Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Dan From Smithville]

Christmas aside, there are problems as I see it, with the validity of the classifications of species. And now I see some may believe that plants and animals did not necessarily stem from one incident by happenstance but perhaps by multitudinous incidents, some becoming plants like trees, and others becoming birds, fishes, gorillas, and perhaps lastly humans, considered I guess as "homo sapiens." So again -- hope you have a good evening.

I'm not really sure what you think qualifies you to have problems with any of this science. I haven't seen anything that indicates you understand it.

That would be the first step in any challenge to science. Understand the science you are challenging. An athlete has to train to approach their challenges. In this area, you have to train your mind by educating yourself on the science that you are uncomfortable with.

People don't just decide they are going to be a world class sprinter or distance runner and then go out and win every race having never before practiced or competed.

Nothing in science is set in stone. Science is not a belief system. It is not followed as a religion. It is not changed arbitrarily based on prevailing belief. If someone has a new or different idea, that person is not disfellowshipped from science. If a compelling argument based on the evidence is put out there to challenge current understanding, views, positions, etc. it will fail or prevail on its merits and might become accepted as the best explanation so far determined. But for well-established areas of science like classification and evolution, the understanding and the evidence is going to have to be tremendous.

There must be a sound reason to challenge these things that is more than "my faith group tells me science is wrong, therefore I reject science".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't need to or want to. Do you speak to mediums, by the way?

Tall, short, big, little, small, medium, large. I talk to anyone. I don't discriminate on size. Can't even really know on here. Ducks though. I don't like ducks.

 

[Firenze]

Anyone taking basic Hebrew learns that elohim has multiple meanings. It can refer to many gods, as in the pantheons of the pagans. It can refer to angels. It can even refer to human judges. And it can certainly refer to the ONE true God. We KNOW for a fact that it can be used as a singular in this manner because the VERB TENSE is third person SINGULAR.

Now, I've given that evidence many times in here. And others have given that evidence many times in here. So it was very foolish of you to assume that evidence has not been provided. We have NOT simply proclaimed it based on our own authority -- your accusation is nonsense, and clearly an ad hominem attack.

Basic Hebrew is given by …. Hebrews. The fact that they now pretend to other meanings of the word is exactly what you would expect of a religion desperate to expunge its centuries of polytheism. The fact remains that prior to the attempted redaction of the OT to hide their past, there are no examples of Elohim meaning anything other than ‘the gods’. The OT itself provides the evidence since the redactors did a poor job of removing the references to the Ugaritic pantheon they worshipped for centuries. Trying to disabuse people of the falsehoods they have been taught is not an attack. The majestic plural exists in other ancient religions, but its application to Judaism is a fairly recent fraud. Sorry.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Basic Hebrew is given by …. Hebrews. The fact that they now pretend to other meanings of the word is exactly what you would expect of a religion desperate to expunge its centuries of polytheism. The fact remains that prior to the attempted redaction of the OT to hide their past, there are no examples of Elohim meaning anything other than ‘the gods’. The OT itself provides the evidence since the redactors did a poor job of removing the references to the Ugaritic pantheon they worshipped for centuries. Trying to disabuse people of the falsehoods they have been taught is not an attack. The majestic plural exists in other ancient religions, but its application to Judaism is a fairly recent fraud. Sorry.

Read the KJB.

 

[metis]

Read the KJB.

Most serious Christian theologians use the RSV.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Read the KJB.

Yikes. Probably the worst translation out there.

 

[Firenze]

Read the KJB.

Why? To see the same errors?

 

[Sargonski]

That was the basis of my discussion. You might have done me the courtesy of following the thread of the discussion to find out what was at the core of it.

People declaring what they believe is the only way is the question here.

If you want to assume things for me and leave it at that I'm fine.

It was you who assumed things for me ?! - a literal interpretation of scripture being required to gain salvation.. something I did not express .. the strawman all yours and not mine.

"Declaration of what they believe is the only way" as you say . is what was being discussed .. and addressed .. according to Scripture relating to Jesus .. and the most important scripture relating to Jesus by many accounts .. the Sermon on the Mount.

What point were you trying to make in relation to these beliefs about salvation .. and what was assumed for you ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was you who assumed things for me ?!

No. You answered my post unsolicited with your confused and incorrect assumptions. I didn't seek you out. I don't think you even have a clue what the topic of the conversation you butted into was about. Clearly not or you wouldn't be trying to assert some sort of futile dominance here.

- a literal interpretation of scripture being required to gain salvation.. something I did not express .. the strawman all yours and not mine.

"Declaration of what they believe is the only way" as you say . is what was being discussed .. and addressed .. according to Scripture relating to Jesus .. and the most important scripture relating to Jesus by many accounts .. the Sermon on the Mount.

What point were you trying to make in relation to these beliefs about salvation .. and what was assumed for you ?

Have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tall, short, big, little, small, medium, large. I talk to anyone. I don't discriminate on size. Can't even really know on here. Ducks though. I don't like ducks.

lol, thanks for letting me know. I live in an area where there are plenty of ducks. I notice they stick their necks out as they walk, back and forth. Kind of strange. But the ducklings are cute. Gotta be careful though when you walk. I won't ask any further questions of you talking to mediums, witches, etc., as if they know something to relate to you. (Bye again for now -- hope you have a good evening.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Yikes. Probably the worst translation out there.

I disagree, it's a pretty good translation for the time.

 

[Soandso]

I disagree, it's a pretty good translation for the time.

For the time? You mean back when people spaketh middle English?

 

[YoursTrue]

For the time? You mean back when people spaketh middle English?

Yes, for sureth.

 

[Soandso]

Yes, for sureth.

Actually it's early modern English despite all the thees and thous. Makes me wonder what the defining point between middle and modern English was? Sorry, unrelated side tangent

 

[Valjean]

Beowulf is Old English
Chaucer is Middle English
Shakespeare is early Modern English.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "I guess" part qualifies your statement and requires no further qualification. But you could probably come up with some evidence that would corroborate that variation in the ability to minimize errors in writing exists with some being better than others.

Probably is probably a mathematical something. Can't call it an equation but it's probably something to do with mathematics. Maybe. I'll wait for the experts to explain. Maybe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually it's early modern English despite all the thees and thous. Makes me wonder what the defining point between middle and modern English was? Sorry, unrelated side tangent

It's a good point you make, but I'm not a linguist in particular although I look up words and translations sometimes. Thanks. I still believe that the King James (old-er) Version is a very good translation but -- I am not really an expert, just a student sometimes.

 

[Sargonski]

No. You answered my post unsolicited with your confused and incorrect assumptions. I didn't seek you out. I don't think you even have a clue what the topic of the conversation you butted into was about. Clearly not or you wouldn't be trying to assert some sort of futile dominance here.

Have a good day.

You can get snarky all you like but, responding to posts - (what you call "butting in") -- is part of the game ?

You then assert that I made "Confused and incorrect assumptions" but provided no support for this claim. To the contrary , it was you who incorrectly asserted that I had argued that a literal interpretation of scripture was required to gain salvation - when I had done no such thing.

When this incorrect assertion and strawman fallacy was pointed out - you accuse me of " asserting some sort of Futile dominance" ..but is this not what you are doing in making false accusations .. putting words in the mouth of the other ?



"

 

[metis]

For the time? You mean back when people spaketh middle English?

Yes, for sureth.

So funnyith!

 

[Soandso]

So funnyith!

Verily