Jose Fly
Fisker of men
At the very least he seems to be a pretty stereotypical creationist.I wonder how representative our nominal "Christians"
on this forum are, of Christians in general.
I really hope, not very!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
At the very least he seems to be a pretty stereotypical creationist.I wonder how representative our nominal "Christians"
on this forum are, of Christians in general.
I really hope, not very!
At the very least he seems to be a pretty stereotypical creationist.
What bugs me is when someone asks me to write something up, but after I post it they ignore it. I wonder if they realize that the most obvious conclusion for me to draw is that they had no answer to what I posted so they just ran away?I found it very strange that he wants to take clearly refuted parts of the Bible literally, but when there are verses that have no evidence of being wrong he adamantly claimed that those verses were false.
Oh well, it only supports the claim that all creationists pick and choose which parts of the Bible that they decide to believe.
What bugs me is when someone asks me to write something up, but after I post it they ignore it. I wonder if they realize that the most obvious conclusion for me to draw is that they had no answer to what I posted so they just ran away?
Please, you do not get to reinterpret the Bible. You are less of an expert in that book than I am.Dear Subduction Zone
Yes - In verse 21, This Verses content - is saying that if a Man cannot pay his debts and survive - or if he needs to put His Daughter to work to make money to help the family continue to survive. - then IF he has a good place of safety for His daughter to go where she can be placed for a contract that can last for seven years, if needed. - Traditional.
Then - The daughter can have a future with opportunity for a plan of freedom from her family debt and crisis and have a future of security.
Let's look at exactly what Exo 21:7 is really saying in the original Hebrew manuscripts.
Exo 21:7 That IF a man is marketing { CONTRACTING } his { Own } daughters services - selling her work - to be a maidservant, she shall not go { end the contract } as the other workers / servants do. Meaning other workers who are not hired as sons and daughters - who were never contracted out by their own parents.
Meaning - Exo 21:8 I there is a problem in the eyes of the Contractor } Boss, in which He Has not Agreed that Her contract has been met or paid. { To pay off the Fathers / Family Inheritance, Family Property Debt }
Then the Contracting of Her ( A daughter } out to another person or having her work for OTHER strangers among the people is treacherous and an evil transgression. This was to keep the Children safe. by not sending them to strangers throughout the lands which could be unsafe for the children to work in.
The Goal was to keep the families together and to pay off their debts and for the Children to keep their inheritance.
Exo 21:10 If he { the Father } takes himself another wife; the food, the raiment, and her marriage, shall not be lessened or withheld.
Verse 10 was saying that If a Father in debt has a daughter that If he takes Himself another wife after He knows His daughter is coming back home after she has ended her contract or her boss is not satisfied fully with her performance or feels the debt is not paid due to whatever circumstance. That the father while taking in another wife or taking in anyone else into His household, he shall not diminish the daughter's rights and clothing and the daughter's marriage potential, rights and abilities. { and overall basic rights. } - In other words - - The daughter always holds a heritage right and the right to get married no matter how much the father is in debt.
Exo 21:9 And if he { The Father } has contracted out a son, also deal as in the manner of the daughters.
The Bible HERE was maintaining the Heritage and heirship and inheritance rights of the Children. Saying that no matter the situation, the Father is always to honor His Children - Even If he can not pay His debts and the Children are unable to fully assist in paying off the debts, that the Father can not give His children to strangers to be contracted out.
That's all it was saying in the Original. These perverted translators went in and made up a bunch of lies and extra words. I CAN explain THIS WORD BY WORD IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW - If You would like.
or You can take my word for it and STOP trusting in the Jesuit mistranslation of lies.
Your faith and full trust in what various translations are telling You that deviate and change what the original says - is all that You are proving. Your claims are not representing the Original Hebrew.
As - You also continue to pile on negative words and ideas onto modern words that are not in the verse.
But You represent - simply what modern translators have invented and changed and added. This is why I choose post and to uphold the original message as it was originally transmitted in the Hebrew -
As You are making up a bunch of additional words to send the original message in another direction that feeds Your imagination.
The whole verse is about making sure that the children themselves are not OWNED / sold as slaves - but that the purpose remains to be selling employment, services, labor, work in a safe, respectful closed environment with RULES....... for respecting and protecting the children.
You are not even in the same universe - concerning what the Bible actually says. The Bible says that slavery is the death penalty.
And gives rules for properly treating servants, workers, and hirelings who are selling their services.
I hope You can stop pretending that You have presented anything that represent the Bible.
Please, you do not get to reinterpret the Bible. You are less of an expert in that book than I am.
You were 100% wrong in your claim about the Bible. If you want a discussion then do so politicians properly. One claim per post. Don't use bold print.
Can you do that? Until then your posts are a joke.
I wont read anything written in that font
Yes, a myth retold as a morality tale. That is the one approach that works.
When people try to treat it as history is when they run into trouble.
Geological sites all over the world suggests that there was a world-wide flood. See, the problem isn't that the bible isn't a history book. The problem is we weren't there and witnessed it so it can't be true to many. This is common with humans. We tend to forget quickly and return and repeat things we should not. Look at what took place with Hitler's Germany. Hitler promoted a Democratic Socialist agenda. Now, we have politicians in America that want to promote Democratic Socialism. Many of them doing so are Jewish, black, hispanic, LGBT and so on. The same group that was attacked by Hitler and his Democratic Socialism. Have people forgot so soon? And, you suppose this hasn't happened with Noah's Flood too? The further we get away from it the less information we find about it.
The moon is made of cheese.Geological sites all over the world suggests that there was a world-wide flood.
Genesis 1:2, ...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. See, in the beginning, the earth was not present. But, there was nothing but water. In verse 6, God put a firmament in the midst of the waters and it divided the waters into 2. Above the firmament (Heaven) and below the firmament or in the earth. Thus, a universe full of water surrounded the earth. And waters beneath the surface. As the creation continued, the Sun appeared as well as the starts and galaxies. However, we know that in the Bible, prior to the flood, Adam and all people lived hundreds of years. Perhaps the waters above the earth blocked out the harmful deadly rays of the Sun. After the flood when the waters above as well as the waters in the earth came upon the entire earth flooding all mountainous regions, the Sun's rays now harm us killing us sooner. We don't live so long
So, it wasn't just the rain from normal cloud formations. Genesis 7:11, In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Verse 12, "And," (Meaning in addition to) the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
I know you tried to sound intelligent with your mathematical skills :-/~ But, you completely lost track of the topic and from where the Noah's Flood account was written in. And, you apparently don't know the specifics of that either. Also, it doesn't seem that you understand time and relativity.
Nonsense.About 90% of it has been proven to be true. The concept of the process of evolution is spelled put in Genesis. You must keep in mind that Genesis was written to the people of the time so the concept of a catastrophic weather events and the development of life was written on a level they could understand.
I believe some today still cannot contemplate its significance.
Nonsense.
Genesis is neither authored by G-d nor even written by Moses, the narrators who narrated it and the scribes who wrote it were human beings who made mistakes/exaggerations and also the clergy had their own axe to grind.There are many different interpretations of the Noah's Ark myth in Genesis. From my experience all of them can be shown to have never occurred. My only assumption here will be that it God exists he does not lie.
Of course I can't demonstrate a concept to be in error until people clearly state their beliefs. So please tell us what you mean by the Floor and we can discuss your version.
Genesis is much younger than literalists tend to believe, and the Noah's Ark myth was almost certainly a retelling of the Gilgamesh flood.How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.
Genesis is neither authored by G-d nor even written by Moses, the narrators who narrated it and the scribes who wrote it were human beings who made mistakes/exaggerations and also the clergy had their own axe to grind.
The OP does not establish that Noah did not exist or that no event of flood did happen in Noah's time. If the approach of the OP is from science, then it has to be taken seriously from the point of view of science strictly. Right, please?
Regards
___________
*Quran Chapter 71 Noah/Nooh
71:1]
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[71:2]
We sent Noah to his people, saying, ‘Warn thy people before there comes upon them a grievous punishment.’
[71:3]
He said, ‘O my people! surely I am a plain Warner unto you,
[71:4]
‘That you serve Allah and fear Him and obey me.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 71: Nooh
"Remember my one assumption that God does not lie?"The the simple fact that ice floats alone debunks your claims. The ice caps at Greenland and Antarctica have been there for millions of years, before man ever stepped on the Earth. They would not have survived the flood. Also a flood of that order would leave massive evidence, yet there is none. Remember my one assumption that God does not lie? The only explanations that I have heard for the lack of evidence ultimately all rely on a lying God.
No, not really. God is a man made concept. It can do anything that man can think of. But I was asking for your version of the flood."Remember my one assumption that God does not lie?"
It is a religious fact/truth that God does not lie. Right, please?
Regards