Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I see, so a story from a fairy tale is your source of "evidence".
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
8 did survive and so it was recorded.
The Bible predicts that people will ignore the flood in the last days. See 2 Peter.
So you have fulfilled prophecy right on time.
I did not address the only 6k years old.
I cracked up on the water on earth 'line item' and remember addressing that decades ago.
To be succinct, there is NO evidence to support the religious claim that the earth is only 6k yrs old.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not "recorded". It is a myth written in a book. And defensive verse do not help you.
Every science there is out there refutes the flood. But you refuse to even learn what science is.
When you are ready to learn we can go over the scientific method and then the concept of evidence. Once you get that down you are more than half way to refuting the myth.
Most Christians do not believe that myth because they do not believe that God is a liar.
I would need to assume they're accurate and I would need to assume that they're in our calendar years.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
well for the Biblical chronology you have to add up until the resurrection of Christ and add about 2000 years.
Not exact though. If someone begat a named some at say 65 years old, is there 65 years between births, or 65 plus 9 months, or 64 1/2 .
With quite a few generations there could be an error,
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are assuming that those stories actually happened. That is far worse than the assumptions that you are accusing others of making.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
It is recorded history.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, the Bible is not recorded history.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
It sure is.
Have you read the Bible?
Do you know how to read and study it. The Bible tells how.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it is largely a book of myths. And you are using circular reasoning again. It does not matter if the Bible tells you a particular way to read it.
And you may be confused even about that claim.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I have several proofs the Bible is true so no myth.
So it's all guess work and fails your "no assumptions" rule.
The biggest assumption being that any of it is factual.
McBell
Unbound
So then why haven't you presented any of them?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Recorded history in this case is factual
Would you agree that it would only take one error in the bible to show it's not true?
Why?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Because I already proved that the Bible is true. Nothing proves that any part of it is not true.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then why haven't you posted any? All that you have posted have been arguments that were neither logical nor rational.
Oh, and why hasn't the Templeton Foundation contacted you? You should read links when they are provided for you. You probably do not even know what the Templeton Foundation is.