The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[Thief]

That genocide is okay.

and within Job......

the Lord gives.......the Lord takes away

 

[Subduction Zone]

and within Job......

the Lord gives.......the Lord takes away

The immoral lesson there is I made you I can kill you. Parents sometimes believe that about their kids.

 

[Thief]

The immoral lesson there is I made you I can kill you. Parents sometimes believe that about their kids.

is there a biblical reference for THAT allowance?

 

[Subduction Zone]

is there a biblical reference for THAT allowance?

Who knows? The Bible contradicts itself almost endlessly so there probably is. It clearly teaches that at times.

 

[Thief]

Who knows? The Bible contradicts itself almost endlessly so there probably is. It clearly teaches that at times.

It was your claim......back it up

 

[thomas t]

You do support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. You just said so here.

I said that I agree with this:
The Earth was changed, but replaced with more or less the same thing, so there is no available evidence of a global floor.

Or the Earth was radically changed after the flood and there is no evidence for that.
It's an either... or.
you are stealing my time, here, when I constantly have to address the thing you're putting in my mouth..
So finally, please stop putting words in my mouth.

Peter doesn't say that the Earth was exchanged by the flood. That is your interpretation, that I can reject by not agreeing with. And I do reject your interpretation. Look how easy that is.

Peter said in 2 Peter 3:5-6... that the old earth perished.
When he's talking about the old earth he makes use of past tense... so it's evident that he thinks of that earth as a perished one in the past.

EDITED for clarity

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was your claim......back it up

No, that was not my claim. You asked questions I gave you answers. If you are talking about the lesson of Job I only need to link the story. You need to be a little more specific in what you are asking for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said that I agree with this:
The Earth was changed, but replaced with more or less the same thing, so there is no available evidence of a global floor.

Or the Earth was radically changed after the flood and there is no evidence for that.
It's an either... or.
you are stealing my time, here, when I constantly have to address the thing you're putting in my mouth..
So finally, please stop putting words in my mouth.
Peter said in 2 Peter 3:5-6... that the old earth perished.
When he's talking about the old earth he makes use of past tense... so it's evident that he thinks of the earth as a peroshed one in the past.

And once again you are still demonstrably wrong even with this rather crazy interpretation.

How do we know that you are wrong? To explain how you first must tell us when the God magic ended.

 

[Thief]

No, that was not my claim. You asked questions I gave you answers. If you are talking about the lesson of Job I only need to link the story. You need to be a little more specific in what you are asking for.

no evidence needed for this .....

it's not a play on words

this is about belief

 

[thomas t]

That is because you only have a very biased and skewed perspective. Most Christians do not agree with your interpretation. It is one born out of desperation. And you seem to know that. I will ask again, how long after the flood did the God magic end? Was it when the rain stopped? When the water began to go away? When the water was all gone?

we had a discussion about it... and it ended here (LINK:
Is the Bible Trustworthy?)
I'm not going to repeat this with you.
I hope you won't take offence.
I explained everything in the linked post.
Nothing against you personally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

we had a discussion about it... and it ended here (LINK:
Is the Bible Trustworthy?)
I'm not going to repeat this with you.
I hope you won't take offence.
I explained everything in the linked post.
Nothing against you personally.

And you never answered that question in that discussion. Which is why I am asking it again here. You dodge it there just as you have dodged it here since you appear to know deep down that you are demonstrably wrong.

So when did the God magic end?

 

[Thief]

So when did the God magic end?

shortly after your last breath

 

[Subduction Zone]

shortly after your last breath

Please don't be silly. The topic is the flood myth. Life itself is not magical.

 

[Thief]

Please don't be silly. The topic is the flood myth. Life itself is not magical.

neither is God

 

[Subduction Zone]

neither is God

According to many Christians he is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said that I agree with this:
The Earth was changed, but replaced with more or less the same thing, so there is no available evidence of a global floor.

Or the Earth was radically changed after the flood and there is no evidence for that.
It's an either... or.
you are stealing my time, here, when I constantly have to address the thing you're putting in my mouth..
So finally, please stop putting words in my mouth.
Peter said in 2 Peter 3:5-6... that the old earth perished.
When he's talking about the old earth he makes use of past tense... so it's evident that he thinks of that earth as a perished one in the past.

EDITED for clarity

I am no stealing your time. You give it away to me for free.

I put no words in your mouth that you have not put here. You have no evidence for anything.

 

[thomas t]

I am no stealing your time. You give it away to me for free.

I put no words in your mouth that you have not put here. You have no evidence for anything.

what? Did you just say you are not stealing away my time? I had to constantly set things straight after you put words in my mouth I never said.
Lets have a look:

How do you know this means that the house that replaces the flooded house is going to be somehow radically different than the flooded house? All the claims propose a radically different earth, yet there is no evidence for those claims.

I did not say that you did. It could be, but it likely will not be. However, you are claiming that the new house of the earth is radically different from the old and without any real evidence. The passage of the Bible is a claim.

Let me reiterate for you. You support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. You have no evidence the earth is radically different and that the difference is from or following a global flood. Simple as that.

You do support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. You just said so here.

4 times!!!! you put the words in my mouth that I, according to you, have said that the new earth is radically different.
I had to set this straight every single time.
And now: don't steal away my time any more and let's finish it here!
It's horrible.
(Of course I have scriptural evidence for what I say)

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not the one misinterpreting your book of myths. God breathed means inspired. It does not mean written by God. It clearly does not mean perfect. Read the entire verse in context. Don't quote mine it. Quote mining is usually done as a method to deceive. That verse tells you that the Bible is inspired and as a result useful. It doesn't say that it is inspired therefore true.

I've given you the derivation of the word "inspired" from this passage of scripture/the original Greek. I'm inspired to tell you that you are misusing the word inspired in the verse you've cited.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, that was not my claim. You asked questions I gave you answers. If you are talking about the lesson of Job I only need to link the story. You need to be a little more specific in what you are asking for.

Actually, it kinda was...

The immoral lesson there is I made you I can kill you.

In all fairness, when a theist makes some sort of claim, you're first in line to tell them to provide a citation to back up their claim. I think you're creating a double standard by saying you made no claim when it's evident that you did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've given you the derivation of the word "inspired" from this passage of scripture/the original Greek. I'm inspired to tell you that you are misusing the word inspired in the verse you've cited.

And it appears that you can understand Greek analogies any better than you can understand English ones. Since God does not breathe your excessive literal approach fails.