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!
"The first time the word “Arabia” is used as a term for a designated geographical area is in the mid-fifth century BC by the famous Greek historian and traveler, Herodotus (born ca. 484 BC). He traveled to Egypt and wrote about his trip in his book, The Persian Wars. In his monumental work on ancient Arabs, Dr. Israel Eph’al of Tel Aviv University, points out that
Herodotus … calls the entire region east of the Nile and the Pelusian Branch, from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, "Arabia", and its population "Arabs" (2: 8, 15, 19, 30, 75, 124, 158) (Eph’al 1982: 193).
Moreover, in the mid-third century BC, 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek (known as the Septuagint) and followed the contemporary use of the word “Arabia” when they referred to Goshen as “Goshen of Arabia” (Gen. 45:10; 46:34). While Goshen is clearly part of Egypt (Gen. 37:6, 27; Ex. 9:26), the translator imposed the third century BC geographical reality on their translation.
On Egeria’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land, she visited Mt. Sinai (Jebel Musa) and also the Land of Goshen (Wilkinson 1981:91-103). In Goshen, she stayed at Clysma, a “city of Arabia” (Wilkinson 1981:100). She wrote, “It gets its name from the region, which is called "the land of Arabia, the land of Goshen," a region which, while it is part of Egypt, is a great deal better than any of the rest” (1981:100,101). Egeria followed the Septuagint reading of Gen. 46:34 in her description of Goshen being in the Land of Arabia.
Therefore, when the Apostle Paul says that Mt. Sinai is in Arabia, he is using the First century AD understanding of the word. He would be perfectly correct in placing Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula because the Sinai Peninsula was part of Arabia in his day.
In conjunction with Galatians 4:25, three other verses have been used to demonstrate that Mt. Sinai was outside the Sinai Peninsula: Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; and Habakkuk 3:3. It is stated that Seir, Mt. Paran and Teman are located in present day Jordan or even Saudi Arabia (Heiser 1998; Cross 1998).
Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
Nope. Metamorphic does not mean burnt.
You don't even understand how to use literary fallacies.
Appeal to authority is used to point out when someone is saying something is true because everyone else says so.
Like people saying Jesus was a real man.
It has noting to do with what SCIENTISTS FIND OUT.
DER!!!
You don't say crap like "oh you think special relativity is true just because all the physicists do, that's appeal to authority"
Too bad that you do not understand that phrase. Where did you get that from? Why didn't you include the link? I can Google search and found where that came from. It does not support your claim when you include your source. That tells me that you either used a lying source that did not properly link their quote or you were being dishonest yourself. Now I do not think that you would be dishonest yourself. That means that someone lied to you again and you believed them because you are so desperate to cling to your myth.From the geological survey
"Thus the SG decided to find a general name for all rocks generated by combustion metamorphism and an agreement was found for the term burned (or burnt) rock, which has been defined as follows: Burned rock: General term for a compact, vesicular or clinkery, glassy to holocrystalline metamorphic rock of various colours, ..."
Your source you gave me also said metamorphic rock happens by heat.
Well, that means burnt too.
If all this dont mean burnt, what the hell does it mean?
When you write such a post you should be the last person to complain about "sloppy responses". I counted thirteen grammatical errors in that short segment of your post.And id like to respond to all the other points, but, if i do that, 2 things will happen. Allot of time will be used and second youl have two many posts to deal with which means youl give me sloppy responses. So, id like you to put in a good effort on those 2 points above.
Too bad that you do not understand that phrase. Where did you get that from? Why didn't you include the link? I can Google search and found where that came from. It does not support your claim when you include your source. That tells me that you either used a lying source that did not properly link their quote or you were being dishonest yourself. Now I do not think that you would be dishonest yourself. That means that someone lied to you again and you believed them because you are so desperate to cling to your myth.
When you write such a post you should be the last person to complain about "sloppy responses". I counted thirteen grammatical errors in that short segment of your post.
Quote mining is a form of lying. At best you did not understand your source. The quote that you used was taken out of contact. My source refuted your claim, even if you did not understand it.The source you gave me is here
Metamorphic rock - Wikipedia
"Metamorphic rocks arise from the transformation of existing rock types, in a process called metamorphism, which means "change in form".[1] The original rock (protolith) is subjected to heat (temperatures greater than 150 to 200 °C) and pressure (100 megapascals (1,000 bar) or more), causing profound physical or chemical change. The protolith may be a sedimentary, igneous, or existing metamorphic rock."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=3194&ved=2ahUKEwjO4Nvz1-neAhURmeAKHdtSBiUQFjABegQIDBAE&usg=AOvVaw3-iwwwGWddiSVPhddYTYR0
Its a download, thats why i didnt put it in the first time. But, there it is.
"Thus the SG decided to find a general name for all rocks generated by combustion metamorphism and an agreement was found for the termburned (or burnt) rock, which has been defined as follows: Burned rock: General term for a compact, vesicular or clinkery, glassy to holocrystallinemetamorphic rock of various colours, "
What does this mean to you if not burned?
Are you just arguing just to argue or something?
You have not made any points. That is the problem You have only made false claims that you have not been able to properly support. And once again, you accused someone else of your wrongdoings. This is not proper Christian behavior.Instead of counting grammer errors, why not focus on the points made?
Quote mining is a form of lying. At best you did not understand your source. The quote that you used was taken out of contact. My source refuted your claim, even if you did not understand it.
Since you clearly have no clue why can't you act properly? Ask questions politely and properly. That means no leading questions.
You have not made any points. That is the problem You have only made false claims that you have not been able to properly support. And once again, you accused someone else of your wrongdoings. This is not proper Christian behavior.
Your source referred to a rather rare type of metamorphism, one where fire was actually involved. Coal beds at times catch on fire and can metamorphose rocks next to them. That was burnt. You see you did get your quote from a dishonest source. If you had read it you would have seen that. My quote had nothing to do with metamorphism.Ok, ill ask you politely.
PLEASE tell me what the 2 quotes mean if they dont mean burnt?
I can see someone that does not follow the instructions of his own belief. It is amazing how many Christians of weak faith are willing to lie for Jesus. You really do not want to go down that road.Not proper christian behavior huh? Lol, thats funny!
Your source referred to a rather rare type of metamorphism, one where fire was actually involved. Coal beds at times catch on fire and can metamorphose rocks next to them. That was burnt. You see you did get your quote from a dishonest source. If you had read it you would have seen that. My quote had nothing to do with metamorphism.
By the way, your question was neither proper nor polite. I still explained your errors to you. Next time try harder.
I can see someone that does not follow the instructions of his own belief. It is amazing how many Christians of weak faith are willing to lie for Jesus. You really do not want to go down that road.
You should remember that most atheists in the U.S. became atheists through a superior understanding of the Bible.
Wrong again, heat does not mean "burnt". You lose again.So......it......is.......burnt. you just said it.
Metamorphic rock happens two ways, heat or pressure or a combination. Metamorphic means the rock changes form or color.
I think your a an internet troller. I really believe this. I see it in your actions.
More like an inferior understanding. Practically almost no understanding. Just alot of pretending to understand. Alot of arrogance from what i see.
Heck, even if i became an atheist (which that wont happen), gauss what? I most definitely would not want to hang out with them, they seam to consistently (by my limited experience) to be too arrogant, know it all actors.
Wrong again, heat does not mean "burnt". You lose again.
Is a diamond "burnt"?
No, I merely get tired to people that cannot debate honestly or logically.
I have offered to help you to learn but your run away from such offers. Calling someone a troll is a violation of the rules here. I would suggest a retraction.
Wrong again. You keep demonstrating that you do not only not understand the sciences, you have no understanding of the Bible either. You pick and choose which parts you want to believe. And atheists only appear to be arrogant because they are constantly dealing with people that are ignorant and dishonest. Seriously, change your attitude. Learn from your errors and the attitude that you get from atheists will change. But if you keep demanding that 2 + 2 = 5 and that others do not understand because they can prove you to be wrong you will only get what you perceive to be "arrogance" from them.
You should be trying to learn why you are wrong, not constantly demonstrating how little you know or how far you are willing to go in supporting wrong or even dishonest claims, as you did by quoting a dishonest creationist source.