How fast they now rise is of no real value in a flood year scenario. Now what kind of evidence would it leave, exactly?
for one thing, a HUGE trail of metamorphic rock, warped and stretched and smushed in such a way as to indicate fast movement, lots of pressure, etc. we'd probably also see a lot more fault activity, and breakage. take a geology course, they're fun and educational.
So a ring, or canopy around earth, even if the atmosphere was different, would have been fatal to life here, even if it was very very small, you say?
quite. it'd be no different than if it were glass.
I just looked at it again, and I don'r see anything in black and white saying what you said about the waters coming down was meaning creation was undone, or whatever you said?
genesis 6 would be a good place to start. god regrets his creation, and decides to blot it out.
So dry up with the cut and dry bit will ya
yeah, except that those quotes actually back up my reading. notice the references to 'crystal heaven?' orbs and celestial globes? that would be what i'm talking about. they have a couple different ways of interpretting SPECIFICALLY what's meant, but they're all talking about the same thing -- an great deep above the sky.
They both have evidence, box science simply accepts only box evidence!
faith is not faith if it is not blind.
How many have you heard of lately that had nails put in their hands and feet, were severely beaten, and a spear in their side to boot, as wee?
ever hear of blackbeard the pirate? when he was finally cornered by the british navy, he was shot until they ran out of amunition, stabbed until the crew got tired, and only died when they cut off his head.
how about rasputin? he was poisoned, stabbed in the back, and thrown in an icey river. technically he never died, he's quite well preserved in a block of ice somewhere.
Ha. Never have I heard such a blasphemous, and sickly, ridiculous excuse for an attempted explanation for history's greatest event, and for which we still use BC, and AD a lot, to refer to it!
someone needs to grow some skin. or maybe a sense of humor. but seriously, crucifixion is one of the most slow, painful forms of death available. it causes the victim to slowly sufficate under their own weight, once their legs can no longer bear the torture of standing on a nail. it's an up-and-down process. hang by the arms until you can't breathe, stand on your feet until you can't bear the pain. it usually takes victims well upwards of 10 days to die by this method, but i've heard rumors of some lasting several months. the romans did is a living display of their power against the enemies of rome, and they do it in prominent places along the city wall or by the gate, and leave the body up well after it died, as an example to possible traitors, etc.
and jesus died and was taken down in, what, a day? that's like starving to death in twelve minutes.
God mostly used men as pens.
men don't seem to be very good pens. because otherwise, we'd have one consistent book, without any overlaps or contradictions.
Where in any gospel does it say these were His last words? He still speaks!
you know, before he died for our sins. what did he say?
Now Mark may have mentioned, in his account some things that he remembered, or felt inspired about, where maybe Luke would have not bothered with one particular thing Mark wrote down.
now this may be a suprise to you, but luke wasn't actually there. again, in black and white, in verse 1 of the book. luke states his intentions. he's investigating and compiling the various gospels that are around in his time, well after the death of christ and the establishment of the church (luke wrote acts too, btw). so if we have luke, why do we have other gospels? luke did a pretty good job.
There is something called the harmony of the gospels, in case this is news to you, where they correlate things.
yes, in several places they agree *gasp* word for word. nowadays, we call that "plaigarism." they agree to an extent and precision that leads scholars to think that the synoptic gospels all copied from a source they're calling q. john, however, tends not to agree.
now, you might suggest that q is god. but if god's dictating these... why to four people? and why with bits that DON'T agree? surely GOD could do a better job of this.
Something for every taste!
did you know that there are two completely different versions of jeremiah? they're in different orders, and one's missing a whole lot. the ethiopian church has an extra book. the catholic church has abotu a dozen extra books. my translations probably say different things than yours.
tell me, surely, they can't ALL be the inerrant word of god, if they're not all the same?
'By Him were all things made, and without Him was not anything made that was made'!
quote:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
this is one two things:
1. refering to god, where "him" modifies "god" and not "son."
2. blasphemous. only god [the father] creates all things, not his son. because by logical neccessity, for one to be called "son" he had to be created by "father."
'Before Abraham was, I Am'!
[quite]Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Jhn 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. [/quote]
just for further point of debate. as a CHRISTIAN i ignore the book of john, because jesus speaks blasphemy in it. this verse is a key example, actually.
"I am" is an invocation of this:
quote:
Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
it's more or less the name of god, yahweh, which means "the one that exists" or "he that is" or when god speaks it in this verse in first person, "i am..." when jesus spoke those words, the church elders recognized it as blasphemy, and went to stone him. to say such a thing as a mortal being (whether or not jesus is whole or partly divine) is blasphemy, not to mention breaking of the first commandment or two.
worship of an image of god is also idolatry. and according to that colossians verse above, christ is in the image of god (as we all are).
™ Version 4.2
