SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Bingo? What? That you just listed them again and provided no further explanation, as you were asked?
I have to ask at this point, are you a Poe? It's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously.
-
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
I have to ask at this point, are you a Poe? It's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Answered.
Bingo. You have fulfilled prophecy,
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Cool. I'll take this as your concession that you can't demonstrate that the verses say what you claim.
McBell
Unbound
Well, given the fact that they have a history of presenting verses that do not support their claim...
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I already did.
McBell
Unbound
No, you didn't.
You merely repeated the verses.
But at least you did not dig yourself into a deeper hole by making false claims like you did over the word "bird"....
Or when you claimed that "back then" the word fowl meant any flying creature other than insects...
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Lev 11 does not say bird.
Fowl did mean that back then. So the Bible still without an error.
What was the first living creature again?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So you concede. Cool. Assertions dismissed!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So what? So have you. You fulfill my prophecy, which is no doubt the same prediction as a half dozen others here. And you will continue to fulfill that prophecy for as long as you participate on this or any other religious thread.
Biblical prophecy is as weak as mine regarding you. Or did you think predicting that this religion undoubtedly viewed as blasphemous by most Jews then and now would be rejected and its adherents disesteemed by the majority wasn't always obvious?
For quality prophecy, look at scientific prophecy. Spoiler: no gods involved in making these specific, unlikely, and confirmed prophecies. Scripture offers less. Much less, yet educated, worldly people are expected to agree with the faithful who claim that these horoscopes and Chinese fortune cookie predictions come from a superhuman prescience outside our universe.
Fowl wasn't a word then, and it has never meant anything but birds.
Your use of translation apologetics is also predictable. The whole creationist toolbox is well-known and by cliche now. Prophecy: you will continue to use these specious and dishonest arguments wherever you can.
You have just fulfilled prophecy again. Who didn't know that was coming? See how easy you are to predict? Everybody can be a prophet. The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls. And tenement halls.
I aspire to this. Look at how wise this man is. Who can argue with him? :
CRISWELL: "Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future."
McBell
Unbound
Old English fugel "bird, feathered vertebrate," from Proto-Germanic *fuglaz, the general Germanic word for "bird" (source also of Old Saxon fugal, Old Frisian fugel, Old Norse fugl, Middle Dutch voghel, Dutch vogel, German vogel, Gothic fugls "a fowl, a bird"), perhaps a dissimilation of a word meaning literally "flyer," from PIE *pleuk-, from root *pleu- "to flow."
Displaced in its original sense by bird (n.); narrower sense of "barnyard hen or rooster" (the main modern meaning) is first recorded 1570s; in U.S. this was extended to domestic ducks and geese.
fowl | Search Online Etymology Dictionary
The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.
www.etymonline.com
No, it did not
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Of course it is not an error.Old English fugel "bird, feathered vertebrate," from Proto-Germanic *fuglaz, the general Germanic word for "bird" (source also of Old Saxon fugal, Old Frisian fugel, Old Norse fugl, Middle Dutch voghel, Dutch vogel, German vogel, Gothic fugls "a fowl, a bird"), perhaps a dissimilation of a word meaning literally "flyer," from PIE *pleuk-, from root *pleu- "to flow."Displaced in its original sense by bird (n.); narrower sense of "barnyard hen or rooster" (the main modern meaning) is first recorded 1570s; in U.S. this was extended to domestic ducks and geese.fowl | Search Online Etymology Dictionary
The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.No, it did not
Is a bat a bird?
The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. It is written from the perspective of what we see
carm.org
Matt 23:13 `Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut up the reign of the heavens before men, for ye do not go in, nor those going in do ye suffer to enter.
and
15 `Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye go round the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and whenever it may happen -- ye make him a son of gehenna twofold more than yourselves.
Bible YLT
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This is the most absurd "conversation" I've ever had.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I am always ready for a nice friendly chat.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? In the Cambrian, all the basic body types are present but nothing before it. In the Cambrian, there are advanced creatures, with eyes, but nothing before it. In the Cambrian, there are advanced creatures like the trilobite but nothing before it. In the Cambrian, there are a bunch of other advanced features but nothing before it. These all prove evolution and billions of years false.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I can explain that, but you have a burden of proof to fulfill first. You cannot refute evolution by asking questions. All that your questions prove is the level of your ignorance.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The theory of evolution is taught everywhere. It has never met the burden of proof.
It should be revoked
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is taught everywhere because it has met its burden of proof. I need to remind you that you refuse to learn the basics of science so you are in no position to judge.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The theory of nothing does not answer anything about the origin of anything.
What was the first living creature?