What of the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Of course I believe everything in my Bible. The fact that there were certain ritualistic customs for ancient Israel alone does not mean the Bible advocates this to all cultures in all times. In fact the O.T. itself says these covenants will end and new ones will come. If you believe customs in the Bible in infinite for all generations, you're actually showing you doubt what the Bible teaches.
For instance, after the Flood God ordained that all animal meats could be consumed. Then during Moses time that was limited to particular "clear" animals. Then when the church was established, the mosaic dietary law was lifted, and all were available again. And before the flood there were even more dietary restrictions.
Now where on earth did you get the idea that rape victims were forced into marriage by the Law? My guess is you're referring to Deut. 22:28-29.
Deut. 22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
The word there is shakab, which merely means to lie with or have sexual relations with. There are some translations that translate this rape, but most don't and I think rightfully so. You would have to get that from the context, and I don't see anything in the context of forced rape, in fact, when the text says, "and they are found..." is seems to indicate sneakiness on both their parts.
Not only this, in ancient times, if there was a rape, the rape victim herself would have demanded a marriage contract, forcing the man who raped her to provide for her the rest of her life. In that culture, virginity was very important to prospective husbands. And back then, women were extremely dependent and could not just get a job at the local supermarket and collect welfare. As a matter of survival, women would have forced those violating them to provide, and there is no indication they would have to engage in further sexual relations. This Law expressed in Deuteronomy would have protected the women from becoming destitute.
So are you really doubting your Bible over this? It's so silly. Al you had to do is a little research and you'd see it's nothing close to what you thought it was.
As with most skeptics, some research before just quoting your favorite objections would save you a lot of embarrassment. All you proving to everyone on this board is that you haven't read the Bible in context.
For instance, after the Flood God ordained that all animal meats could be consumed. Then during Moses time that was limited to particular "clear" animals. Then when the church was established, the mosaic dietary law was lifted, and all were available again. And before the flood there were even more dietary restrictions.
Now where on earth did you get the idea that rape victims were forced into marriage by the Law? My guess is you're referring to Deut. 22:28-29.
Deut. 22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
The word there is shakab, which merely means to lie with or have sexual relations with. There are some translations that translate this rape, but most don't and I think rightfully so. You would have to get that from the context, and I don't see anything in the context of forced rape, in fact, when the text says, "and they are found..." is seems to indicate sneakiness on both their parts.
Not only this, in ancient times, if there was a rape, the rape victim herself would have demanded a marriage contract, forcing the man who raped her to provide for her the rest of her life. In that culture, virginity was very important to prospective husbands. And back then, women were extremely dependent and could not just get a job at the local supermarket and collect welfare. As a matter of survival, women would have forced those violating them to provide, and there is no indication they would have to engage in further sexual relations. This Law expressed in Deuteronomy would have protected the women from becoming destitute.
So are you really doubting your Bible over this? It's so silly. Al you had to do is a little research and you'd see it's nothing close to what you thought it was.
As with most skeptics, some research before just quoting your favorite objections would save you a lot of embarrassment. All you proving to everyone on this board is that you haven't read the Bible in context.
C
He's referring to Lev. 14, where ritualistic practices were ordered in the case of certain illnesses. This would really be akin to today, a christian praying for someone with cancer and perhaps rubbing an anointing oil on them. He thinks someone prayer violates medical science?? I really don't know where he's going with that.
I think Jack's quote was contentious and I am not dismissive of education and deductive reasoning based upon facts and not theory....such as 1 plus 1 equals 2 is a fact....surmising the age of fossilized bones based upon circular reasoning and a flawed carbon dating process is at best frivolous....and to point three...They (the highly educated ones) who seem to think that bible believers are uneducated blind men following fables and stories seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are many men and women who are as highly educated as they themselves claim to be who have no problem in seeing the validity of the word of God and the eternal truths found therein......!
C
These are all Old Testament references, but then if you were an atheist you might know that. 
The objections you guys are brining up really amount to child's play in terms of real challenges. I could field these all day.
For me this says that you feel comfortable dismissing those parts of the Bible you do not agree with.
Where is this passage?
Now this is what I call a paradox.
You mean clean animals. Yes.
No, not the Church, unless you are counting Paul as establishing this institution. Paul was dismissive of the dietary laws, while Jesus taught that not a letter of the Law was to be changed.
"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)
Where is this passage?
Now this is what I call a paradox.
You mean clean animals. Yes.
No, not the Church, unless you are counting Paul as establishing this institution. Paul was dismissive of the dietary laws, while Jesus taught that not a letter of the Law was to be changed.
"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)
The T. rex I link to below is 66 million years old.
That is not theory. It's a fact.
You are a creationist, right?
You believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old, right?
You believe that there was a global flood between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago, right?
You believe that dinosaurs existed less than 6,000 years ago, right?
If I have misunderstood your posts, and you do not believe any of the above, please tell me what you believe?
That is not theory. It's a fact.
You are a creationist, right?
You believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old, right?
You believe that there was a global flood between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago, right?
You believe that dinosaurs existed less than 6,000 years ago, right?
If I have misunderstood your posts, and you do not believe any of the above, please tell me what you believe?
I must confess that I have not read the entire Bible, but I have read large sections of it. I have read most of the New Testament, if not all of it, and large parts of the Old Testament, but I have not sat down and read it from cover to cover. The truth is I think all of us can read scripture and miss items of great importance unless they are pointed out.
We need to get back to that discussion. I am absolutely convinced that I am right. I do understand this text. I think your problem is that you are reading it as I once did, with an understanding geared to the modern world view, and you are trying to understand the creation account in that light. So when you read it you are not truly grasping what it says. Let's get back to it.
I find scripture immensely interesting. I am sure you will agree with me about that much.
We need to get back to that discussion. I am absolutely convinced that I am right. I do understand this text. I think your problem is that you are reading it as I once did, with an understanding geared to the modern world view, and you are trying to understand the creation account in that light. So when you read it you are not truly grasping what it says. Let's get back to it.
I find scripture immensely interesting. I am sure you will agree with me about that much.
C
Well what you're doing is blindly trusting other skeptics that have told you certain things. This can be tempting I realize, but when you're set straight, you resist. It's almost a religious knee-jerk reaction.
Which is the standard claim of those you're reading. That's why at the very outset I drew all my definitions from the book of Genesis itself. You did't catch that mainly because you just don't understand the issue. You're doing what you're accusing me of doing—trying to force Genesis into a particular culture.
The skepticism you guys are bringing is as religious as any other belief. You no longer work off evidence. It's about fitting evidences into your religious skepticism.
Which is the standard claim of those you're reading. That's why at the very outset I drew all my definitions from the book of Genesis itself. You did't catch that mainly because you just don't understand the issue. You're doing what you're accusing me of doing—trying to force Genesis into a particular culture.
The skepticism you guys are bringing is as religious as any other belief. You no longer work off evidence. It's about fitting evidences into your religious skepticism.
C
I'm guilty and unashamed of the first two and the last one even T-Rex secular experts would agree with me. Why would you rather be attacked by a Bear who can run 25 mph, rather than a T-Rex who could run under 10 mph? Jack you are one of my favorite skeptics.
Cycil, even you have to blush on this one. Please tell me you'd choose the T-Rex over a Bear. You seem the smarter of the two.
Cycil, even you have to blush on this one. Please tell me you'd choose the T-Rex over a Bear. You seem the smarter of the two.
Hey Cycel (not Cycil),
Don't listen to him.
Do you hunt?
You can stop a bear with weapons a deer hunter might typically utilize.
But a T. rex?
How would a human who coexisted with T. rex less than 6,000 years ago (according to some YECs) stop that critter before being crushed to smithereens and eaten?
Don't listen to him.
Do you hunt?
You can stop a bear with weapons a deer hunter might typically utilize.
But a T. rex?
How would a human who coexisted with T. rex less than 6,000 years ago (according to some YECs) stop that critter before being crushed to smithereens and eaten?