Posts by GWEEDO

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

AC

What are you asking me to believe????

lets see here...

Gods reason for having Noah build a big Ark and then flood a whole lotta land, aside from killing a lot of people (babies included), was to prefigure baptism. Why he needed to do is beyond me! But he certainly didn't have the flood to kill everyone around... cause, from memory, you admit in another thread that there would have been people on the fringe of the flood that would have survived. Noah definitely didn't take all the animals aboard 'to preserve offspring alive in the entire land' AS THE BIBLE SAYS, because if a local flood happened not all animals would have been killed. Animals on the fringe of the flood etc would have just re-populated the land anyway. Birds would have flown away and just flown back. No...the reason he preferred to do this flood stuff, as opposed to have Noah walk to the high country, was to somehow prefigure in a cryptic sort of way: baptism. What a God...makes a lot of sense.

Oh oh

and when the bible says: "WHOLE heaven"..which doesn't exactly translate to: the land of Noah. It must mean something like: 'to the visible horizon'. hmmmm. Very sensible.

I think you been drinking too much green beer AC

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

AC

No, they are based on Holy Scripture. The apostle Peter said that the waters of the flood were intended to symbolize Christian baptism.

WHY WHY WHY

why would he need to play around like that???

Just another point...there is no point taking the animals is there either...like birds huh. Unless he was intending to symbolize the time when he would baptize birds too...maybe?

Yes, God could have simply told Noah and his family to leave the area. But in order to symbolize how people would be saved in the future, God saved Noah and his family as they passed through water, not as they ran from water. (1 Pet. 3:20,21)

God is weird. Face it.

Besides, I believe Noah took a long time building that ark. The story of him building a giant boat nowhere near any body of water big enough to float it in, and why he said he was building it, probably spread throughout his land, helping greatly to spread the message of righteousness which Peter said he preached.

yeah...and I'm Santa Claus

See...now AC...

If thats as good as you can do...it's really not very much, IS IT. Take off your Rose colored bible goggles for a second and look at what your asking me to accept. It's wishful thinking on your part. If God is going to convince people that a local flood happened and the bible is real, I think a bit better rebuttal to the above point is in order...dont yah fink...just maybe?????????????hmmmmmmm!

I quite like you AC...but this stuff is just weird. You really think you got any hope of convincing people of this local flood stuff with rebuttals like what you just put up. Sorry,,,your living in lah lah land!

have a nice day!

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

Its very easy to debunk this local flood thing. If it was a local flood that came upon the earth, then God wouldn't have made Noah build an Ark... he would have just moved him to higher ground. I know what what AC will say to that.It's here that his arguments become reeeaaally strained, and seem to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

case closed!

11

Jesus sweating blood

by Simon in

just watching a programme about the gospel accounts and one thing struck me - the notion that jesus sweat blood.

apparently it was the stress of his impending death.. now, as a sceptic, the problems i have with this account are:.

it's medically impossible to sweat blood.. there is a disease (hematohidrosis) where plasma cells can color the sweat to make it appear to be 'as if blood'.. jesus was supposed to be perfect!

GWEEDO

Jesus was supposed to be perfect! Why would he have any disease, let alone and incredibly rare one?
Was Jesus really supposed to be perfect? I think that is leftover Watchtower assumption. Jesus became flesh. Flesh is NEVER perfect. It is corruptible matter.

Didn't Jesus walk around curing the sick and ill. If he had such a disease as Simon says...then you'd think he'd atleast cure himself. huh?

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

AC

Gweedo,
Earlier in this thread I discussed the fact that Bible writers often used universal language to describe nonuniversal events. I gave several examples of their doing so. The literary term for such language is hyperbole. Thec one using such language in such a way is not considered to be either dishonest or inaccurate in his writing. Hyperbole is a widely used literary devise today and it was even more widely used in Bible times.

yeah I know what you guyz say.

"All the high hills under the whole heaven were covered"

actually means:

"the waters covered all the mountains above the horizon visible to the people on the ark."

Atleast that's what COJ says.

Whats the point in using hyperbole here. Why use it???? Why not just say what you mean. It's very misleading to say "WHOLE heaven" when you really mean "to the horizon". I mean, I understand the use of hyperbole. I know hyperbole is good to use to emphasize a point. But what point was the biblical author trying to get across when he uses the term 'WHOLE heaven'. He doesn't seem to be emphasizing anything...he's just being completely misleading, as I see it.

I might have understood if he had just said:

"all the high hills under heaven were covered"

but he has thrown in the word WHOLE

HEY...maybe he did that to emphasize a point. That being that the hills under the WHOLE heaven were actually covered.

Now...'WHOLE heavens', to me, doesn't exactlty translate into: 'the land of Noah'. I think a more apt description would maybe be: the whole world as Noah knew it. Of which I find hard to believe didn't include knowledge of some high mountains. I mean, the guy eventually made it to ararat...to Northern Iraq somewhere, and if your've seen a few news reports of the Kurds fleeing Sadams troopers, you'll know it's pretty hilly terrain up there.

SO

I have to conclude that the bible is talking of a pretty big deluge. The likes of which could never have happened.

what do ya fink?

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

The account simply tells us that all the highest hills in the land of Noah were covered with water.

All the highest hills under the WHOLE heaven, to be exact.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

AC

But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded? For an answer to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative is translated elsewhere in the Old Testament simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)

I find it extremely hard to believe that Noah didn't have any concept of a mountain, something around 600 metres or above. This guy walked around preaching for...what??...a hundred years. I'm expected to believe that he didn't see a mountain in the distance...say like the Zagros mountains that run down the border of Iran and Iraq. I mean, Mankind had been around quite some time by the time Noah came to earth. I'm supposed to believe that they hadn't done just a little walking and seen a few rather big hills...That mans only concept of a "HIGH" hill would have been a mound of dirt. This really stretchs my imagination AC

91

America Will Execute Brit Today.

by Englishman in

jw
friends

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1867000/1867916.stm .

englishman.

GWEEDO

Thichi

It becomes unacceptable if hundreds of violent criminals and murderers are to avoid the death penalty in order for no innocent person to accidentally be executed.

well, disagree with that. It's not unacceptable to me if the bad guys are locked up for good.

It would mean that we for ever are forced to abandon justice for such criminals.

justice isn't some universal absolute. Its a subjective and arbitrary term. What I consider justice is not what you would consider justice. For example, I consider a just system to be a system that prizes innocence, and as a consquence does away with the DP. I consider a life behind bars to be a just penalty for murder...and a very unpleasant penalty at that. You consider the DP to be a just penalty for murder. Still others might consider that justice should be that the murderer suffer exactly what he did to his victim...in all it's horror.

And thinking of the victims it would also be to sacrifice the respect, the compassion and the inviolable worth of the human life on the altar.

rubbish. thats hardly the experience here in my country, Australia.

No These sacrifices would pass the limit of tolerability with big steps.

which is your opinion based on nothing more than emotion

14

Bible Contradition: Cursing the Fig Tree

by JosephAlward in

the contradiction below is just one among a great many which show that the bible cannot be trusted to give an accurate account of jesus life.. mark believes that jesus cursed the fig tree before he drove the merchants from the temple:.

the next day as they were leaving bethany, jesus..said to the tree, "may no one ever eat fruit from you again.

" (mark 11:12-14).

GWEEDO

The reason for your "head" problem is that you haven't the faintest idea of what Jesus was really talking about. (Hint: It's not at all what you tend to think, little Shallow-mind!)

hehe
contacted NASA yet dude?

5

Joseph Alward are you ignoring me?

by stocwach in

once again you appear to selectively choose not to respond to legitimate rebuttals to your mumbo jumbo, just as you never responded to repeated efforts for you to reveal your letter to the wt society, although you were more than happy to provide a letter from the wt to you.

don't you realize how your credibility is affected by your cowardly actions?.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23413&site=3

GWEEDO

gweedo, I think that Joseph Al(whatever) does not respond to anyone who says anything directly to him.

well..he responded to cellomould in fig tree thread.

maybe he's a busy guy. I personally dont understand why he has to respond. Whats the prob with him putting up something and not defending it to the hilt. Everyone can see what he's put up...if you agree, fine...if you disagree, thats ok. Take it or leave it. It's the same with stocwach. Everyone can see his response. Why stocwach needs JA to respond to have his own post somehow validated beats me!

You know what I think, I think JA wont respond because he knows no matter how he responds to religious fruits they will just come up more twisted apologetic dribble and the thread will go on and on and on. Religious fruits always gotta have the last word...JA just has the sense to know when to drop it...which in this case is before it even began...

But anyway...lets see

From memory, Stocwach is saying that Jesus trashed the temple twice[8>]haha...I think tyydyy's idea about there being 2 trees is more plausible....REALLY!!!