The Religion Discussion

[bigga514]

"He moveth his tail like a cedar". (Job 40:17).

What does a cedar tree look like.

What does a cedar tree move like, bluefete?

A hippo's tail? Really?

I doh know...ask the person who wrote this:

"He moveth his tail like a cedar". (Job 40:17).


Moving like something doesn't mean looking like something.

Good point - For a change.

The fact that you flip flop soo much and avoid answering questions by asking other questions with out being able to answer what was previously asked just soo many examples in the last few pages.

i have to ask myself am i trying to reason with a unreasonable juvenile?
things like this make me wonder if you are a child. Plus t

[bluefete]

bluefete, did you intentionally leave out part of the description of the behemoth?

21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

A dinosaur that the willows of a brook can cover? It's a hippopotamus or an elephant, bluefete. The largest animals people would have been exposed to in those regions.

Now that was a description of the sea-based dinosaur.

What dinosaur breathed fire, bluefete?



You're wrong again.

You are presupposing on God's behalf.

Is it so difficult to believe that God could have created a fire-breathing dino that inhabited the sea? Have we discovered all the wonders of inner space (the sea) as yet?

[bluefete]

"He moveth his tail like a cedar". (Job 40:17).

What does a cedar tree look like.

What does a cedar tree move like, bluefete?

A hippo's tail? Really?

I doh know...ask the person who wrote this:

"He moveth his tail like a cedar". (Job 40:17).


Moving like something doesn't mean looking like something.

Good point - For a change.

The fact that you flip flop soo much and avoid answering questions by asking other questions with out being able to answer what was previously asked just soo many examples in the last few pages.

i have to ask myself am i trying to reason with a unreasonable juvenile?
things like this make me wonder if you are a child. Plus t

Unreasonable juvenile, you say. Okay. I could live with that.

Am I the one avoiding answering questions or is it that the Logicalists have realized that God's thoughts are not our thoughts?

They simply ignore the proof presented while I at least try to put things in context.

[nismotrinidappa]

http://www.s8int.com/noahsark1.html

look a good read

[bigga514]

... and funny.

"make it fit! make it fit!"

blue boy so we had super astronauts in those times huh by your own admittance AGAIN if light cant escape a blackhole who could get close to one
to toss a body(not to mention the earth would have perished) besides was it no a parable being told that you quoted?

your trying too hard flip floping too much. im not going to continue to pay you much more attention.

Okay. But we did not have super astronauts.

" ... he hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7)

When Job wrote those words thousands of years ago, do you think he really understood the scientific implications of that sentence?

Again, the first PROOF that the earth was suspended in space was not provided until a picture was taken in the 1960's.

Is this not what you rationalists want? PROOF. But when God gives it to you, you conveniently forget that the Bible mentioned it first and give all praise to the scientists.

Who discovered the Laws of Gravity? Issac Newton in the 1600's. But the Book of Job mentioned gravity thousands of years before Newton's birth.

You go figure.

EG #1

[Humes]

bluefete, did you intentionally leave out part of the description of the behemoth?

21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

A dinosaur that the willows of a brook can cover? It's a hippopotamus or an elephant, bluefete. The largest animals people would have been exposed to in those regions.

Now that was a description of the sea-based dinosaur.

What dinosaur breathed fire, bluefete?



You're wrong again.

You are presupposing on God's behalf.

Is it so difficult to believe that God could have created a fire-breathing dino that inhabited the sea? Have we discovered all the wonders of inner space (the sea) as yet?

Why yuh doh respond to the first part of the post too?



The passage describes a fire-breathing beast. Instead of claiming it's a dinosaur, why not admit it could be the same sort of supernatural beast mentioned in Daniel or Revelation?

Why claim it's a dinosaur when it obviously isn't one?

[bigga514]

... and funny.

"make it fit! make it fit!"

blue boy so we had super astronauts in those times huh by your own admittance AGAIN if light cant escape a blackhole who could get close to one
to toss a body(not to mention the earth would have perished) besides was it no a parable being told that you quoted?

your trying too hard flip floping too much. im not going to continue to pay you much more attention.

Okay. But we did not have super astronauts.

" ... he hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7)

When Job wrote those words thousands of years ago, do you think he really understood the scientific implications of that sentence?

Again, the first PROOF that the earth was suspended in space was not provided until a picture was taken in the 1960's.

Is this not what you rationalists want? PROOF. But when God gives it to you, you conveniently forget that the Bible mentioned it first and give all praise to the scientists.

Who discovered the Laws of Gravity? Issac Newton in the 1600's. But the Book of Job mentioned gravity thousands of years before Newton's birth.

You go figure.

so where in the bible did it talk about blackholes???

EG#2

[bluefete]

[quote="nismotrinidappa"]http://www.s8int.com/noahsark1.html

look a good read [/quote

This is quite good as well:

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm

[Humes]

Am I the one avoiding answering questions or is it that the Logicalists have realized that God's thoughts are not our thoughts?

They simply ignore the proof presented while I at least try to put things in context.

You're the one avoiding answering questions.

None of the people who disagree with you have ignored anything you've written. Every single point you've made in this thread has been responded to, and virtually all of them have been soundly, sometimes repeatedly, debunked and refuted.

You're the only person who's ignoring evidence.

[bigga514]

[quote="Humes"][quote="bluefete"]" ... he hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7)

But bluefete, the Earth is not hanging upon nothing. There are vastly powerful gravitational forces at play.

Where does the Book of Job mention gravity? He says nothing. Not gravity.

Humes, my friend: You are grasping at straws now.




Any questions?

you do know the earth is held in place by the gravitational pull of the sun right, jus like how the moon is to the earth ?? did you skip school altogether and jus went bible class?[/quote]

And when exactly did we "brightsparks" discover this?[/quote]
EG#3

[bluefete]

bluefete, did you intentionally leave out part of the description of the behemoth?

21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

A dinosaur that the willows of a brook can cover? It's a hippopotamus or an elephant, bluefete. The largest animals people would have been exposed to in those regions.

Now that was a description of the sea-based dinosaur.

What dinosaur breathed fire, bluefete?



You're wrong again.

You are presupposing on God's behalf.

Is it so difficult to believe that God could have created a fire-breathing dino that inhabited the sea? Have we discovered all the wonders of inner space (the sea) as yet?

Why yuh doh respond to the first part of the post too?



The passage describes a fire-breathing beast. Instead of claiming it's a dinosaur, why not admit it could be the same sort of supernatural beast mentioned in Daniel or Revelation?

Why claim it's a dinosaur when it obviously isn't one?

I already mentioned that I did not leave out anything deliberately. I do not think it would not have added.

Because God is not talking about a supernatural beast.

[bigga514]

so blue 3 examples in the last page alone care to answer any of them????

[bluefete]

Am I the one avoiding answering questions or is it that the Logicalists have realized that God's thoughts are not our thoughts?

They simply ignore the proof presented while I at least try to put things in context.

You're the one avoiding answering questions.

None of the people who disagree with you have ignored anything you've written. Every single point you've made in this thread has been responded to, and virtually all of them have been soundly, sometimes repeatedly, debunked and refuted.

You're the only person who's ignoring evidence.

You have chosen to ignore God's evidence and depended on Natural world evidence by omitting God.

Revelation 9

1And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

2And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

3And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

4And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

5And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

6And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

7And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

8And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

9And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

10And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

11And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

12One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.





Look closely just under the wing.


Look closely at the very end of the plane.



So if you were John on the island of Patmos way back when, how would you describe these?[

[Gladiator]

bluefete,

Again, the first PROOF that the earth was suspended in space was not provided until a picture was taken in the 1960's.

Is this not what you rationalists want? PROOF. But when God gives it to you, you conveniently forget that the Bible mentioned it first and give all praise to the scientists.

Who discovered the Laws of Gravity? Issac Newton in the 1600's. But the Book of Job mentioned gravity thousands of years before Newton's birth.

You go figure.

Wrong Again man......

If you want to argue religion at least know something about other religions and science rather than one track westernised christian teachings only

The indian scientists knew about gravity, the forces produced by gravity, that the earth was round, the circumference of the earth, the distance from the moon to the earth, the distance fromt he earth to the sun, that the sun was the centre of the galaxy.... and many other scientifically proven facts.... all this was known more than two thousand years before western scientists and were written in sanskrit thousands of years before the bible was written and even before the bible claimed life was created....

[bluefete]

so blue 3 examples in the last page alone care to answer any of them????

Already did. The Bible gave an overall description of what God did and it took us thousands of years to come up with a scientific explanation.

[bluefete]

bluefete,

Again, the first PROOF that the earth was suspended in space was not provided until a picture was taken in the 1960's.

Is this not what you rationalists want? PROOF. But when God gives it to you, you conveniently forget that the Bible mentioned it first and give all praise to the scientists.

Who discovered the Laws of Gravity? Issac Newton in the 1600's. But the Book of Job mentioned gravity thousands of years before Newton's birth.

You go figure.

Wrong Again man......

If you want to argue religion at least know something about other religions and science rather than one track westernised christian teachings only

The indian scientists knew about gravity, the forces produced by gravity, that the earth was round, the circumference of the earth, the distance from the moon to the earth, the distance fromt he earth to the sun, that the sun was the centre of the galaxy.... and many other scientifically proven facts.... all this was known more than two thousand years before western scientists and were written in sanskrit thousands of years before the bible was written and even before the bible claimed life was created....

Does not disprove. There is only one God.

I have already stated that we do not give ancient civilizations enough credit for their discoveries and inventions some of which we cannot comprehend up to today.

[Humes]

Because God is not talking about a supernatural beast.

And you know that, how? The entire chapter describes the beast, states that he has garments, and that he turns sorrow to joy. You forgot to add those points too?

Also, you did not think that the fact that a dinosaur, a behemoth, could submerge itself in a brook would add to the discussion? Or did you think it would not add to your point?

Or did you just copy and paste it from some site where someone else was being dishonest?

[bluefete]

Because God is not talking about a supernatural beast.

And you know that, how? The entire chapter describes the beast, states that he has garments, and that he turns sorrow to joy. You forgot to add those points too?

Also, you did not think that the fact that a dinosaur, a behemoth, could submerge itself in a brook would add to the discussion? Or did you think it would not add to your point?

Or did you just copy and paste it from some site where someone else was being dishonest?

No copy and paste here.

Why is it so hard to believe that a dinosaur could submerge itself in a brook? There were all kinds of creatures in that part of the world at that time which are no longer around today.

God is describing the most powerful of his land and sea-based creatures.

You say that man & dinosaurs cannot exist together. God says differently.

Remember evolution's time line is millions of years and God's time line is thousands of years.

[Humes]

So if you were John on the island of Patmos way back when, how would you describe these?

If John of Patmos saw images of women on the planes, why did he only mention the hair?

Why did he call them locusts instead of birds?

Which planes have stings in their tales, and which of them "hurt men for five months" as opposed to killing them outright?

Why are you only showing pictures of old WW2 planes when modern jet fighters look different?

[bigga514]

so blue 3 examples in the last page alone care to answer any of them????

Already did. The Bible gave an overall description of what God did and it took us thousands of years to come up with a scientific explanation.

where?

[bluefete]

So if you were John on the island of Patmos way back when, how would you describe these?

If John of Patmos saw images of women on the planes, why did he only mention the hair?

Why did he call them locusts instead of birds?

Which planes have stings in their tales, and which of them "hurt men for five months" as opposed to killing them outright?

Why are you only showing pictures of old WW2 planes when modern jet fighters look different?

John was shown future events at a moment in time. Try and understand that he could only use the language of the time. The words he was familiar with.

No one who saw Star Trek in the 1960's would have predicted the rise of the cell phone from the crew's use of the communicator. If you were describing the communicator that the crew used in the 1960's, you would have had to use the terminology of the time. The word cell phone did not exist as yet. So it is with the writers of the Bible.

[bluefete]

so blue 3 examples in the last page alone care to answer any of them????

Already did. The Bible gave an overall description of what God did and it took us thousands of years to come up with a scientific explanation.

where?

"Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?" (Job 38:33,35)

There.

[slimshiney]

18 days

Approaching 10,000 views....

It's time to just

[Humes]

Why is it so hard to believe that a dinosaur could submerge itself in a brook? There were all kinds of creatures in that part of the world at that time which are no longer around today.

God is describing the most powerful of his land and sea-based creatures.

bluefete, a dinosaur called a behemoth would be huge. That's what you were implying when you were pushing the idea of its tail being as massive as a cedar. A brook is like a stream, but smaller.

If you're saying now that it was small enough for that, then it makes much more sense that it was an elephant or hippo, both of which fit the descriptions closely. Hippos in particular submerge themselves under reeds in rivers.

You say that man & dinosaurs cannot exist together. God says differently.

Remember evolution's time line is millions of years and God's time line is thousands of years.

Really?

Humes my friend - scientists & God count time differently. It is very possible for things to have happened over billions of years prior to a possible acceleration of events.

So what is it, billions or thousands?

[Humes]

John was shown future events at a moment in time. Try and understand that he could only use the language of the time. The words he was familiar with.

It didn't have a word for "bird" back in those days?

It didn't have language to describe a woman's face or woman's body?

It didn't have words to describe the sort of immediate death and destruction fighter jets cause?

It didn't have words to describe the munitions located under the plane, as opposed to in its tail?

Really?

[bluefete]

18 days

Approaching 10,000 views....

It's time to just

Actually, it is 14 days. Shows how important God is to people - both believer and non-believers.

[bluefete]

John was shown future events at a moment in time. Try and understand that he could only use the language of the time. The words he was familiar with.

It didn't have a word for "bird" back in those days?

It didn't have language to describe a woman's face or woman's body?

It didn't have words to describe the sort of immediate death and destruction fighter jets cause?

It didn't have words to describe the munitions located under the plane, as opposed to in its tail?

Really?

Nope. Come on Humes - just as an example - bullets did not exist back then.

[Humes]

John was shown future events at a moment in time. Try and understand that he could only use the language of the time. The words he was familiar with.

It didn't have a word for "bird" back in those days?

It didn't have language to describe a woman's face or woman's body?

It didn't have words to describe the sort of immediate death and destruction fighter jets cause?

It didn't have words to describe the munitions located under the plane, as opposed to in its tail?

Really?

Nope. Come on Humes - just as an example - bullets did not exist back then.

I asked you four questions. You answered a general "nope" to all of them.

That's terribly dishonest, bluefete. Terribly dishonest.

There was more than enough language to describe all those things. The first three are obvious.

The last, which would have been missiles, not bullets, could have easily been described as spears or bolts of flame.



Real underhanded, boy.

[bluefete]

Why is it so hard to believe that a dinosaur could submerge itself in a brook? There were all kinds of creatures in that part of the world at that time which are no longer around today.

God is describing the most powerful of his land and sea-based creatures.

bluefete, a dinosaur called a behemoth would be huge. That's what you were implying when you were pushing the idea of its tail being as massive as a cedar. A brook is like a stream, but smaller.

If you're saying now that it was small enough for that, then it makes much more sense that it was an elephant or hippo, both of which fit the descriptions closely. Hippos in particular submerge themselves under reeds in rivers.

You say that man & dinosaurs cannot exist together. God says differently.

Remember evolution's time line is millions of years and God's time line is thousands of years.

Really?

Humes my friend - scientists & God count time differently. It is very possible for things to have happened over billions of years prior to a possible acceleration of events.

So what is it, billions or thousands?

When I started my post today, I stated that God said to stop trying to fit his creation within an evolutionary framework.

So to answer your question. Thousands.

The Bible teaches that the universe obeys physical laws - "the ordinances of heaven and earth." (Jeremiah 33:25). The universe is neither haphazard or arbitrary; nature conforms to logical, mathematical relationships set in place by the Lord.

The laws of physics and chemistry are examples of these ordinances of heaven and earth.

The clockwork precision of the planets as they orbit the sun is due to their strict obedience to God's ordinances. The stars and planets are never late nor are they early. They do not fail to appear in their proper place at the proper time (Isaiah 40:26) (Dr. Jason Lisle)

The laws of nature are consistent and logical because the Creator is consistent and logical.

The very reason that science is possible is because the universe consistently obeys simple mathematical formulae.

God created us with an impressive ability to interpret the data around us.

Is this not what science does?

We are therefore able to discover, to some extent, the ordinances of the universe by observation, experimentation and logical reasoning.

But we like to say that we did it all by our little selves.

[bluefete]

John was shown future events at a moment in time. Try and understand that he could only use the language of the time. The words he was familiar with.

It didn't have a word for "bird" back in those days?

It didn't have language to describe a woman's face or woman's body?

It didn't have words to describe the sort of immediate death and destruction fighter jets cause?

It didn't have words to describe the munitions located under the plane, as opposed to in its tail?

Really?

Nope. Come on Humes - just as an example - bullets did not exist back then.

I asked you four questions. You answered a general "nope" to all of them.

That's terribly dishonest, bluefete. Terribly dishonest.

There was more than enough language to describe all those things. The first three are obvious.

The last, which would have been missiles, not bullets, could have easily been described as spears or bolts of flame.

Real underhanded, boy.

Again you are presupposing on behalf of the writer? You do not know his vocabulary at the time.