SO BASICALLY you're saying that your circular logic bullshit is credible evidence.
Do you SERIOUSLY expect people on this website who DON'T take everything at face value to buy this bullshit, or are you just on a particularly high dosage of quaaludes? ._.
Also the bible said that the earth is laid on a foundation and unmoving and that the sun revolves around the earth. And that there are four-legged insects. And that rabbits chew their own cud: Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean. In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", then later on in Genesis 1:8 it says "And God called the firmament Heaven." So did he create heaven twice? Are there two heavens? I thought maybe the first statement was just saying what God did, then it was going to explain in detail how he created heaven and earth... but in Genesis 1:2 the earth has already been created. So I have to believe that there was a double creation of heaven.
According to the Bible, our brother mammal, the bat, is a bird. This one I've debated quite a bit, but if one looks in Leviticus 11:13 a list of Fowls is started, and the Bat is included in this list in Leviticus 11:19. The locust, grasshopper, and beetle all have four feet according to Leviticus 11:22, then in the next verse, it mentions a group of flying animals with four feet. I can't think of any, can you?
Sunlight brings us to another problem. We know the sun was created on the forth day... but plants were created on the third day. We know plants require sunlight to live, so why did God make these things in this backwards order? Now if we take the literal time frame, and a day in creation as being a 24 hour period, the plant thing isn't a real problem... plants can survive 24 hours. But then the whole creation story loses credibility... who really believes the universe was created in less than a week? Not even most creationists believe that one. That is why many people say that a day in the creation was 1,000 to 7,000 years (depending on who you ask). Name a plant that can live 7,000 years with perfect conditions... much less with no sunlight.
The term "ends of the earth" is used quite a bit in the Bible. I have received hundreds of e-mails saying "the term 'ends of the earth' is a saying, it's not literal", but they forget that it is a figurative saying today. When the Bible was written it wasn't a figure of speech... it was a fact. Even as late as 1492, people were convinced that silly old Columbus was going to fall off of the earth. But as we know today, the earth is a sphere, and there are no ends on a sphere. Just pick up a ball and find its ends.
Back to your "Descriptions of the earth via Job."
Job chapter 38 has a lot of mentions of a stationary earth, and as direct quotes from God. Quotes like the following:
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." - Job 38:4
"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;" - Job 38:6
Really, do these sound like descriptions of a world that spins on its axis, while at the same time revolves around the sun? First off, everything I have seen foundations on are stationary. Buildings, walls, towers, etc. Then God says that the foundation is fastened to something. Again, does your car have a foundation attached to something? Your house has a foundations which attaches it to the ground. Hmmmm, if you believe these verses, you must have a hard time finding your house whenever you go out, because it probably moved away while you were gone.
That's not all. 1 Samuel 2:8 states that "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them". If you go to any seashore, you are bound to see houses built on pillars, and yet the houses don't move. How strange...
I eagerly await your VERY LOGICAL, METHODICAL, and EMPIRICAL debunking of all these points. Oh, and, also, before you say "out of context," this shit was all believed very clearly by very very many people up until the Age of Enlightenment and the scholars and scientists it began producing began putting these ridiculous claims to rest, meaning this stuff is not out of context; it's pretty much how it was spelt out to the original Hebrew readers.
Far more likely though that I'm going to be COMPLETELY ignored by you.
Do you SERIOUSLY expect people on this website who DON'T take everything at face value to buy this bullshit, or are you just on a particularly high dosage of quaaludes? ._.
Also the bible said that the earth is laid on a foundation and unmoving and that the sun revolves around the earth. And that there are four-legged insects. And that rabbits chew their own cud: Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean. In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", then later on in Genesis 1:8 it says "And God called the firmament Heaven." So did he create heaven twice? Are there two heavens? I thought maybe the first statement was just saying what God did, then it was going to explain in detail how he created heaven and earth... but in Genesis 1:2 the earth has already been created. So I have to believe that there was a double creation of heaven.
According to the Bible, our brother mammal, the bat, is a bird. This one I've debated quite a bit, but if one looks in Leviticus 11:13 a list of Fowls is started, and the Bat is included in this list in Leviticus 11:19. The locust, grasshopper, and beetle all have four feet according to Leviticus 11:22, then in the next verse, it mentions a group of flying animals with four feet. I can't think of any, can you?
Sunlight brings us to another problem. We know the sun was created on the forth day... but plants were created on the third day. We know plants require sunlight to live, so why did God make these things in this backwards order? Now if we take the literal time frame, and a day in creation as being a 24 hour period, the plant thing isn't a real problem... plants can survive 24 hours. But then the whole creation story loses credibility... who really believes the universe was created in less than a week? Not even most creationists believe that one. That is why many people say that a day in the creation was 1,000 to 7,000 years (depending on who you ask). Name a plant that can live 7,000 years with perfect conditions... much less with no sunlight.
The term "ends of the earth" is used quite a bit in the Bible. I have received hundreds of e-mails saying "the term 'ends of the earth' is a saying, it's not literal", but they forget that it is a figurative saying today. When the Bible was written it wasn't a figure of speech... it was a fact. Even as late as 1492, people were convinced that silly old Columbus was going to fall off of the earth. But as we know today, the earth is a sphere, and there are no ends on a sphere. Just pick up a ball and find its ends.
Back to your "Descriptions of the earth via Job."
Job chapter 38 has a lot of mentions of a stationary earth, and as direct quotes from God. Quotes like the following:
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." - Job 38:4
"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;" - Job 38:6
Really, do these sound like descriptions of a world that spins on its axis, while at the same time revolves around the sun? First off, everything I have seen foundations on are stationary. Buildings, walls, towers, etc. Then God says that the foundation is fastened to something. Again, does your car have a foundation attached to something? Your house has a foundations which attaches it to the ground. Hmmmm, if you believe these verses, you must have a hard time finding your house whenever you go out, because it probably moved away while you were gone.
That's not all. 1 Samuel 2:8 states that "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them". If you go to any seashore, you are bound to see houses built on pillars, and yet the houses don't move. How strange...
I eagerly await your VERY LOGICAL, METHODICAL, and EMPIRICAL debunking of all these points. Oh, and, also, before you say "out of context," this shit was all believed very clearly by very very many people up until the Age of Enlightenment and the scholars and scientists it began producing began putting these ridiculous claims to rest, meaning this stuff is not out of context; it's pretty much how it was spelt out to the original Hebrew readers.
Far more likely though that I'm going to be COMPLETELY ignored by you.
