Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
but the jews pretty much revolve around the first 5 books
you have never even read the bible, have you?
worst statement ever, starting in the new testimate is where it is at.
i notice you didnt answer my question. should i take that to mean that no, you have not read the bible?
You can't see this tree from the opposite side of the Earth, no matter how tall this tree gets.
I suppose I'll have to accept that,as I can not prove otherwise. But time is on God's side. The word of God is very old. The pink unicorn that is floating above your head isn't.
i do read it, aswell it is not saying she will name him, it is saying call him that, as in she will call him, "god is with us" This chapter does not turn down Jesus at all, please state clearly your arguement.
there is a reason i put quotations, read out loud what is inside the quotations.
did you read the entire CHAPTER, not just the verse? if you did, youd realize that this cannot possibly be about jesus.
isaiah 7 is about king ahaz and the surrounding nations conspiring to attack him. ahaz and the jews are worried because they know they are going to get ken-comboed if they go to war. so god sends isaiah to say that no, the jews will win if they fight. ahaz doesnt believe him so isaiah says god will send a sign, a virgin giving birth to a boy who will become the king of assyria. for this prophecy to make sense, the kid must be born while ahaz is the king. ahaz was king centuries before jesus was ever born, so this cannot be referring to jesus. jesus also never became the king of assyria.
God is known to be king to all believers. What verse supports it in that exact time for his coming? I am in a rush i want to try to get as much down as i can before i have to go.
This is assuming God exists, which you haven't proven.
yes but it makes your arguement invalid then, that statement proves nothing
if the virgin gives birth centuries after ahaz is dead, how is this a sign to show ahaz that god is going to help him win the war? for it to be a sign to ahaz, ahaz has to be alive to see it, and then send his armies to war.
but why would god do this? it makes no sense for him to just make water disappear with no trace whatsoever. what would the point be? and water isnt the only problem. the entire geological record denies the possibility of a worldwide flood. if a single worldwide flood happened 4500 years ago, it would be obvious in the rocks. but it is not. there are hundreds upon hundreds of rock layers going miles into the earth, and many could not have been laid down by water. just last week i was in las vegas, and there are petrified sand dunes out there. how can you possibly have petrified sand dunes form if theyre under water??
Which argument does my statement invalidate? I never argued for the existence of God.
ok i gotta go like now, so i leave you with thi untill my return, The bible is somthing that if you seek god, you will find his answers, if you are against god, you will find nothing but reason to reject the idea, this is somthing that is very true. I personally have my experience in the new testimate, and if you don't know the new testimate, the old testimate will make almost no sence to you.
Time to read the Bible with God looking over my shoulder. I sure hope I find something that I wouldn't have found had I read it without believing in God. I wonder if one of those decoder rings you get in cereal boxes will help?
Are those scriptural prophesies?
You haven't disproven God exists either. Why is the burden of proof on Christians? Christianity is much older than Evolution. So it seems to me it is you who is making the claim not Christains.
He did this to pass judgement on all of earth for neglecting Him. This flood happened 1000's of years ago. Those layers maybe "newer". And why can't water make petrified sand dunes if there is enough pressure?
I apologize,that wasn't logical at all. The rest of that statement is valid.
That argument has been used constantly and it is NOT a strong argument. Give me evidence why the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. If you want to present an idea, we shouldn't have to disprove it, rather, the one who presented the idea should have the evidence to support the idea. I could present the idea that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists without having to evidence to back it up, does that mean it's possible a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because you can't disprove it? Of course it doesn't, so why is it any different for God? How annoying indeed.
Science it's an amazing thing.
this is just not true. i was raised catholic, and i genuinely wanted to read the bible and learn about all the stories about jesus, the prophets, the apostles, etc. but the more i read, the less sense things made. i didnt read hoping to discredit it, i read hoping to gain a greater understanding of it. if you HONESTLY read the bible without bringing your biases to the table, you will see that a lot that your pastors/ministers/priests tell you are flat out lies.
yes, the hebrew word used was "chuwg" and it can only mean a flat circle in the context. the verse is isaiah 40:22~L~ said:
matthew 12:38-40 clearly says three days and three nights.~L~ said:
this thread isnt about evolution, its about god. no matter how old or popular belief is, if theres no evidence, it still hasnt met the burden of proof. darwin proposed his theory of natural selection in 1859, and at that point, it had not yet met the burden of proof. so scientists started testing darwin's claims, and they turned out to be true. evolution has met the burden of proof and still continues to do so today. just within the past few years paleontologists found a perfect transitional fossil between fish and amphibians called tiktaalik.~L~ said:
ask a rabbi about this passage. it was written by jews for jews, and they study it intently. it simply cannot be about jesus, or even the messiah. the author of the gospel of matthew was using a greek translation of isaiah (the septuagint) and he misread it. he thought the prophecy was about the messiah, so he made up a story about jesus being born of a virgin.~L~ said:
build a small hill of sand (or any powder that doesnt dissolve in water). now take a bunch of water and pour it over the hill. what happens? it flattens and disperses. water will ruin the shape of sand dunes. the way a sand dune becomes petrified is that so much material is built up that the pressure causes the lower layers to turn to rock. the rocks i saw were hundreds of feet high and have multiple layers of dunes going in different directions as the ones they sit on top of, so they cannot have been formed within the past 4500 years, and they cannot have been formed under water. not only that, but the petrified sand dunes sit on top of much older rocks that go even further down. they also sit on a fault line which has caused some of the layers to invert, putting the older rocks ON TOP OF the petrified sand dunes. this kind of stuff simply cant happen overnight.~L~ said:
this is just not true. i was raised catholic, and i genuinely wanted to read the bible and learn about all the stories about jesus, the prophets, the apostles, etc. but the more i read, the less sense things made. i didnt read hoping to discredit it, i read hoping to gain a greater understanding of it. if you HONESTLY read the bible without bringing your biases to the table, you will see that a lot that your pastors/ministers/priests tell you are flat out lies.
~L~ please learn to close your quotes correctly.
I don't believe that Catholocism,a religion that doesn't base itself solely on the Bible,is a true form of Christianity. I'm a Protestant.
I didn't have time to post "exactly right."
yes, the hebrew word used was "chuwg" and it can only mean a flat circle in the context. the verse is isaiah 40:22
matthew 12:38-40 clearly says three days and three nights.
I guess I'll have to do some research.
this thread isnt about evolution, its about god. no matter how old or popular belief is, if theres no evidence, it still hasnt met the burden of proof. darwin proposed his theory of natural selection in 1859, and at that point, it had not yet met the burden of proof. so scientists started testing darwin's claims, and they turned out to be true. evolution has met the burden of proof and still continues to do so today. just within the past few years paleontologists found a perfect transitional fossil between fish and amphibians called tiktaalik.
Did you not read my post after that one? It's now quoted below.
ask a rabbi about this passage. it was written by jews for jews, and they study it intently. it simply cannot be about jesus, or even the messiah. the author of the gospel of matthew was using a greek translation of isaiah (the septuagint) and he misread it. he thought the prophecy was about the messiah, so he made up a story about jesus being born of a virgin.
What evidence do you have of this?
build a small hill of sand (or any powder that doesnt dissolve in water). now take a bunch of water and pour it over the hill. what happens? it flattens and disperses. water will ruin the shape of sand dunes. the way a sand dune becomes petrified is that so much material is built up that the pressure causes the lower layers to turn to rock. the rocks i saw were hundreds of feet high and have multiple layers of dunes going in different directions as the ones they sit on top of, so they cannot have been formed within the past 4500 years, and they cannot have been formed under water. not only that, but the petrified sand dunes sit on top of much older rocks that go even further down. they also sit on a fault line which has caused some of the layers to invert, putting the older rocks ON TOP OF the petrified sand dunes. this kind of stuff simply cant happen overnight.
We are not talking about pouring a glass of water onto a sand castle,we are talking about a global flood,and whether such an enormous,nearly unfathomable amount of water gushing out of the earth and raining upon it(However God did it to make it happen)would cause enough pressure to do this to those sand dunes. Which I believe it did.
And what does height have to do with it? Every mountain was completly covered by the flood. The ark ended up on top of a mountain at the end of it. It also says the world was "changed".
Highlighted yellow again.
Actually, that's only partially correct.
Even scientists speculate that there was indeed a flood and they think they have located the ark. But they do not have permission to search the area due to a country's privacy or whatever.
