Spirituality
03 Jun 12
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFThat's right. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
But your believing in God does not depend in any way on your speculation about dragons and unicorns, and it has no effect whatsoever on your faith and belief in what you perceive to be the saving power of Christ to raise you from the dead, is that right?
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsdo you ever wonder why people here think you are stupid?
I believe it is all true, including Jesus rising from the dead. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
it is one thing to be ignorant. ignorant people will realize their ignorance and maybe learn as much as possible. you embrace your ignorance and completely shut off from any truth. that makes you stupid
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57To bury their dead and obtain stone tools perhaps, see what you can come up with if you use your brain instead of a comic to figure stuff out rj, praise the neuron😏
So only they would have reason to dig in the earth or cut into rock, and anyway how do you know what they had in those days, no in fact let me guess.
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Archaeologist and geologists are not interested in burying their dead. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
To bury their dead and obtain stone tools perhaps, see what you can come up with if you use your brain instead of a comic to figure stuff out rj, praise the neuron😏
07 Jun 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Believeing in God does not depend on dinosaurs or dragons or elephants or dogs or whatever.
Apparently, for you it does. Othwerwise you would understand that believing in jesus has nothing to do with believing in something proven beyond doubt to be false. global flood-false, 7 day creation -false, people living 900 years - false, adam and eve giving kids in particular) will reject him entirely just to not be associated with nut jobs like you.
Believeing in God does not depend on dinosaurs or dragons or elephants or dogs or whatever.
I agree. You're getting response from me now on this. I am not trying to speak for RJ.
Apparently, for you it does. Othwerwise you would understand that believing in jesus has nothing to do with believing in something proven beyond doubt to be false. global flood-false, 7 day creation -false, people living 900 years - false, adam and eve giving birth to the whole humanity - false, and so on. not one of these idiotic claims make jesus's message any less real or important. not one of these proven to be false lead to the conclusion that god is false.
It is not as simple as just claiming that Jesus had nothing to do with all this poppycock.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus refered to much of the Old Testament in a way which indicates He took it seriously.
He spoke of the beginning. It is clear He means Genesis.
He spoke of Abel. No hint there that He regards it as fiction.
Jesus spoke of the Noah, the days of Noah, etc. (See Matthew ch. 24 ). No hint at all that He regards Noah as a fictional matter.
Jesus talks about one judgment where the people of Sodom and the contemporary people will appear together. There is no logic to Him including FICTIONAL Sodomites (the geographic meaning) with authentic real contemporary people. Why would Jesus speak of fictional people and real people being at the same judgment ?
The point here is that Jesus Christ in His teaching definitely appears to take the Old Testament seriously. Now you are going to run into trouble if you try to conceive of a Jesus Christ who somehow stood aloof or skeptical about the details of many Old Testament stories.
Jesus spoke of Jonah. Like Jonah He will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, Sodom and Gamorrah, Jonah, these are characters which Christ used IN His teaching.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillWell, he was a Jew and he subscribed to the Jewish scriptures. It is not surprising at all that He took them seriously.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus refered to much of the Old Testament in a way which indicates He took it seriously.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFIt is important to understand that the definition of the word “unicorn” has changed over time.
Do you also think dinosaurs existed less than 10,000 years ago?
If you get an old 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word “unicorn” it says:
Unicorn – An animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
(This 1828 dictionary can be accessed free online. Just go to Google.com and type in “Noah Webster 1828” and it will be one of the first links that pop up.)
Notice how this 200-year-old definition of the word “unicorn” says absolutely nothing about a horse. It says nothing about a horse-like animal, or a mythical animal, or a fictitious creature. It says absolutely nothing about mythology whatsoever. But rather, it says that this is a name that is often applied to the rhinoceros.
Now, anyone who has ever seen a rhinoceros knows that a rhino has two horns — a larger one up front, and a smaller one behind. So, how could a rhinoceros be considered a unicorn?
Well, if you look up the word “rhinoceros” in the same dictionary it says:
Rhinoceros – A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.
According to Noah Webster, back in the early 1800’s it was understood that there were two species of the rhinoceros. The one-horned species was called “unicorn,” and the two-horned species was called “bicornis.”
Today it is understood that there are five species of the rhinoceros, three of which have two horns, and two of which have one horn.
So basically, if you get a 200-year-old Noah Webster’s dictionary and look up the word “unicorn” it says “rhinoceros,” and if you look up the word “rhinoceros” it says “unicorn.” That was just 200 years ago. The King James was translated 400 years ago in 1611. One does not have to be good at math to figure this out.
Today’s definition of the word “unicorn” says absolutely nothing about a rhinoceros, and today’s definition of “rhinoceros” says absolutely nothing about a unicorn. The definitions have changed over time.
http://www.creationtoday.org/why-does-the-bible-mention-unicorns/
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFDragons are defined as mythical creatures today in the same way as the unicorn is. However, as was pointed out the unicorn was once the name given to a one horned rhino. There was no such thing as a dinosaur until they were named in the 1800s. Before that the common name was dragon. What is mythical about it all is the 65 million year part.
This does not alter the fact that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and "dragons" are mythical creatures found in folk tales.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, this is your often repeated superstition for which you do not have one scrap of evidence (your certainty is not evidence; nor is your intermittently literal interpretation of religious literature). You are unable to make a credible case that contradicts the fact that dinosaurs lived up until 65 million years ago.
What is mythical about it all is the 65 million year part.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe things referred to as "dinosaurs" from the 1800s onwards had been buried underground for 65 or more million years. The fact that they were out of sight, buried underground, does not mean "There was no such thing" as dinosaurs.
There was no such thing as a dinosaur until they were named in the 1800s.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFThere is no point in arguing with you on this. I was just trying to learn you something.
The things referred to as "dinosaurs" from the 1800s onwards had been buried underground for 65 or more million years. The fact that they were out of sight, buried underground, does not mean "There was no such thing" as dinosaurs.