On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[possibletarian]

Yes, there was one extinction level event, called the Flood. That's what killed the dinosaurs, if they all even perished then. Species go extinct all the time, and they may have been hunted to death after the Flood.

Okay lets go with this one, can you show any reason to believe that dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago ?  

Why do you think they're literally finding dinosaur flesh still attached to bones? After millions and millions of years? Ha!

Can you show me where you found information about this flesh hanging dino bone ?
Are you perhaps referring to this study https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n...115306469/

Maybe you should read the article first.

By the way, I had another look at your link about the originality of the "cult of YHWH." None of it did anything to bolster your argument,
The fact remains that much older Torah manuscripts could have easily existed and been lost. Archeology doesn't uncover every single piece of historical evidence...it offers glimpses and provides ground for theories and nothing more.

Exactly and those glimpses show something very different from your claim that there were no gods in Archaeology before Yahweh. You seem simply to be basing your claim on ''I believe it so'' rather than any evidence. Sure things can get lost or destroyed, but we cannot make claims on the basis of ''the evidence could have been lost'' that makes your claim simply assertion

---

He doesn't blind for no reason. Sin is the problem, and that's why He calls us to repentance. That is the core message of the entire Bible: repentance from sin. But the only way you can possibly repent is if you are first broken. Until you're broken, you don't stand a chance. You can call it unfair, but none of us deserve mercy. Victims are sinners.

Yes i know what the core message of the bible is, but what separates it from a simple claim, i could just have easily been talking to a member of any religion and they would have claimed me 'blind' and 'unworthy' I don't call it unfair at all i see no reason at all to believe it's anything more than a story.
How can you show what you believe (and I believe that you believe) is anything more than a belief ?

[MilesAbbott81]

Okay lets go with this one, can you show any reason to believe that dinosaurs were around a few thousand years ago ?   

I'm not going to do all the work for you. There are plenty of stories that describe things like dinosaurs in history that you can find yourself. There's also the book of Job, which mentions what sounds like dinosaurs.

Mostly, though, I know that all of the bones that have been found haven't been dated correctly, because radiometric dating is garbage (and you can find these arguments yourself as well). The Institute for Creation Research is a pretty solid resource.

Can you show me where you found information about this flesh hanging dino bone ?  
Are you perhaps referring to this study https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n...115306469/

Maybe you should read the article first.

Bad dating in that case, as in all such cases. She isn't the only one who has found these things, by the way. I seem to remember hearing that these discoveries are becoming more and more regular. Here is one example: https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/din...index.html

EDIT: I should mention I'm not really sure what you were pointing out. There was still "flesh" on or in the bone, and they have no idea how it was preserved for so long.

Exactly and those glimpses show something very different from your claim that there were no gods in Archaeology before Yahweh. You seem simply to be basing your claim on ''I believe it so'' rather than any evidence.   Sure things can get lost or destroyed, but we cannot make claims on the basis of ''the evidence could have been lost'' that makes your claim  simply assertion

It's not a claim, it's a fact. You have no idea what happened, so to cite this "evidence" as conclusive is just silly. That's why in your own article it states that two scholars, whom I assume have access to the same information, differ.

Yes i know what the core message of the bible is, but what separates it from a simple claim, i could just have easily been talking to a member of any religion and they would have claimed me 'blind' and 'unworthy' I don't call it unfair at all i see no reason at all to believe it's anything more than a story.
How can you show what you believe (and I believe that you believe) is anything more than a belief ?

We're all unworthy, and we're all blind until the Lord gives us sight. Being offended at your present state or the idea that it might be your present state is only evidence that you don't see yourself as you truly are. We all deserve to be blind fools.

[fredd bear]

@possibletarian

Geez, wHat's with this Abbot bloke? From his posts, he doesn't seem mentally impaired. Is he truly as wilfully ignorant as he seems?

This fool seems to really believe that the mythology of an illiterate tribe of Bronze age goat herders is the inerrant word of a supreme being-- these people even lacked the wit to invent their own gods and mythology. IE: YHWH was part of a Chaldean trilogy, the flood myth was lifted from The Epic Of Gilgamesh, and parts of Mosaic law bear an uncanny resemblance to parts of Hammurabi's code..

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after coming across the creationist museum. There is apparently a diorama with a person riding a dinosaur.
Of course, this was almost certainly stolen from the Gospel of Luke, in which Luke recounts how Jesus came to have a pet dinosaur. (he removed a thorn from its paw)


"A creationist museum is a facility that hosts exhibits which use the established natural history museum format to present a young Earth creationist view that the Earth and life on Earth were created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in six days.[1] These facilities generally promote pseudoscientific Biblical literalist creationism and contest evolutionary science, which has led to heavy criticism from the scientific community.[2] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_museum

[possibletarian]

I'm not going to do all the work for you. There are plenty of stories that describe things like dinosaurs in history that you can find yourself.

So no proof at all (that you care to share) that Dinos' lived a few thousand years ago ?

There's also the book of Job, which mentions what sounds like dinosaurs.

Even Job is referring to a mythical beast, doesn't the bible also mention Unicorns, Locusts (like Horses) , The Leviathan (Creature with multiple heads that Yahweh battled for control of the sea), A lion with eagle wings, leopard-like creature with four wings and four heads.. we could of course go on.
But surely T-rex and the enormous Dino's would at least deserve a mention, especially as remains are found all over the earth.

Mostly, though, I know that all of the bones that have been found haven't been dated correctly, because radiometric dating is garbage (and you can find these arguments yourself as well).

That is not the only way things are dated though, something you would know if you actually decided to educate yourself. Can you show me where the claim that it is not considered accurate by leaders in the field is ?

The Institute for Creation Research is a pretty solid resource.

You mean the site that has this in it's 'what we believe' section..

Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Yes then clearly a great site to go to to be educated on science

Bad dating in that case, as in all such cases. She isn't the only one who has found these things, by the way. I seem to remember hearing that these discoveries are becoming more and more regular. Here is one example: https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/din...index.html

Even your article is just a news story about a find, and does not make the same claims as you.

EDIT: I should mention I'm not really sure what you were pointing out. There was still "flesh" on or in the bone, and they have no idea how it was preserved for so long.

You mentioned it first there is absolutely no mention of 'flesh on the bone'

It's not a claim, it's a fact. You have no idea what happened,

I'm not claiming i do know, you are, I'm saying they have no way of knowing, but that the common though by leading archaeologists, is that Yahweh was at best a subordinate god to El. And I even offered scripture to you, but of course you simply ignored it, which by the way I approve of scripture clearly is not the place for truth.

so to cite this "evidence" as conclusive is just silly. That's why in your own article it states that two scholars, whom I assume have access to the same information, differ.

And, to differ is good, but either way does not lead to your clear assertion that Yahweh was the first god mentioned in archaeology, and it is evidence that people disagree in black and white, you just said so yourself. Therefore to make the assertion you are in your own words is clearly silly.

We're all unworthy, and we're all blind until the Lord gives us sight.

Yes, so say all religions (in some form or other)

Being offended at your present state or the idea that it might be your present state is only evidence that you don't see yourself as you truly are. We all deserve to be blind fools.

I'm not offended at all and how can it be evidence of anything ? Deserving is irrelevant unless you can show it's true, if you want to consider yourself a blind fool that's fine. I just prefer to say there are things I don't know, but I'm willing to learn.

---

@possibletarian

Geez, wHat's  with this  Abbot bloke?  From his posts, he doesn't seem mentally impaired. Is he truly as wilfully ignorant  as he seems?

This fool seems to really believe that the mythology of an illiterate tribe of Bronze age goat herders is the inerrant  word of a supreme being-- these people even lacked the wit to invent their own gods and mythology. IE: YHWH was part of a Chaldean trilogy, the flood myth was lifted from The Epic Of Gilgamesh, and parts of Mosaic law bear an uncanny resemblance to parts of Hammurabi's code..

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after coming across the creationist museum. There is apparently a diorama with a person riding a dinosaur.
Of course, this was almost certainly stolen from the Gospel of Luke, in which Luke recounts how Jesus came to have a pet dinosaur. (he removed a thorn from its paw)


"A creationist museum is a facility that hosts exhibits which use the established natural history museum format to present a young Earth creationist view that the Earth and life on Earth were created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in six days.[1] These facilities generally promote pseudoscientific Biblical literalist creationism and contest evolutionary science, which has led to heavy criticism from the scientific community.[2] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_museum

Anything creationist is hilarious..

[MilesAbbott81]

So no proof at all (that you care to share) that Dinos' lived a few thousand years ago ?

You asked for reason, not proof. And actually, I'd say that the extant tissue of dinosaurs is proof enough. No one knows how it survived millions of years; do you?

Even Job is referring to a mythical beast,  doesn't the bible also mention Unicorns, Locusts (like Horses) , The Leviathan  (Creature with multiple heads that Yahweh battled for control of the sea), A lion with eagle wings,  leopard-like creature with four wings and four heads.. we could of course go on.
But surely T-rex and the enormous Dino's would at least deserve a mention, especially as remains are found all over the earth.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it would be best if you not comment at all. Leviathan and Behemoth are simply names of creatures that seem to resemble dinosaurs. They are not treated as mythical creatures in the story. Neither did Yahweh battle Leviathan for control of the sea. Where did you come up with this stuff? Ever actually read the Bible? If you had, you'd understand that the creatures with mixed features appeared in visions, obviously intended as metaphorical and not to represent actual animals.

As for unicorns, seems to be an incorrect translation of the original Hebrew word. Could mean many things, I'm not claiming to know but you're obviously not a source that can be trusted.

That is not the only way things are dated though, something you would know if you actually decided to educate yourself. Can you show me where the claim that it is not considered accurate by leaders in the field is ?

Who are you to determine who "leaders in the field" are? Are you a geologist? What is your expertise? And sure, I can point to people at the Institute for Creation Research who are experts in all kinds of disciplines, doctorates and all. How do you know they're not leaders in their fields?

The truth is that creation scientists are maligned and ridiculed constantly, and it actually takes a lot of courage to stand up and speak against the status quo. They do it because they have good reason, and at the very least you should be able to acknowledge that their claims have credibility.

You mean the site that has this in it's 'what we believe' section..

Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Yes then clearly a great site to go to to be educated on science

That is why it's a statement of belief. They're actually speaking from a point of humility that you and others here would do well to try and emulate. We know very little, have proven time and time again how little we know, and therefore it makes much sense to trust the Word of God above specious theories like evolution.

Even your article is just a news story about a find, and does not make the same claims as you.

The find speaks for itself.

You mentioned it first there is absolutely no mention of 'flesh on the bone'

Semantics. By flesh I mean "tissue." You're being deliberately, or at least very obviously, obtuse.

I'm not claiming i do know, you are, I'm saying they have no way of knowing, but that the common though by leading archaeologists, is that Yahweh was at best a subordinate god to El.  And I even offered scripture to you, but of course you simply ignored it, which by the way I approve of scripture clearly is not the place for truth.

No, that's what I was saying. Here is what you said: "You really need to get out of your head that you can simply assert things, all evidence points to the Yahweh myth being a minor god and a subordinate to El."

To which I replied: "I didn't assert anything, I'm actually pointing out that your assertions are unfounded because there is no definitive proof that one came before the other."

Honestly, how damned stupid can you get? You don't even know what your own argument is!

And, to differ is good, but either way does not lead to your clear assertion that Yahweh was the first god mentioned in archaeology, and it is evidence that people disagree in black and white, you just said so yourself.  Therefore to make the assertion you are in your own words is clearly silly.

I never asserted anything of the sort. Show me where I did.

[Peebothuhlu]

Ah... I see we're now at the 'Pin jelly to the wall' phase of MileAbbot81's ineractions.

Mile's make a post.

People reply.

Mile's then scoffs and/or complains that people didn't understand... Or misrepresented... Or are trying to twist Mile's words.

People respond to that.

Mile's then scoffs and/or complains that people didn't understand... Or misrepresented... Or are trying to twist Mile's words.

Lets see how many rounds the rodeo goes.




Not at work.

[Drich]

Your theory is a stretch at best, if I'm to put myself in the shoes of someone unsure of the truth.

glob you didn't take the time to try and understand it either...

There is no need to try to apologize for the traditional creationist viewpoint. Attempting to do so will only make you look stupid and empower those who think they're right. Genesis says 7 days and it means 7 days.

again the whole point to this theory is to allow a literal 7 days at the beginning of the evolutionary period. Again I simply take away the artificial time lines.. must of missed that bit when you trashed everything 'appologized'

Those opposing the creationist viewpoint have impossible hurdles to clear, not the least of which is the origin of matter, which they are no closer to explaining now than they were thousands of years ago.

again simply by removing time lines we can account for the creation of matter through whatever scientific process says it was created.. Simply by inserting a gap that is ascribed to one day.. For instance genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and the earth with without form and void.

Now most people read all of that as day one,but nothing says all of that is day one. It says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Meaning before the seven days (in the very beginning of the cosmos God created the heavens and earth all in one go.. kind like Bang and everything simply was...) Now insert Gap or seperate "in the beginning" with everything that happens on the first day. Remember there was no verse or chapter denotation meaning there was no urgency to tie everything up in to a neatly separated chapter.

So in the beginning God created the heaven and earth (big bang.) then on the first day of the creation of the earth he created light or brought light to this world/cleared the skys. Nothing in the bible changes just how you understand it to read.

Add to that the laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of angular momentum, the mathematically insane theory of evolution, and so many other things, they don't have a leg to stand on. Stop playing their game.

again it's not their game sport. What we do is assimlate the whole of science into creation. Meaning anything they come up with now gets to be apart of the seven days.

Riddle me this, what has opposing science done for the church? who is winning this battle truthfully.
In earnest the church is loosing this battle simply because people want to pass their college courses and get a job they don't have to sweat at to get paid..

Why not try something that works with both?what does the church loose besides a dark age traditional comprehension of God? Nothing in the bible changes again we only show how the bible wording allows for anything science says you need to accept in order for you to earn your degree. Why would you or anyone else be opposed to someone whocan assimilate everything science has to say and not change a word in their faiths? Again this is not a compromise, this is an assimilation. this is no different when the catholic church assimilated the winter solstice celebrations and gave us christmas trees yule logs and mistletoe, or halloween or easter EGGs and rabbits. now people have their pagan holidays and our God gets the glory!

[possibletarian]

You asked for reason, not proof. And actually, I'd say that the extant tissue of dinosaurs is proof enough. No one knows how it survived millions of years; do you?

Fair enough, I'm asking for proof now, do you have any to support your original claim that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago ?

Do you really believe that the finds of soft tissues support your case,  no one doing the research into this has has revised the age that Dinosaurs lived in, why are you ?  Even Mary Schweitzer a devout christian and leader in this research is disgusted by the way that YEC's have used this information.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a palaeontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”

Citation:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n...115306469/

If you don't know what you're talking about, it would be best if you not comment at all. Leviathan and Behemoth are simply names of creatures that seem to resemble dinosaurs.

Leviathan
(in biblical use) a sea monster, identified in different passages with the whale and the crocodile (e.g. Job 41, Ps. 74:14), and with the Devil (after Isa. 27:1).

Behemoth
an animal, perhaps the hippopotamus, mentioned in Job 40:15–24.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/behemoth

Not dinosaur like at all, where are you getting your descriptions from ?

They are not treated as mythical creatures in the story.

Correct, my bad they are described like everyday animals we recognise today.

Neither did Yahweh battle Leviathan for control of the sea. Where did you come up with this stuff? Ever actually read the Bible?

The belief in huge creatures that inhabited the deep was widespread throughout the ancient world. In the Old Testament there are several allusions to a primordial combat between God and a monstrous adversary variously named Leviathan or Rahab. Although the references to Leviathan usually indicate a dragon-like creature, the name has also been used to denote a sea monster in general
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sea-serpent#ref280397

Psalm 74:14

If you had, you'd understand that the creatures with mixed features appeared in visions, obviously intended as metaphorical and not to represent actual animals.

Then why have them at all ? what are they a metaphor for exactly, they are ridiculous creatures. Why not just speak plainly, you are after claiming a god inspired the writers, why all the nonsense. ?

As for unicorns, seems to be an incorrect translation of the original Hebrew word. Could mean many things, I'm not claiming to know but you're obviously not a source that can be trusted.

Well the bible quotes them, is that reliable enough ?
Won't your god give at least one of you wisdom to interpret it ?  

Who are you to determine who "leaders in the field" are? Are you a geologist? What is your expertise?

Well I would start with accredited scientific institutions, and then the scientific consensus perhaps, To say that a person must be an expert in a particular field to see who university's and accredited scientific institutions listen to is silly.
I actually work in aerodynamics, and work for a major sports car company designing Formula race cars.

And sure, I can point to people at the Institute for Creation Research who are experts in all kinds of disciplines, doctorates and all. How do you know they're not leaders in their fields?

Hang on you believe that a society that is dedicated (by it's own admission) to deny scientific knowledge, no matter the source or the expertise or credibility of its proposers, if it disagrees with the bible as a reliable source.

Show me those considered the leaders in their fields in the scientific community who work there perhaps, have you any names and their work ?

The truth is that creation scientists are maligned and ridiculed constantly,

I agree, and this does not give you pause for thought ?

and it actually takes a lot of courage to stand up and speak against the status quo. They do it because they have good reason, and at the very least you should be able to acknowledge that their claims have credibility.

Well as i say, I would have to look at any particular claim and test it against the claims of other scientists and accredited university studies perhaps, then at least I could get an idea.  

That is why it's a statement of belief. They're actually speaking from a point of humility that you and others here would do well to try and emulate.

What's humble about accepting something that you know you cannot give consideration because of your pre conceived beliefs, you tak as though that should be a credit to them.

We know very little, have proven time and time again how little we know, and therefore it makes much sense to trust the Word of God above specious theories like evolution.

Why, creationism ( I mean Y.E.C in this case) really does seem to be nonsense, there are so many ways it fails and why so many do not believe it. what makes you assert it's the word of a god, wouldn't a divinely inspired account of the earth fit in with what we find ?
There really is no reason at all why the findings of science and a truth declared by god would be any different in a world that god created.

Semantics. By flesh I mean "tissue." You're being deliberately, or at least very obviously, obtuse.

Actually no, finding 'hanging flesh' and 'tissues' are very different things, one is on the outside of the body the other found in the inside of the bones and in very rare cases, hopefully more will be found to allow us to increase our knowledge of the past.  As already noted even the scientists finding this have not revised their age that dinosaurs lived in as a result of this.

Honestly, how damned stupid can you get? You don't even know what your own argument is!

I see your 'Peace which passeth all understanding'' is a bit shaky here, lets try and help each other out a bit and go back to your original claim and see if I'm correct, how's that sound?  Let's see if we can clear this up instead of getting all upset.

I understood you claimed that Yahweh or your god is the earliest god mentioned in archaeology,  that in your claim is that all other gods come after (in archaeological finds) , is this in fact correct ?

If not then please correct me.

Hope to hear from you soon

---

Ah... I see we're now at the 'Pin jelly to the wall' phase of MileAbbot81's ineractions.

Mile's make a post.

People reply.

Mile's then scoffs and/or complains that people didn't understand... Or misrepresented... Or are trying to twist Mile's words.

People respond to that.

Mile's then scoffs and/or complains that people didn't understand... Or misrepresented... Or are trying to twist Mile's words.

Lets see how many rounds the rodeo goes.




Not at work.

Happens all the time.

Phase 1: I come here with great humility
Phase 2: You don't understand, god tells me stuff and reveals his will to me.
phase 3: You are deliberately avoiding the truth, I have the truth given to me by god
phase 4: god is hiding the truth from you (Though I'm not sure how avoiding the truth and god hiding it from a person fits)
phase 5 : you will all find out one way.. the anger of god awaits you (add insult or hissy fit of your choice)

It matters not the religion, it all follows a very (and scarily) similar pattern

[MilesAbbott81]

glob you didn't take the time to try and understand it either...

You're right. I dismissed it once I realized it was apologist. I shouldn't have done that.

I've tried to understand your theory, but it's frustrating because it seems very convoluted. There is no reason to think that the "man" created on day 6 was outside the garden, and no reason to believe that chapter two happened before day 6. No reason at all. You're reading into it somehow, which I really don't get because it's all pretty clearly laid out. By the way, if God wanted one day to equal billions of years and the other six just be one day (if I'm hearing you correctly), He surely would've made a distinction, don't you think?

The Bible is not a complicated book, you're making it complicated because you're trying to fit a false narrative. You are apologizing unnecessarily.

again it's not their game sport. What we do is assimlate the whole of science into creation. Meaning anything they come up with now gets to be apart of the seven days.

Riddle me this, what has opposing science done for the church? who is winning this battle truthfully.
In earnest the church is loosing this battle simply because people want to pass their college courses and get a job they don't have to sweat at to get paid..

Why not try something that works with both?what does the church loose besides a dark age traditional comprehension of God? Nothing in the bible changes again we only show how the bible wording allows for anything science says you need to accept in order for you to earn your degree. Why would you or anyone else be opposed to someone whocan assimilate everything science has to say and not change a word in their faiths? Again this is not a compromise, this is an assimilation. this is no different when the catholic church assimilated the winter solstice celebrations and gave us christmas trees yule logs and mistletoe, or halloween or easter EGGs and rabbits. now people have their pagan holidays and our God gets the glory!

There probably is a "scientific" explanation for everything, at least everything that explains creationism so long as you exclude the creation of matter, which had to have been a supernatural feat. There is no other way to explain that, PERIOD.

The Lord hates unwarranted, incompatible mixture, Drich. Assimilating foolish doctrine like the Big Bang and evolution with Genesis is the same unacceptable behavior that has wrought destruction on so many occasions in the Bible.

The catholic church assimilating pagan holidays didn't give glory to God, and neither do those celebrations today. Christmas and Easter are vile holidays, and the Lord hates them. There is no compromise allowed, no assimilation allowed, EVER.

[possibletarian]

There probably is a "scientific" explanation for everything, at least everything that explains creationism so long as you exclude the creation of matter, which had to have been a supernatural feat. There is no other way to explain that, PERIOD.

How do you know this ? Why do you assume it was created ?