29 Oct 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzii rest my case Badwater!
bully should suggest someone uses his/her strength(emotional, physical etc) to push around someone with inferior strength.
the carrobie doesn't have any strength. not somethign that would show on this forum. therefore he doesn't and can't bully anyone.
maybe he can knit very good.
from what we can see on this forum, he is truly a wreck of a human b ...[text shortened]... abnoxious and prout of it. obtuse and proud of it. self delusional and oblivious.
oh well.
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Badwaterpleeeaaassse! it was in tatters and fluttering around like a piece of toilet paper at a football (soccer to you) match. two creation accounts, one that just happens to miss out half the details, i dont think so!
You refuted nothing.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, you were doing that stand-up routine again.🙄
pleeeaaassse! it was in tatters and fluttering around like a piece of toilet paper at a football (soccer to you) match. two creation accounts, one that just happens to miss out half the details, i dont think so!
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by Badwaterwhatever, but the evidence in favour of single creation account has its basis in sound understanding of both grammar, structure and scripture, and makes more sense than the higher critic one, which is just the figment of someone imagination, failing to realise that there would be no sense whatsoever to have two, and missing out details at that. the best you can hope for Baddy my son, is a difference of opinion, otherwise the idea is toasty woasty!
No, you were doing that stand-up routine again.🙄
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom the other thread:
whatever, but the evidence in favour of single creation account has its basis in sound understanding of both grammar, structure and scripture, and makes more sense than the higher critic one, which is just the figment of someone imagination, failing to realise that there would be no sense whatsoever to have two, and missing out details at that. the ...[text shortened]... you can hope for Baddy my son, is a difference of opinion, otherwise the idea is toasty woasty!
"So what we have is two different creation stories, with two different creation sequences, with two different views of God, and two different writers.
And you, RB, have failed to demonstrate otherwise. I have not gotten into the different views of God, or the J and P sources, but I can. It's taught and widely accepted in all major seminaries - but I suppose you don't know about that. Do you?"
All of your claims are errant. I demonstrated that your odd creation sequence in the other thread followed no scripture that I read, and you have not demonstrated otherwise, and your claims to the contrary are pure fantasy.
29 Oct 09
2 edits
i have not only demonstrated, with scriptural references and references to grammar, but i have demonstrated it beyond a doubt, at least to my satisfaction, that there is no 'supposed', incongruity, that the account is single and that details are merely added in chapter two, taken in the third day ( i noticed that your ill conceived claims had no bearing on the actual chronology of creative days, why was that, are they of no consequence, or is it that they refute your preposterous claims?) and with reference to Adam, the garden of Eden, and the creation of Eve. i care not a jot what they teach in seminars, Christ and the apostles, if you note, were also chastised, as men 'ordinary and unlettered', for the very same reason, that they had not studied at the Rabbinical schools! it did not stop them from understanding the word of God!
29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasno i admit that you are a slanderer and a woosie (i am sure my friend Scriabin is still waiting to turn you into a moose head) after you never had the 'balls', to take up his challenge!
So you admit you're a slanderer as well as a homophobe, double-loser?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd this is the fantasy to which I refer. Case closed.
i have not only demonstrated, with scriptural references and references to grammar, but i have demonstrated it beyond a doubt, at least to my satisfaction, that there is no 'supposed', incongruity, that the account is single and that details are merely added in chapter two, taken in the third day ( i noticed that your ill conceived claims had no bear ...[text shortened]... studied at the Rabbinical schools! it did not stop them from understanding the word of God!
29 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStill going in that track?
no i admit that you are a slanderer and a woosie (i am sure my friend Scriabin is still waiting to turn you into a moose head) after you never had the 'balls', to take up his challenge!
He never challenged me, he never asked me, he just doesn't want to play? Is this too hard to understand for a creationist?