Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
ABA Trading LTD wrote:MG Man wrote:yup...just like how they took the flood from the Sumerian account and made it into Noah's great flawwd
lets not forget this
I'm guessing this is where faith comes in?Slartibartfast wrote:What evidence do we have that when the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written "after the fact" it was NOT then embellished by the writer to included supernatural explanations for the occurrence?
maj. tom wrote:God doh lie boi.
There are more than one Sumerian flood accounts. Atra-Hasis second tablet contains a total flood of all mankind.MG Man wrote:Lmao hoss the Sumerian flood was an account of a local river that broke its banks. The dude in the story put his family and some goats in a boat and rode it out. All your ppl did was steal and grossly exaggerate the story
It might as well does...but I don't see how does that lend or take away credibility from the Bible.MG Man wrote:And least you not forget, archaeology supports events and places outlined in Hindu scripture...so which do I believe?
MG Man wrote:If that's the case, how do you account for evidence of the lost city of Dwarka, which is a key city mentioned in Hindu scripture, and long though to be fictional, being found just were it was said to be, but now submerged off the Indian coastline? Based on your logic, the Hindu folks were right too, yeah?
Habit7 wrote:I dont think I or anyone else doubted the existence of Dwarka. Hindu scripture was probably right on that fact. But do you see anyone arguing for the Earth being borne by a turtle of elephant in this thread?
Habit7 wrote:???
I am defending biblical archaeology... and at times, correcting yours and ABA's mangling of Sumerian and Egyptian archaeology.
No one is claiming possession of all archaeology/"red paint"
Slartibartfast wrote:Correct. According to you he is all powerful and therefore able to stop evil but he allows it to happen for "means to his end"
Slartibartfast wrote:To break down the question. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah could have some truth to it and could have been recorded. The recorded story could have then been embellished to make it fit in with the rest of the crazy stories in the bible. What evidence do we have that the story written is entirely factual and not just part truths?
Slartibartfast wrote:Nah, I'm not talking about the physical dude (of which we are all created as, even the dudettes and little dudarinos). I'm talking about the internal dude. The dude we must all strive to be to gain that perfect balance of dudeness as The Dude once said
"The dude abides..."
All I want to know is if my reference made a whistling song as it passed over your head. If I knew you wanted to read it I would have used smaller words.bluesclues wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Nah, I'm not talking about the physical dude (of which we are all created as, even the dudettes and little dudarinos). I'm talking about the internal dude. The dude we must all strive to be to gain that perfect balance of dudeness as The Dude once said
"The dude abides..."
startingtobussfart you does sound real confused inno. like today you believe one thing, tomorrow you believe the total opposite and have full justification, till tomorrow again lol
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], matr1x and 87 guests