Anti-Semitism In France!

[Wheetsin 714]

Don't pick and choose nonesennce to try to find fault.

I'm sorry, what does that mean? I'm not sure if you tried to type "nonsense" or "non essence" or something different, and don't want to make assumptions.

So you still haven't answered my question. You take the bible literally. The bible says the world is a circle. Do you believe the world is a circle? I didn't ask "Why do the people call it a circle?", as you answered. I asked what you believe. Is the world a sphere, or is the bible to be taken literally?

And you also haven't answered what it is, exactly, that qualifies you to say, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know?

I was told there is not proof of the flood

Now - hang on. You're the first one to say, "That's not what I said !! Show me where I said that !!" So be careful what you indicate others have said. My words were, "I've been unsuccessful in my searches." BIG difference.

Yeah, if you are talking about cows. Rabbits perfrom the same function from the stomach.

No, I'm not talking about cows. I don't think you got my point. I was talking about CUD, which comes from rumen. And it ONLY comes from rumen. Saliva doesn't come from the eye or the ear or the toes, it ONLY comes from the mouth. If you say "saliva", you're talking about something from the mouth. And if you say "tears", you're talking about something from the eyes. And if you say "cud", you're talking about something from the rumen, not from the stomach. So I'll ask again, because this was yet another question you evaded. If you believe the bible is literal, then you believe that rabbits have rumen. And if you don't believe that rabbits have rumen, then you believe the bible is not literal. Which do you believe?

I did not make it an us vs them engagement. I made comments and gave information based upon by beliefs and my knowledge that came fro many years of intense study and learning.

I'm confused. It took you many years of intense study and learning to form the belief that I'm trying to prove you wrong??

Context means everything!

Yes, I agree. And context makes meaning subjective. It can completely change the meaning. How can something be literal when it depends on context?

Your analogy of law doesn't equate. Laws were written literally, but they cannot be literal in today's world was the gist of what you said, if I remember correctly. So by your analogy the bible was literal once upon a time, but it cannot be literal in today's world. Would that be the parallel?

[BJean 16]

No Ron, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel compelled from time to time (like so many others) to register my disgust.

Why in the world would I want to exchange private messages with you?

[BJean 16]

Wheet: Bravo. Well done.

laurend: Bravo for keeping your cool and just chipping away.

[Ron Cusano 0]

My purpose in posting those sites was not in an attempt to prove the flood, althought I believe there is a lot of good evidence toward that end. Wheetin said there was NO EVIDENCE to support the flood. I was pointing out there is. Weather you believe it or not is something else. There is a lot of argument on both sides of the fence.

Ron, go here. This is a list of creationists' claims and the rebuttals to them. I noted several instances of your so-called "evidence" being rebutted. The flood section is CH400-CH599. This is a nice page, too, that summarizes much of the problems noted with a world-wide flood.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I did not make it an us vs them engagement. I made comments and gave information based upon by beliefs and my knowledge that came fro many years of intense study and learning.

The problem is not that you have stated your beliefs, but that you have belittled the beliefs of other members.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I don't care if you do or don't. You and others have a problem that I am reluctant to publicly discuss the differences between Catholic dogma and Biblical teaching, so if you really care to know, I am willing to discuss it privately. That's all! How would YOU fee if I asked you questions about your faith? Would you be willing to discuss what YOU believe??

No Ron, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel compelled from time to time (like so many others) to register my disgust.

Why in the world would I want to exchange private messages with you?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

My purpose in posting those sites was not in an attempt to prove the flood, althought I believe there is a lot of good evidence toward that end. Wheetin said there was NO EVIDENCE to support the flood. I was pointing out there is. Weather you believe it or not is something else. There is a lot of argument on both sides of the fence.

I think when they said "no evidence", they meant "no real evidence" or "no evidence that can be supported scientifically".

I could say that I was abducted by an alien last night and there would be evidence; my testimony. But, there would be "no real evidence" or "no evidence that can be supported scientifically".

[Ron Cusano 0]

I am not belittleing anyone's beliefs; I am disagreeing with them. You are taking my disagreement as belittleing, and it is not. At one time in my life, I believed the same as many of those with whom I am now disagreeing. Why would I belittle them? It is how you are taking it.

The problem is not that you have stated your beliefs, but that you have belittled the beliefs of other members.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

The NIV is a good translation in most instances. The King James has always been the "gold standard" used in most seminaries. There is a new version called the New American Standard Version I believe, with is supposed to be the best literal translation into modern day english thus far.

In my personal studies I use several translations, and if there seems to a question of translation of a word, I go back the the Strongs Concordance, which is like a dictionary, that gives the literal translations of every single word in the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Every serious Bible student should have one.

A while back the following was posted:

From Reverend Mel White: I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

"Even when we believe the scriptures are without error, it's a risk to think our understanding is without error."

How can you proclaim that scriptures translates scriptures if scriptures must be translated into English for you to read it?

The Reverend White has learned how to translate scriptures, while you depend on others to translate scriptures for you. Is it not possible that the people (who's translations you depend on) may have colored the context of scriptures with their personal agenda consciously or subconsciously?

If scriptures truly did translate scriptures, then anyone could look at them and read them in the language that he understood. Now that would be a miracle befitting of a divinely inspired book, a miracle befitting of a divinity. But who are we to question God's ways?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I am not belittleing anyone's beliefs; I am disagreeing with them. You are taking my disagreement as belittleing, and it is not. At one time in my life, I believed the same as many of those with whom I am now disagreeing. Why would I belittle them? It is how you are taking it.

Which implies that now you have moved on to a point beyond us or beyond our understanding.

You are so accustomed to belittling people that you do it subconsciously and (I will give you the benefit of the doubt) without malice.

[TommyO 5]

I find it interesting that the links provided as proof of a flood mention the use of carbon dating as evidence but when the carbon dating isn't consistant with the suggested dates of the flood carbon dating is then refuted as unrelaible. Seems to me these folks also seem to talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Let me see if I have this straight.

There was a flood and carbon dating proves this. Carbon Dating places the flood much earlier than 4003 years ago. Carbon dating is wrong. There was a flood and it took place 4003 years ago.

The Bible is literal and it's words come from God.

God is omnipotant

The Bible says the world is a circle.

The world is actually a sphere

The omnipotant God doesn't know the difference between circles and spheres.

Circle, Sphere, who cares, at least he didn't say Square, I take the bible literally, just not so much when it applies to Geometry.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I never said that "scripture translates scripture"! What I said was, "scripture interprets scripture" Translating from one language to another, and intretpeting what the scripture say are two entirely different things.

A while back the following was posted:

From Reverend Mel White: I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

"Even when we believe the scriptures are without error, it's a risk to think our understanding is without error."

How can you proclaim that scriptures translates scriptures if scriptures must be translated into English for you to read it?

The Reverend White has learned how to translate scriptures, while you depend on others to translate scriptures for you. Is it not possible that the people (who's translations you depend on) may have colored the context of scriptures with their personal agenda consciously or subconsciously? Unless Rev. White is an expert in the Hebrew and Greek languages and has spent decades doing word by word translations, then I doubt that he translated the scriptures for himself. I don't see him making that claim anywhere, do you?

If scriptures truly did translate scriptures, then anyone could look at them and read them in the language that he understood. Now that would be a miracle befitting of a divinely inspired book, a miracle befitting of a divinity. But who are we to question God's ways?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I never said that "scripture translates scripture"! What I said was, "scripture interprets scripture" Translating from one language to another, and intretpeting what the scripture say are two entirely different things.

But you left out totally the point of my whole post. You picked on one little point to refute and avoided the big picture, which is that you do not know how to read the scriptures in its original language and must depend on people who have previously translated it and transcribed it. You must depend on what the translators say was the meaning of any particular word and its context and connotative meaning back then.

You are too clever for your own good and it will not gain you any converts. Only the proverbial choir will fail to see through your methods and even some of them have started to see the light.

[Wheetsin 714]

Wheetin said there was NO EVIDENCE to support the flood.

Why are you so intent on misquoting me? I ASKED why there are "no geological signs". I never SAID there was NO EVIDENCE. And after asking for resources, I later added that MY searches had been unsuccessful, not that ALL searches had been.

THis is the 2nd time I've had to explain to you the difference between what actually transpired, and what you're claiming transpired. It's like you read what's on the screen, and then let it mean whatever you want it to. But ironically enough, you're the first one to call foul if someone misquotes you, e.g. the most recent exchange between you and TOM. So why can you wantonly misquote others, but no one can do it to you?

And I'm still waiting to hear what qualifies you to make the statement to me that, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know? On what evidence do you base that claim?

...and a host of other questions still lingering out there.

[Wheetsin 714]

You picked on one little point to refute and avoided the big picture

:clap2: :clap2: