Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

Good. The Bible says that God did a bunch of horrible things. Is he evil? He allowed a young man to shoot up a grammar school which got this thread started. Should God, could God have prevented that?

Probably not all those kids were Christians. Did they all go to heaven, because they were under the age of "accountability"? Oh yes, where in the Bible does it say there is an age where kids get a free pass into heaven? Oh, and what happens when the killer is under the age of accountability?

Oh, and one more thing, thanks for picking up for 1Robin. I guess he's been busy lately. This thread hasn't been the same without him, that is, until you came along. Oh wait, he's back.

By asking all these questions, I think you have a beautiful heart within you but a little bit confuse about why all these horrible things are happening in the world. There is no textbook we human can read on why all these thing are happening, so I can not answer all these because I just don’t know the answer but one thing I know is, I trust the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart and that is good enough for me.

 

[JM2C]

As for Matthew - it was written after 70 AD by an anonymous person.
*

Yeah, I read that too in wikipedia. So its not the Gospel of Matthew anymore but the Gospel of an anonymous person

 

[JM2C]

Isaiah 7:14 is about Isaiah and his son Immanuel and the war against Jerusalem.

He was told to go into the Temple Prophetess/virgin, - she conceived, - bore him a son - Immanuel.

The whole text is set in one time period.

It starts with King Rezin, ends with King Rezin, and tells us this is about the war over Jerusalem!!!

Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

In later verses such as 9:11 (after the so called "virgin" verses) it is still talking about Rezin.

Isa 9:11 And YHVH will set up Rezin's foes against him, and join together his enemies;

So, who was the virgin again in Isaiah 7:14?

Isaiah’s wife?

How could a virgin conceive to another child?

You don’t seems too understand what is the argument here in Isaiah’s 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. Its about the words “Almah” and “Parthenos”

Please read again if Isaiah’s wife was still a virgin at that time.

 

[JM2C]

Yes, I had a thread about it too. I asked if Matthew had taken Isaiah out of context. It was not surprising that most Christians said "No". Most everybody else, including the Jews that new the passage in Hebrew, said "Yes".

Please read Noncorfomist argument about the timeline of the events between Isaiah and Matthew.

 

[1robin]

Alright.

Very well.

Alright. No problem. I felt differently considering how much empashis you gave to philosophers, but since you have clarified your position I see no need to further talk about this point.

Ok.

Actually, the word is compatibilism, not compatabalism.
You see, the ability to do otherwise under the same circumstances is characteristic of libertarian free will.

I this was a grammatical forum I would concede every debate. I have never been able to spell very well nor cared all that much about being able to. I think I might hold a position with elements of the two terms you use. I believe that quasi-determinism is true but that our will supersedes it.

A compatibilist would say that it is possible to do otherwise if the will was different. But as Arthur Schopenhauer puts it : "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.".

I deny my consent to this proposition and it sounds deluded or circular in a way.

If you believe that you are ultimate source of your choices, that they are not random nor caused by some past events ( even thought past events can influence them ), then you believe in the libertarian free will.

1. I believe in general we can freely choose to act in any logically possible way with 1 exception and one amendment.
2. The exception is when God (and he rarely has been recorded to have done this) supersedes our will to perform a function. Again this is extremely rare in revelation.
3. The amendment is that while are choices are free they may not seem to be. I may feel unable to idly watch a child be tortured and do nothing but I still had the choice to do just that. We can be influenced, compelled, and in a way coerced but we cannot be forced to choose.

Also a note: Our ability to choose has nothing to do with our ability to actualize that choice.


Now you can slap whatever label you wish to on that because that is what kind of freewill I will defend as God's purpose for our lives in this universe.

Free will to a compatibilist is the ability to do as one wills, not the ability to choose everything that one wills to do.

I feel we are getting bogged down in semantics and not dealing with the reality that words represent.


I hope I have clarified what I mean by freewill so we can move on to some sort of resolution about it.

 

[Koldo]

I this was a grammatical forum I would concede every debate. I have never been able to spell very well nor cared all that much about being able to. I think I might hold a position with elements of the two terms you use. I believe that quasi-determinism is true but that our will supersedes it.

Some kind of determinism is required for the libertarian free will. After all, if your choices don't cause events, then free will can't possibly exist.

I deny my consent to this proposition and it sounds deluded or circular in a way.

Assume for instance you want to eat icecream. Based on that will you eat icecream ( You will always do what you want to do, which is not to say that you never have conflicting wills in which case you do what you will the most ). You didn't choose to want to eat icecream. That's what he meant.

1. I believe in general we can freely choose to act in any logically possible way with 1 exception and one amendment.
2. The exception is when God (and he rarely has been recorded to have done this) supersedes our will to perform a function. Again this is extremely rare in revelation.

How do you define 'freely' though?
Free from what?

3. The amendment is that while are choices are free they may not seem to be. I may feel unable to idly watch a child be tortured and do nothing but I still had the choice to do just that. We can be influenced, compelled, and in a way coerced but we cannot be forced to choose.

Also a note: Our ability to choose has nothing to do with our ability to actualize that choice.

Consider the very moment where you are watching a child being tortured. Now replicate this moment multiple times, as if there were multiple equal scenes running parallel to each other on time. You are on the same place, with the same knowledge, on all those instances. Do you think that it is possible that you would have made different choices on those scenes?

If your answer is 'yes', then that's libertarian free will, not compatibilism.

Now you can slap whatever label you wish to on that because that is what kind of freewill I will defend as God's purpose for our lives in this universe.

I feel we are getting bogged down in semantics and not dealing with the reality that words represent.

I hope I have clarified what I mean by freewill so we can move on to some sort of resolution about it.

The problem is that the free will defense, as elucidated by what you said, relies on the libertarian free will: "God had a purpose in the creation of this universe. It was to facilitate intelligent life that could freely choose to accept his reality or deny. Not to coerce our choice, nor to force it by arranging circumstances in which everyone would always choose the good, but to make available true and free choice and sufficient evidence by which to make the choice freely on, but not so much as to force the choice and intrude upon that freewill.".

To a compatibilist, god being the creator would have caused our will to be as is, and as such whatever you do was decided by god beforehand.

 

[1robin]

Use all the anologies you like. Just make sure they're apt.

It was your rejection that requires the criteria that justify the claim it was not apt. Obviously I felt it was apt, that requires no explanation unless the reasons for your challenge are articulated.

Well in philosophical "circles" it sure is. Take a look at what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says. It starts out with:

"The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable for anyone to believe in the existence of God."
source
​

and goes into a very detailed discussion of the problem. Which in-of-itself suggests its importance.

This is simply the listing of a classic argument, not the validation of one. I am quite sure that encyclopedia contains descriptions of hundreds of arguments no longer held as tenable.

And, of course you have evidence to back up this statement. Not that I expect you to present any. 'Tis far safer to ignore my request than confront it---ain't it.

Are you asking for quotes from modern philosophers that pronounce the argument untenable? BTW provide the evidence I am ignoring your question?

Then I assume "your" theology is unlike that of Christianity, wherein good and evil are presented as conflicting characteristics of god.

 VS. 

Were those posters and cartoons your evidence for what traditional Christian doctrine is? Lets paint a more scholastic picture than that.

Lets start with the most accepted commentator in Christian history on your verse.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

45:5-10 There is no God beside Jehovah. There is nothing done without him. He makes peace, put here for all good; and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment. He is the Author of all that is true, holy, good, or happy; and evil, error, and misery, came into the world by his permission, through the willful apostasy of his creatures, but are restrained and overruled to his righteous purpose. This doctrine is applied, for the comfort of those that earnestly longed, yet quietly waited, for the redemption of Israel. The redemption of sinners by the Son of God, and the pouring out the Spirit, to give success to the gospel, are chiefly here intended. We must not expect salvation without righteousness; together the Lord hath created them. Let not oppressors oppose God's designs for his people. Let not the poor oppressed murmur, as if God dealt unkindly with them. Men are but earthen pots; they are broken potsherds, and are very much made so by mutual contentions. To contend with Him is as senseless as for clay to find fault with the potter. Let us turn God's promises into prayers, beseeching him that salvation may abound among us, and let us rest assured that the Judge of all the earth will do right.

Evil is permitted by God because he granted us free-will. It is allowed by his PASSIVE will not made to occur by his active will. He does not cause it. That has never been part of any major Christian doctrine. Lets try and think a little deeper than a cartoon on this please.


​

Simply put: This "all good god" :162: created evil.:fork:

Arrrg! so many questions for such a simple request. I suggest you go back and reread the thread of conversation that led up to my remark.

I have limited time. The way you post does not put those arrows that serve as links to the last post so I can not quickly go back and see what it is your asking about. In his case my response indicates that it would be futile any way. Apparently you asked for something that was unquantifiable or made a counter claim that was based on something similar.

Yet you remain frustrated. My condolences.

I would prefer instead your side to employ less bias and rhetoric.

The point I specifically asked a source for. It's in post 3363. To reiterate:

Crap, another go look something up request.

1. It is so absolutely obvious that a Christian operates from revelation on the background of history, philosophy, etc... that I would think my source instantly recognizable.
2. My primary resource being a book that apparently you interpret through cartoons, my quoting it would mean little to you.

So that being the case you must be asking something else. I have no idea what that could be and so can't supply it. Do you want scriptures, cartoons, rational deductions, philosophy, what?

 

[Ingledsva]

Jews: The Torah was pointing to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ

Muslims: The Quran is Post-Christianity

Hindus: The Bhagavad Gita is Post-Torah and Christianity

Mormons: The Book of Mormon is Post-Christianity

Zoroastrians: The Avesta is Post-Torah and Christianity

Egyptian Polytheism: The Book of the Dead is Post-Torah. Remember Egypt is or was Mizraim.

All these religions were invented by the human minds after the Torah. The Torah was pointing to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the reason why the Lord Jesus Christ said this,

Jn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Before all religions existed the Lord Jesus Christ was there already, even before the Torah.

See, or rather read and understand the Midrash interpretation of the O.T.

WHAT! Did you forget you've only got 4000 years between Adam and Jesus? LOL!


Göbekli Tepe has temples over 12,000 years old.


Underwater cities off India are thought to be much older, and will press this back even farther.


*

 

[Katzpur]

Jews: The Torah was pointing to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ

Muslims: The Quran is Post-Christianity

Hindus: The Bhagavad Gita is Post-Torah and Christianity

Mormons: The Book of Mormon is Post-Christianity

Zoroastrians: The Avesta is Post-Torah and Christianity

Egyptian Polytheism: The Book of the Dead is Post-Torah. Remember Egypt is or was Mizraim.

So what about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Pre-Christianity or Post-Christianity?

 

[Ingledsva]

So, who was the virgin again in Isaiah 7:14?

Isaiah’s wife?

How could a virgin conceive to another child?

You don’t seems too understand what is the argument here in Isaiah’s 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. Its about the words “Almah” and “Parthenos”

Please read again if Isaiah’s wife was still a virgin at that time.

LOL! You need to go back and read what I wrote - and what the verses say.

This is NOT talking about Isaiah's wife.

This is talking about God telling him to get a little extra on the side - with a Temple Prophetess/Virgin.

They were losing and God steps in.


Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

Isa 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

7:10-13 tells us God tells Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Azah feels this would be an imposition.

It tells us THEN God gives AHAZ a sign.

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a almah/virgin maiden shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

NOTE - the sign is for Ahaz whom is with Isaiah!!!!!

8:1 Here he is told to record concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Immanuel's ceremonial name.

8:3 And I (Isaiah)went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz (Fast to the plunder, swift to the prey.)

8:8 Tells us HE, IMMANUEL.

8:18 Here ISAIAH tells us HE and his CHILDREN are for SIGNS, just as it says up in 7:13-14 and 8:3!

Isa 8:18 Behold, I (Isaiah) and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Isa 7:8 even gives us a time - ...,and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.


And as I showed in the other post - they are still talking about King Rezin (from 7:1 above) - AFTER - these "virgin" events.

If you look up Emmanuel in a Strong's, for instance, it will tell you Immanuel is the name of Isaiah's son - also nicknamed Mahershalalhashbaz - Isa 8:3!


*

 

[CG Didymus]

By asking all these questions, I think you have a beautiful heart within you but a little bit confuse about why all these horrible things are happening in the world. There is no textbook we human can read on why all these thing are happening, so I can not answer all these because I just don’t know the answer but one thing I know is, I trust the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart and that is good enough for me.

Hey, that's one of the best answer I could have gotten. But you know I'll still be posting my sarcastic ones anyway. It's kind of my way of testing Christians about their beliefs. No, you know what? "I just don’t know the answer but one thing I know is, I trust the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart"... is the best answer period.

 

[CG Didymus]

A metaphoric parable about what some Christians believe about God, freewill, the devil.

One upon a time a man had a farm. On it he raised sheep and dogs. He didn't want to infringe on the natural instincts or freewill of the dogs, so he let them do as they pleased. To his astonishment some of the dogs killed some of the sheep. The sheep asked, "Why don't you separate us from the bad dogs?" He said, "No, I don't know which ones are bad until they kill one of you." The sheep asked, "But dogs are trainable. You can teach them to be nice to us. Why don't you?" He scratched his head and said, "I could, but that would be imposing my will on them. I what to see if they'll be nice on their own."

One day the sheep saw the farmer's evil neighbor teaching some of the dogs how to attack and kill. The sheep told the farmer. He said, "Hmmm, someday I'll have to have him thrown in jail. And then, he won't be able to do that anymore." The sheep said, "Why not now? The farmer said, "No someday, because for now I want to see which dogs listen to him and which ones, on their own, come to me."

The next day the sheep and the dogs were in the field together. A couple of the dogs were tearing a sheep apart, when suddenly, the whole valley was flooded and all the sheep and dogs died except for a male and female sheep and a male and female dog. The sheep screamed, "What the %*^#! What just happened?" The farmer smiled and said, "I took care of the problem. Things were getting out of control, so I blew up the dam and killed all of the animals but you guys." "Did you drown that #%$^neighbor of yours?" asked the sheep. "No. I still need him to test the dogs and see which ones truly love me." The sheep asked, "And why would they love you?" The farmer answered, "Because I'm the one that feeds them and sustains them and loves them."

The two sheep packed up and moved away. They yelled back. "You're an idiot. You had the power to train them. If they weren't going to obey, you could have had them put to sleep. Or, you could have penned the bad ones separate from us. You could have kept your evil neighbor from teaching them to do wrong, but you didn't do a darn thing. What kind of God, I mean, farmer are you? The End.

The moral of the story is... What's the difference between this farmer and what some Christians believe about God? Is he in control or isn't he? He made this mess and won't fix it until a date to be determined later? He made the devil and let's him live on? He let's evil befall the guilty and innocent? Arrgg.

And the people that believe this are winning in debates? Has anyone ever said, "Yes, Mr. Christian, you've made some valid points. The Bible is amazing. It has stood the test of time. It is almost as accurate as the first day God wrote it. But I like to make one comment. It still sounds stupid." The Christian, "Arrgg, no one's every asked that before. I'll have to think about that one." The evil atheist, "Quick, take a vote now. How many say the Bible sounds stupid?" He counts the hands and says, "Ha ha, I win." Of course the evil debater was struck dead by lightening.

 

[Skwim]

This is simply the listing of a classic argument, not the validation of one. I am quite sure that encyclopedia contains descriptions of hundreds of arguments no longer held as tenable.

Then I invite you to Google "Problem of evil" and look at the first 10 pages. They contain 100---count 'em, 100---web sources on the problem, and with many more to follow on subsequent pages. No, dear 1robin, as much as you would like the problem put to death it remains quite alive.
And no such encyclopedia would bother going into the details here ↓ if it was an untenable (dead) issue.

• 1. Some Important Distinctions
  • 1.1 Relevant Concepts of God
  • 1.2 Incompatibility Formulations versus Inductive Formulations
  • 1.3 Abstract Versus Concrete Formulations
  • 1.4 Axiological Versus Deontological Formulations
• 2. The Choice between Incompatibility Formulations and Evidential Formulations
• 3. Inductive Versions of the Argument from Evil
  • 3.1 Arguments
  • 3.2 Direct Inductive Versions of the Evidential Argument from Evil
  • 3.3 Indirect Inductive Versions of the Evidential Argument from Evil
  • 3.4 Bayesian-Style Probabilistic Versions of the Evidential Argument from Evil
  • 3.5 Inductive Logic and the Evidential Argument from Evil
• 4. Responses to the Argument from Evil: Refutations, Defenses, and Theodicies
• 5. Attempted Total Refutations
  • 5.1 Human Epistemological Limitations
  • 5.2 The ‘No Best of All Possible Worlds' Response
  • 5.3 The Appeal to the Ontological Argument
• 6. Attempted Defenses
  • 6.1 The Appeal to Positive Evidence for the Existence of God
  • 6.2 Belief in the Existence of God as Non-Inferentially Justified
  • 6.3 Induction Based on Partial Success
• 7. Theodicies
  • 7.1 A Soul-Making Theodicy
  • 7.2 Free Will
  • 7.3 The Freedom to Do Great Evil
  • 7.4 The Need for Natural Laws
• 8. Defenses and Theodicies Based on Global Properties
• 9. Peter van Inwagen's Religious Theodicy and a Global Properties Approach
  • 9.1 Human Suffering and the Extended Free will Defense
  • 9.2 The Suffering of Beasts and ‘Massively Irregular’ Worlds
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• source

Are you asking for quotes from modern philosophers that pronounce the argument untenable?

No. I'm looking for the source of your claim that "It falsely masquerades as a problem by those who desire the problem remain and are not among the majority professional philosophers but operate on the fringes of lay scholarship."

BTW provide the evidence I am ignoring your question?

It was a reference to your habit of avoiding direct questions, and going off on irrelevant issues. And, NO, I'm not going to provide you with examples of something you know to be true.

Were those posters and cartoons your evidence for what traditional Christian doctrine is?

Don't play coy. You know exactly what they are.

Lets start with the most accepted commentator in Christian history on your verse.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

45:5-10 There is no God beside . . . .

I've seen the same many times before; playing fast and loose with words as if they actually make the argument their authors claim. Such purple prose would be tossed out of a freshman logic class before you could pronounce "syllogism." Another pitfall is that it blatantly assumes freewill to be a viable state of affairs, whereas most of those who have given the issue any thought see it for what it is: pure illusion, promulgated by Christians in particular to save their concept of sin/salvation.

I would prefer instead your side to employ less bias and rhetoric.

Sorry that we're biased toward reason and employ rhetoric that deftly puts many Christian claims to shame, but so it goes.

Crap, another go look something up request.

Hey, if you don't want an answer don't ask the question.

1. It is so absolutely obvious that a Christian operates from revelation on the background of history, philosophy, etc... that I would think my source instantly recognizable.
2. My primary resource being a book that apparently you interpret through cartoons, my quoting it would mean little to you.

The BIBLE?

"God had a purpose in the creation of this universe. It was to facilitate intelligent life that could freely choose to accept his reality or deny."
​

is in the Bible?

Sounds like a fabrication or at the very least a loosy-goosy interpretation of various passages cobbled together. But on the outside chance that this is unequivocally stated or implied in the scriptures please cite chapter and verse. Thank you.

 

[JM2C]

Isaiah 7:14 is about Isaiah and his son Immanuel and the war against Jerusalem.

He was told to go into the Temple Prophetess/virgin, - she conceived, - bore him a son - Immanuel.

Isaiah’s wife was not a virgin anymore to conceive “Immanuel” base on

Isa 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

IOW, base on your understanding Immanuel would have been Isaiah’s 2nd child. Therefore, his wife can not be a virgin anymore.

This is talking about God telling him to get a little extra on the side - with a Temple Prophetess/Virgin.

Talking about fairy tales. Where did you get this story?

You make up stories like these without any foundation at all.

Isaiah’s wife was the prophetess in Isaiah 8:3.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not Immanuel.

Yeah, keep on guessing maybe someday you’ll get it right.

 

[JM2C]

So what about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Pre-Christianity or Post-Christianity?

Read again,

Jews: The Torah was pointing to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ

Muslims: The Quran Post-Christianity

Hindus: The Bhagavad Gita is Post-Torah

Mormons: The Book of Mormon is Post-Christianity

The Torah was poiting to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ then DSS should do the same.

What do you think?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

“unless you were alive 6,000 or so years ago to witness it all”

Really?

So, you only believe what you see in front of you.

You were the one that brought up that we cannot trust "hearsay." Is the Bible not "hearsay" as well?

 

[JM2C]

Göbekli Tepe has temples over 12,000 years old.

Underwater cities off India are thought to be much older, and will press this back even farther.
*

Read about carbon dating and you will see that those years were not accurate.

The Hebrew word for Ethiopia is*Cush, the eastern branch of which is identified with India.

The Hebrew word for Libya is*Put*(Put was the third son of Ham, according to Genesis 10:6), whose eastern branch, like Cush, is also identified with India (Ames R. The Middle East in Prophecy. Booklet).

The old WCG reported:

Ham and his wife...One of their sons was named Cush (Gen. 10:6) which means "black" in Hebrew and is often translated into English as "Ethiopia" because the Greeks first called the children of Cush "Ethiopians." But not all Cu****es live in the modern nation of Ethiopia.

Cush first settled around ancient Babylon (Gen. 10:8-10). From Babylon, Cush spread far and wide. Most of the black children of Cush migrated across central Arabia and around its southern coast to East Africa.

Cush also had sons who went east into Asia rather than into Africa.

Herodotus wrote:
The Ethiopians from the sun-rise . . . were marshalled with the Indians, and did not at all differ from [them] in appearance but only in their language, and their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians are straight-haired; but those of (Africa) have hair more curly than that of any other people. These Ethiopians from Asia were accounted (almost the same as the Indians [of India]) (Polymnia, Section 20).

The brown people of southern India and Ceylon are also descendants of Cush. Historians call them Dravidians; the ancients called them Sibae (Smith's Classical Dictionary).

Their Bible name was Seba (Gen. 10:7). Josephus recognized an eastern and a western Cush--one in Asia, the other in Africa (Antiquities, Book 1, VI, 2). Herodotus calls them "Asiatic Ethiopians" (Thalia, Section 94). "Ethiopia" in Ezekiel 38:5 should be translated "Cush." It refers primarily to the Asiatic Cush, which is India today.

In India the highest castes were not only called Brahmins, but also Rajputs. "Rajput" means "king or chief of Put" (Raja," Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed.).

"Phut" or "Put" means a "warrior" in Hebrew.

The Rajputs are the most noted warriors in India...Of the four sons of Ham, only Cush bears a name that means "black." Just as some of the sons of Cush are brown, so some of the children of Phut are black.

The Indians of central and northern India vary from light to dark brown. (Personal Correspondence Department. Letter L270, L270-688. Worldwide Church of God)

And you said:

WHAT! Did you forget you've only got 4000 years between Adam and Jesus? LOL!

How do we figure this out? 4000 years between the Lord Jesus Christ and Adam while you are saying that,

“Underwater cities off India are thought to be much older, and will press this back even farther.”

Than the

“Göbekli Tepe has temples over 12,000 years old.” in Turkey.

If India came from Cush and Cush came from Adam then we have a problem on dates, don’t we?

Carbon dating is unreliable.

 

[JM2C]

You were the one that brought up that we cannot trust "hearsay." Is the Bible not "hearsay" as well?

Not at all!

From Genesis to Revelation are the Words of God written by holy men.

They were not the inventions of the finite human mind but came from the infinite mind of the almighty God.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Not at all!

So were you there then? If not, then you are still going by hearsay.

From Genesis to Revelation are the Words of God written by holy men.
They were not the inventions of the finite human mind but came from the infinite mind of the almighty God.

Any evidence of this?

 

[Nakosis]

You were the one that brought up that we cannot trust "hearsay." Is the Bible not "hearsay" as well?

It's only hearsay if you have no conviction. :slap: