Problems with the Bible

So then you admit that a supercontinent like Pangea once existed. Thank you. That would mean that the waters would be gathered in one place in a far more symplistic way of understanding because all the land was gathered in one place as well.

 

All the water is gathered in one place today. Do we have Pangea now?

 

No it isn't. The water is dispursed into several oceans between the continents. Apparently you don't know what one place means.

 

"Several Oceans" is a semantic issue. We could just call it "the Ocean" and it would be just as true. All of the Oceans are connected and there are no barriers seperating them or differentiating physically.

They are in one place.

 

hahahaaa...

Yeah.
They are so smug that they pretend to be bothb the district attorney and then the Jury which decides who is correct.

What we can discern from the beginning of the thread is at first a superior attitude emphasizing a "I gotcha on this one" claim then a defensive naysaying when they get the rebuttal which never occurred to them.

We see the pretense of maintaining what is clearly poor reading comprehension in come backs like, "the oceans are together since one is connected to the other."
This ignores the text which says "gather TOGETHER in ONE place."

That is exactly the definition of a Panthalassic Ocean.


But how about the amazing list in the Genesis genealogy that clearly parallels our most recent understanding of the 22 links in the ascent of Modern Homo sapiens, and the fact that Noah, the last among the only survivng humans in the lot of 22 had three racial stocks that flood the whole world????/





Book:
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

Amazingly, under secular observation, the waters are not gathered in one place. Did someone forget about the clouds that drift overhead? Those clouds are composed of water, yet are not a direct part of any ocean... unless you are referring to an ocean of clouds.

 

So you don't see how futile your argument is. You agree that there was a super continent that broke apart, which would indicate that the waters were gathered in one place, everywhere that Pangea wasn't. Then you say that the waters gathering together are not an idicator that Pangea existed. Then you say that the waters are just as gathered together today as they were back then. So what is your argument anyway? It seems to be you're just chasing your tail.

 

We are not talking about eye witnesses having varying accounts of the same instance on a city street. What we have is a book that claims to be true, factual, and infalible. Perhaps I need to dumb this down that you better understand the point and demonstrate just a little intellectual honesty.

How can an infallible book contradict itself? Answer the question.

Which account is true? Answer the question.


Simply address the questions, there is no reason (other than intellectual bankrupcy) to play silly little word games. Either the Bible is infallible or it is not. The philosophical landmine you habitually avoid is addressing the infallibility in self-contridiction.

 

Right.

The waters are gathered in one place now.

Its called earth.

 

Actually the silly game is yours and I'm not playing anymore. Demanding "answer the question" only shuts down discussion. I did answer the question and if you're not satisfied with the answer, that's your problem, not mine. I'm guessing all your discussions end up like this, discintigrating into nothing and stopping when nobody wants to play your head games anymore. Don't bother responding. This discussion is over and there won't be any more responses from me.

 

An infallible anything cannot contradict itself. Also, you have not shown where the 'book' (the Bible) contradicts 'itself'. The Bible did not write itself and therefore, the Bible cannot contradict itself.

Both are true. As seen by the two differing authors.

Key phrase is "self-contradiction".

 

^
Intellectual bankruptcy at its finest.

 

The two cannot be true.

They are in contradiction.

 

Why?

Just like my views about the Bible are in contradiction with your views about the Bible. So what? We are differing people with differing views of the same subject matter. Now what? Is your view of the Bible 'true' or is my view of the Bible 'true'?

 

haaaahhaaaaa....

1) Its pretty funny to see you guys who start by condemning the scriptures for opposing science and then scramble when the Bible can easily be seen as supporting the science.

You now quibble about the possible re-interpretation of the semantics to MAKE sure that the Genesis can NOT be read the way in which it would be OK.
That is very different from the premise of the OP, that the Bible has problems.
The problem seems to be that some people just won't let the scriptures make sense.

 

You are still wrong. A distant planet is suspected by scientists to have 'ice' on that planet. Ice is formed by the freezing of water. So, in the secular sense, you are wrong again.... the waters are not gathered in one place. http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2000/vla20/background/mercuryice/ Science at its finest. Showing that water and ice is not gathered in one place (namely earth)...So, does this disprove the Genesis story? No. Because it is not talking about earth as a foreign source of ice or water.

 

What is this, kindergarden or a school yard shouting match???

The OP says there is a problem with the Bible and then the critic who started this thread tries to sell us that the real problem is that we are making scientific sense by comparing the verse by verse statements with facts that seem at least compatible with what Genesis says.

The thread has now gone from the problem with Genesis to the problem with how one understands what Genesis says.

These critics have been reduced to debating what Genesis says rather than arguing that Genesis is problem.

How about the "flood" which took place for 40 duratiions of time called "days."
Could the Hebrew word for "day" mean thousands of years if it applied to the "Out-of-Africa" explosion of Modern man, the only survivor of what was the total extinction of Neanderthal Man at that exact time???




Yowm = day in Hebrew:




Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews (respected Paleontologists), propose that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago (Gen 5:31), only in Africa, and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neandertals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.

If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry.
All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.
From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.

 

More likely you just are too dense to get my argument.

Saying Pangea is proof of the Bible being correct about the water being gathered together is completely idiotic. The waters are gathered together today. Do we have Pangea today?

 

Neanderthal wasn't extinct until way after the African migrations, bro. And they aint the only species around even 30,000 years ago.

Cro Magnum Man, and the Hobbits, and a few others. There were other human species around less than 15,000 years ago.


So, no, it the Hebrew word for day aint talking about that.

You wanna get the bible to match up with science, you gotta know the science first, bub.

 

Besides that, the bible says "waters gathered together FIRST and THEN the first dry land appeared."

That aint what they're trying to peice together about Pangea, saying that the waters come tagether cause all the existing land converged.


It just aint getting the science wrong, it's getting the bible wrong, too.


Waters came together BEFORE land even appeared in the bible aint even close to the same thing as lots of land coming together into one supercontinent, putting the water in one place.


And Pangea aint even the FIRST supercontinent, so the whole idea is completely uninformed.

This Pangea idea is just idiotic.

 

Yes, it is lost on many a christian. I've seen questions asked about scripture and go unanswered. There are some christian religions that believe the bible is literal. It is why they separated from the RC church.

 

True.

The story of Noah says that the flood lasted 40,000 years DURING which time all those other men went extinct.

This implies that the names and visions of all the animals were actually mental constructs in the only human to survive, us:

 

The Earth hasn't been flooded any time that man has existed, so will you admit that is proof against the Bible being scientifically accurate?

 

LOL!!!

What "bible" you reading from, son?

40 days aint equal to 40,000 years.

 

Why is a book, written as man's guide to salvation, so hard for man to understand.
Ask 100 people about the bible and you will get 100 different answers.
Is salvation really that difficult to achieve?
Or is there really no salvation?