Btw, one of the arguments for a global Flood is that there are sedimentary deposits all over the earth. In fact, Flood Geologist will say, "Look, there are even marine deposits on Mt. Everest." Of course, imo that can easily be explained by the fact that the Himalayas are the product of the Indian tectonic plate colliding with the Asian. The Himalayas are the most rapidly growing mountain range on the earth and are increasing in height by 15 mm/year. Geologists believe this has been occurring for about the last 15 million years and it explains why the contents of the ocean floor have been shoved up to tremendous surface heights.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
what if it is Noah's Ark
- Thread starter qdz3se
- Start date
Quote from stu:
It's folklore. Apocalyptic Hebrew story telling. Personally, I prefer Goldilocks and the Three Bears as a fairy tale.
You're entitled to your own opinion of course, but just realize that your opinion about the Flood is not based on any scientific justification or any problem with the Genesis text itself...
Quote from Turok:
Shoe:
>Of course, the gospel had not gone to the Aboriginees..
"Of course"... ?? And you know this how?
JB
This is a big topic that I think would only be of interest to Christians. But, anyway, the only group that I know of that believes the gospel was taken cross-continent pre-Christ are the Mormons. so I don't know where you're headed...can you be a little more specific?
I'm not headed anywhere...YOU made an assertion and emphasized it with "of course" as if it was a widely known fact.
I'm asking how you know that the lord (who was certainly as powerful then as now) didn't spread his gospel to the Aboriginees way back then? The fact that they aren't believers now is not significant evidence because god allows for rejection (for a time).
JB
I'm asking how you know that the lord (who was certainly as powerful then as now) didn't spread his gospel to the Aboriginees way back then? The fact that they aren't believers now is not significant evidence because god allows for rejection (for a time).
JB
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
This is a big topic that I think would only be of interest to Christians. But, anyway, the only group that I know of that believes the gospel was taken cross-continent pre-Christ are the Mormons. so I don't know where you're headed...can you be a little more specific?
Quote from Turok:
I'm not headed anywhere...YOU made an assertion and emphasized it with "of course" as if it was a widely known fact.
I'm asking how you know that the lord (who was certainly as powerful then as now) didn't spread his gospel to the Aboriginees way back then? The fact that they aren't believers now is not significant evidence because god allows for rejection (for a time).
JB
Well, there are only two choices the way I see it:
Either Paul thought that the gospel was spread pre-Christ a la the Mormons or through the gospel.
If you want to believe #1 you can, but I certainly don't see it nor do I know any other non-Mormon theist who does. To my way of thinking it is much more reasonable to note that even in Paul's lifetime the gospel had make significant progress and by the third century (pre-Constantine I might add), the gospel had penetrated to between 1/10th and 1/3rd of the Roman Empire...
Then you don't believe in the gospel being spread through the holy spirit of any other myriad of ways available to god. (though this shouldn't surprise me since many previous posts of yours prove your belief in a god with very limited powers)
JB
JB
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Well, there are only two choices the way I see it:
Either Paul thought that the gospel was spread pre-Christ a la the Mormons or through the gospel.