor.asp

Please note that in posting it, I in no way endorse what it's saying, as I simply don't have the time to read through it, at least not now. And again, the science just isn't a matter of importance to me. I thought some of you here might find it an interesting read, though.

PrinceAli wrote: And no, there are no references or documents about any such flood that engulfed the Earth. If that had happened, there certainly would have been indisputable evidence now.

That is simply false. Ever heard of Gilgamesh? (As just one example off the top of my head).

PrinceAli wrote:Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream though, and says he is the tree and his dominion extends to distant parts of the earth. But I guess you might be able to say "oh, it says distant, not ends"

No, I'm not going to make that distant/ends argument at all. It was a dream, not a geographical survey of the earth. The earth's topography wasn't being laid out in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Come on.

PrinceAli wrote:Again, you somehow don't seem to read my sentences clearly enough. I said flat and stationary, not JUST flat! Firmy established and immovable means stationary.

...But it doesn't mean flat. It seems you aren't reading my sentences with much clarity, either.

PrinceAli wrote:There is no solid evidence to the contrary yet, you are right about that. But it is the good sense part that leaves me baffled. Is it good sense for Noah to be able to live 950 years after having to endure a "global flood" and then having to walk everywhere after? It is weird that after the flood, in the Bible people lived much shorter than they did before. It suddenly went from like 950 to 205 to like 70 or something.

Well, Noah didn't really have to endure the flood, just ride atop it. There was less disease, less harmful elements in the world (which was practically new at the time) at the time. It makes sense to me. But making sense to me isn't the focus, of course. And yes, in Genesis (and again somewhere else later down the line), God lowered the age of man, which lines up with the suddent drops in life span that you mentioned.

PrinceAli wrote:In Psalm 90, that is a prayer by Moses, a man. And in Peter, if a day was a thousand years...7 days would be.....7000 years like I said! But if a thousand years are like a day then.....that would be an extremely short amount of time, I don't feel like calculating it...

I wasn't disputing that 7 x 1000 = 7000. The entire Bible was guided and inspired by God, it is His word, including Psalm 90.

Loomis wrote:

Poco wrote:poco wrote:
Now the quoting of biblical texts to make a point..... (although I did earlier!)!

Be careful

Well, in this context of THIS debate it would seem to be justified by the insistence of at least one participant that the bible should be taken literally. I assume all of god's words are equally important, and not just some (in context).

But I take your point.

Actually, I think Poco makes a very good point. As with many things, the Bible can be selectively quoted to 'prove' just about anything. To truly be read literally, it must be within its context. In many cases, verses require the entire Bible itself for proper context. Unfortunately, message boards aren't really condusive to quoting massive chunks or entire books, so it's a difficult problem to avoid in discussing the Bible.

PrinceAli wrote:I wouldn't think that the Bible should be taken literally even if it is "God's Word". Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?

Yes, but Jesus is quite clear about when He is using a parable. So, read literally, it is very clear. If it were written in BBCode, it might be something like:

Jesus wrote: [parable]....[/parable]

Make sense?

-Aaron

-Aaron

PrinceAli wrote:I wouldn't think that the Bible should be taken literally even if it is "God's Word". Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?

Nor do I, but the argument here started - if we can remember that far back - over whether or not one can read the bible literally, given there are so many denominations with their own interpretation. As I have tried to show, the bible could be more a series of metaphors rather than the actual literal word that must be obeyed.

You seem to make a habit of not reading my previous posts, and then quoting a later post to repeat something I had already said. Context! Context! We keep seeming to be at odds, despite the fact you appear to agree with a few things I've said(and then repeat later). Who's side are you on anyways?

awallaceunc wrote:Actually, I think Poco makes a very good point. As with many things, the Bible can be selectively quoted to 'prove' just about anything. To truly be read literally, it must be within its context. In many cases, verses require the entire Bible itself for proper context. Unfortunately, message boards aren't really condusive to quoting massive chunks or entire books, so it's a difficult problem to avoid in discussing the Bible.

Which brings me to my original query: how can you read something literally, and in context, when there are so many conflicting books and statements within the bible. In 66 books, transcribed over the years by so many people, the English meaning is going to be different - whether you like it or not - from the original. Movie titles today take on different meanings when translated into other languages, so is it so hard to believe that after 2000 years of translations, some of that meaning has been lost?

So does this mean some bits of the bible are right, but the books that tell a conflicting story or verse aren't right? So it is all the work of god, but he/she is sometimes wrong? Surely not!!!

awallaceunc wrote:Well it should come as no surprise that I don't believe in the big bang. As for your confusion, though, Genesis says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light...'" The heavens and earth were around for an unknown period of time, and then the 7 days began when God said "Let there be light."

Yea, no surprise at all. You can't really believe in both, lol...unless you're bible is screwed up. You didn't really need to quote Gensis 1, I have it right here. But I guess I didn't see the spacing between the first 2 lines and lumped them in with day 1.

awallaceunc wrote:There's no reason to believe that life just stopped on the ark. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if reproduction occurred, and if these insects with remarkably short life spans survived, then it seems they would have had to. You keep going back to 'how could Noah have done this' reasoning. As I've said before, God brought these animals, in their appropriate numbers and pairings, to Noah.

First off, like I said earlier, insects can't reproduce in pairs. A whole pack is needed to survive. Second, it has come to me realization that insects wouldn't be on the ark anyway, because of what the Bible says. I'm actually kind of surprised you didn't catch that. Since they can't breathe through nostrils or whatever. That still does not explain why insects live today, since the flood would have killed them all, as said by the Bible. They would not HAVE to survive a global flood if the flood was not global. Right now that makes more sense than a global flood. And where in the Bible does it say God brought these animals, in their appropriate numbers and pairings, to Noah? On the contrary, God commands Noah (a man) to find all the food and gather the animals all around the world.

awallaceunc wrote:It's quite possible that those elsewhere on the earth spoke different languages than those at the Tower. The languages were given to them there to obstruct the unity, so to speak.

To be truthful, I don't know much about the Tower of Babel either. But I will keep an open mind and consider your "version" if you will, of the story, for now.

awallaceunc wrote:Well if it could survive, then it did, and if it couldn't survive, then I imagine it wasn't there when the flood receded.

That is blind faith. Sometimes I think you are just trying to defend the Bible even if something else makes more sense, just for pity's sake. Plants and vegetation could not have survived a flood that massive. You say you imagine it wasn't there when the flood receded, so what do you think the animals ate once they got back on land? And what would carnivores eat while waiting for their prey to have offspring?

awallaceunc wrote:Adding accusations of fabrication to your list now, eh? Exactly which miracles do you think I made up? I'll be happy to show you that I didn't.

Like I just said a few quotes above, you say that God provided all the food and got the animals to the ark. According to the Bible, that didn't happen. I am sure there are others (or will be others) that you made up.

awallaceunc wrote:Ok, I thought you were asking for the Biblical reference, but I see now that I misread what you typed in asking for that. I explained earlier the Hebrew root for the words believed to be dinosaurs, no point in re-typing it.

Actually I think the Hebrew words were believed to be elephant or hippopotamus like I said earlier.

awallaceunc wrote:Please note that in posting it, I in no way endorse what it's saying

Good. I'm glad you don't endorse what things say without reading them.

awallaceunc wrote:That is simply false. Ever heard of Gilgamesh? (As just one example off the top of my head).

LOL That's your evidence? Ok, first off, I hope you know what Gilgamesh wrote about his flood doesn't match up with the Genesis accounts. Second, Gilgamesh wrote on several tablets...not just about a flood (of his own account). He wrote about polytheism too, do you believe that? I do like reading his stories though. As for indisputable evidence, I think not.

awallaceunc wrote:No, I'm not going to make that distant/ends argument at all. It was a dream, not a geographical survey of the earth. The earth's topography wasn't being laid out in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Come on.

Alright, but didn't Daniel's interpretation mean anything?

awallaceunc wrote:...But it doesn't mean flat. It seems you aren't reading my sentences with much clarity, either.

Again, another mis-read post of mine. I said much earlier that you should believe the world is flat AND stationary. The first 2 obviously applied to the flatness, and the second 2 obviously applied to the Earth being stationary, or cannot be moved.

awallaceunc wrote:Well, Noah didn't really have to endure the flood, just ride atop it. There was less disease, less harmful elements in the world (which was practically new at the time) at the time. It makes sense to me. But making sense to me isn't the focus, of course. And yes, in Genesis (and again somewhere else later down the line), God lowered the age of man, which lines up with the suddent drops in life span that you mentioned.

Heh, I think it was a bit more than just a ride for ole' Noah. With an ark that size, and in a flood that massive, he not only had to constantly pump out all the leaks...but then also care for all the animals. There may have been less disease then, but why couldn't got get rid of disease too? He let disease survive, and disease is evil I think. And don't try to say that God gave disease free will of its own too.

So God just decided to lower the life of man? And why?

awallaceunc wrote:I wasn't disputing that 7 x 1000 = 7000. The entire Bible was guided and inspired by God, it is His word, including Psalm 90.

Exactly. 7 x 1000 = 7000! Seven days....7000 years!

Loomis wrote:You seem to make a habit of not reading my previous posts, and then quoting a later post to repeat something I had already said. Context! Context!

Wow, I really was unaware this time that we had already covered parables. I'll make sure to read your posts now with "extra" care.

Loomis wrote:We keep seeming to be at odds, despite the fact you appear to agree with a few things I've said(and then repeat later). Who's side are you on anyways?

LOL, I really am not sure whose side I am on. Or is there a 3rd side? I don't know enough about your beliefs to take your "side", though I definately agree on many of your points.
But I don't really think about whose side people are on, there is rarely an occurence where someone will agree with someone else on every single thing. I think I even agreed with Aaron in another thread about something. Go figure.

i don't read the bible and i don't really have a religion.. well at least i think i don't hehe... but i do belive in god and alot of other things but i guss im juss more used to what the okinawans do

Okay, this discussion is going off of the deep end. First of all, let's take a look at what Scripture says for all of the "theistic evolutionists" and "old earth creationists":

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Okay, I think this is pretty clear. Most people who 'believe' the Bible usually do not disagree with this statement.

2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Okay, so now we have: 1.) God, 2.) the heavens, 3.) the earth - formless and empty, 4.) the Spirit of God, 5.) the waters of the earth.

Hmm. No mention of time. Yet.

3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

Aha. We have our first day.

You know, I could quote the rest of it, but I think you can all find it here.

My reading of the text says that this happened all in one day. I think this is because v. 5 says "the first day," so that means that there were no days before this. So God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning." Then he creates the light, and seperates it from the darkness. Call me crazy, but I don't think the earth existed before "the first day." I think that all that existed before "the first day" was God, and this is because God is outside of time. I also don't think that each day happened over millions / billions of years. This would conflict the biblical timeline -- if creatures are dying and there is violence among them, but they all came before The Fall of Adam and Eve (and there was no violence or death, or eating other animals before then, according to the Bible). I think this logically shows that you cannot believe the creation account and then say that it doesn't contradict so-called "science" the next. I'll be told that I'm crazy for believing in a thousands of years old "myth," and I'll tell you that they're crazy for having such a wild imagination and deep, deep faith in their carbon dating and unproven theories.


Okay, now you guys can go back to yelling at each other; I'm done.

Loomis wrote:Nor do I, but the argument here started - if we can remember that far back

Yes, that's become another sore spot, so to speak, in this thread... going back page after page after page... after page, etc. That and the constant repetition of points and the increasingly negative tone (though not too negative just yet leaves me weary. 13 pages ago, I enjoyed this, and now I groan with every new post. Therefore, I've decided that once this thread hits page 15 (hey, that's a good round number), I'm respectfully bowing out. It just takes too much time, and that time is being wasted with repetition now. I feel that after nearly 14 pages now, I've said what I have to say- and is if that wasn't good enough- have said it a few more times! Just a little announcement. We're only on Page 13 now, though (this might rap around to 14, I don't know), so I have one more page to go. In that page, I am only going to offer new thought- if there is any left- and try my hardest to avoid repetition, as it is becoming tiring.

Loomis wrote:You seem to make a habit of not reading my previous posts, and then quoting a later post to repeat something I had already said. Context! Context!

Yes, this, too, has become problematic.

PrinceAli wrote: And where in the Bible does it say God brought these animals, in their appropriate numbers and pairings, to Noah? On the contrary, God commands Noah (a man) to find all the food and gather the animals all around the world.

God told Noah which animals needed which numbers (2/7). Genesis tells us that the animals came to Noah. God's miracles are not beyond belief for me, so it is of course not difficult to believe that God was able to provide this.

PrinceAli wrote:That is blind faith. Sometimes I think you are just trying to defend the Bible even if something else makes more sense, just for pity's sake.

Nothing about my faith is blind. We've discussed this, but you keep saying it. It doesn't blind me, it doesn't render me ignorant. I don't believe it simply because I was told to, or never thought about it. I don't pity the Bible or God whatsoever. As I've said before, I don't subject the Bible to what man perceives as sense- we are to lean not to our own understanding. However, even if I were to, I think the Bible makes perfect sense.

PrinceAli wrote:

awallaceunc wrote:Adding accusations of fabrication to your list now, eh? Exactly which miracles do you think I made up? I'll be happy to show you that I didn't.

Like I just said a few quotes above, you say that God provided all the food and got the animals to the ark. According to the Bible, that didn't happen. I am sure there are others (or will be others) that you made up.

After going back to page 8, I found exactly what I said:

I wrote:That's all scientific stuff, which is interesting, but I don't really need it. It is simply enough to say that God provided. The Bible says that the animals came to Noah. God brought them to him, and God told Noah what food to bring in Genesis. He provided. God is bigger than a boat on the water.

Both those claims can be found in the story of Noah, which takes place predominately in Genesis 6 and 7.

PrinceAli wrote:Actually I think the Hebrew words were believed to be elephant or hippopotamus like I said earlier.

Yeah, we all said it earlier. If you'd like to see the two or three things I've posted on that, scroll up.

PrinceAli wrote:LOL That's your evidence? Ok, first off, I hope you know what Gilgamesh wrote about his flood doesn't match up with the Genesis accounts. Second, Gilgamesh wrote on several tablets...not just about a flood (of his own account). He wrote about polytheism too, do you believe that? I do like reading his stories though. As for indisputable evidence, I think not.

It's not my evidence in the sense that I don't consult Gilgamesh for truth. You stated that there no other references to the flood outside the Bible, and challenged me to cite it. Gilgamesh is one such example. Gilgamesh's story is not the basis of my faith, of course, so I don't look to it for truth or follow what he believed.

PrinceAli wrote:

awallaceunc wrote:No, I'm not going to make that distant/ends argument at all. It was a dream, not a geographical survey of the earth. The earth's topography wasn't being laid out in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Come on.

Alright, but didn't Daniel's interpretation mean anything?

Yes, it meant a great deal (especially if you're Nebuchadnezzar ). It just doesn't say that the world is flat.

PrinceAli wrote:

awallaceunc wrote:...But it doesn't mean flat. It seems you aren't reading my sentences with much clarity, either.

Again, another mis-read post of mine. I said much earlier that you should believe the world is flat AND stationary. The first 2 obviously applied to the flatness, and the second 2 obviously applied to the Earth being stationary, or cannot be moved.

Yes, and the flatness is what I am disputing. The first 2 in no way apply to flatness, but we've already been through that. If anyone cares to reference, again, scroll up.

PrinceAli wrote:He let disease survive, and disease is evil I think. And don't try to say that God gave disease free will of its own too.

Well, in a sense, yes. Satan is given free will, and it is from him that disease comes. Humanity was immune from disease and even death until the temptation and fall in Genesis.

PrinceAli wrote:So God just decided to lower the life of man? And why?

Just before the flood, mankind had reached the epitome of wickedness. God said that His spirit would not contend with man forever, for they are mortal. He therefore lowered the life span. I can't remember when the second reduction was or why, but it seems like it was somewhere along those lines. Perhaps someone here knows?

Also, another link that I've only skimmed through and therefore don't endorse, but many here may find to be an interesting read related to the original lengthy life-span: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/longpatr.html

PrinceAli wrote:I think I even agreed with Aaron in another thread about something. Go figure.

Yes! Wonders never cease!

-Aaron

awallaceunc wrote:I feel that after nearly 14 pages now, I've said what I have to say- and is if that wasn't good enough- have said it a few more times!

Yeah, I think I've made my point by this stage too, and while I won't say that I'm going to cut myself off after a certain point, unless a major bone of contention pops up (or I'm just in an argumentative mood), I don't think there is much else I can contribute.

It has been as fun as it was long.

Loomis wrote:

awallaceunc wrote:I feel that after nearly 14 pages now, I've said what I have to say- and is if that wasn't good enough- have said it a few more times!

Yeah, I think I've made my point by this stage too, and while I won't say that I'm going to cut myself off after a certain point, unless a major bone of contention pops up (or I'm just in an argumentative mood), I don't think there is much else I can contribute.

It has been as fun as it was long.

Let's talk about leprocy Loomis

Ok for the next nominations we have on this site for Site Awards.

I nominate this thread personally as Most Good and the Most Bad Thread ever.

Thanks

I read the bible!
Unfortunately, It's practically become a textbook for me...
Since I attend Johnson Bible College in Knoxville, TN
I study the bible, and actually have to complete an undergraduate degree in Biblical Studies in addition to my Music Theory courses.
I'm triple majoring in Music, Bible, and Media Communications.
I wish sometimes that I had time to read it to relax, or to get something out of it, instead of to complete assignments.
But, that's more of a personal time issue...
I plan on re-opening that old book of my own free will
soon.
I really miss reading it!