The God Debate v2

[Creepah]

Warping vague and previously metaphorical verses to represent now known and accepted facts doesn't mean the Bible was right all along.

Creationists use selective evidence to prove the Bible, whereas scientists use evidence to create new theories and modify old ones. A scientist would likely change their view based on evidence yet creationists continue to ignore blatant and obvious evidence against them.

 

[Azorces]

• Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
• Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

Illuminati confirmed earth is a square
Ik exactly what your doing your looking up on a bible website looking for four corners.
Second how about you actually read the whole book before using it against someone, because your pulling these verses out of context.
In other words the next verses may explain what is the meaning to what was stated above.

 

[boboy1999]

four corners referring to everywhere on the earth. the fact that they referred to the world itself as round makes it known they knew the world was round. i can see what you're saying though

Are you a christian? Do you think the big bang theory and evolution is true? Im just wondering.

 

[BaccaBoy1999]

Warping vague and previously metaphorical verses to represent now known and accepted facts doesn't mean the Bible was right all along.

Creationists use selective evidence to prove the Bible, whereas scientists use evidence to create new theories and modify old ones. A scientist would likely change their view based on evidence yet creationists continue to ignore blatant and obvious evidence against them.

lets just group every chocolate into the same box shall we

 

[boboy1999]

Warping vague and previously metaphorical verses to represent now known and accepted facts doesn't mean the Bible was right all along.

Creationists use selective evidence to prove the Bible, whereas scientists use evidence to create new theories and modify old ones. A scientist would likely change their view based on evidence yet creationists continue to ignore blatant and obvious evidence against them.

I completely agree.

 

[Azorces]

lets just group every chocolate into the same box shall we

Lmao

 

[boboy1999]

Im on teamspeak general chat 4 if you guys wanna chat. My fingers hurt from typing. lol

 

[Creepah]

lets just group every chocolate into the same box shall we

Well ofc there's exceptions, but you get my jist.

I think I'm going to stop beyond this point because we're going nowhere. Good luck to those continuing the fight.

 

[Azorces]

Just as another point if a cell was created by non living material why does it not happen today?

 

[Evermore]

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

I can accept a theory of a god and creation if it actually makes sense, but the Bible is just comprehensively fallible. (I suppose that makes me agnostic then)

 

[boboy1999]

Just as another point if a cell was created by non living material why does it not happen today?

Your constant questions show you don't know anything about this subject.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-origin-of-life-on-earth-theories-and-explanations.html

 

[boboy1999]

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.htmlhtml

I can accept a theory of a god and creation if it actually makes sense, but the Bible is just comprehensively fallible. (I suppose that makes me agnostic then)

There is no such thing at the theory of God and creation.
Edit: Something wrong with your link