(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:
Not an answer to my question.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: I mean, yeah, sure. I'll grant you your third option so long as you admit that there isn't any evidence it's actually the case, and that you're just throwing it out as a hypothetical to counter my complaint that God didn't save the babies because there were none to save.I think we need to define evidence here. An analogy. An incomplete record of a census taken of your neighborhood was only a sample of 4 of the 20 houses in your neighborhood. Now let's say the record of those four houses was a husband and a wife and no children. What's the 'evidence' in this analogy? The 'evidence' is: 20 house neighborhood, four houses recorded, four men, four women, and four marriages. This is the 'evidence'. From there we look at the evidence and draw certain conclusion(s). We then test the conclusion by the evidence we've gathered and any additional evidence that may be needed. So back to the analogy, with the given evidence we can easily conclude that there are no children in the neighborhood, because all the available evidence we have does not contradict that conclusion. We could also conclude that everyone in the neighborhood is married, What we would have to do to prove these conclusion conclusively is go door to door in your neighborhood and check the other 15 houses to either prove or disprove our initial conclusions.
With the account we have of the flood, the record is incomplete. We cannot go back in time to take a census to prove the conclusion that there were no babies at the time of the flood. This is why I have been clear to say this is not proof. But 'not proof' does not equal 'not evidence'. The evidence we have (four men, four women, no children) does not conflict with the conclusion (there were no children) I have drawn.
It seems on this forum there is too much falsely equivocating evidence with conclusions with proof. These words are not interchangeable.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: I've never understood this "God kills children for their parent's mistakes" argument.That argument hasn't been made in this thread. Deflection is not an answer nor an argument.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: So... God didn't care if the people repented? The purpose of the warning wasn't to get them to be good?"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" Repentance leads to salvation, that is the concern of God. Once salvation has occurred it is then that we are "saved unto good works." Noah wasn't saved because he was good, he was good because he was saved.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:
You now have a perfect example in Jesus Christ to follow and a clear call for repentance, will you repent of your sins and place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ?
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: Sure. But it's not like you're setting up a good argument, or anything. It's akin to saying "just because the sun rises in the east because of the direction of the Earth's rotation doesn't mean it was like that 5,000 years ago.". That's technically just as true, but without a compelling reason to think that, I'm not going to believe it was the case.You have a right to believe whatever you want about the past, my point is simply that you have not come to this belief logically.
(April 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:
Go back to post #66 where this quote was taken from. The context of the quote is not about the righteousness Noah but about there being no biblical support that there were no children at the time of the flood but rather that the bible says the contrary (that there were children at the time of the flood). I'm asking for biblical support for that statement.
(May 2, 2014 at 10:46 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:
I think it is now your turn to explain to me you understand the burden of proof.There are other threads devoted to the evidences for and against the flood. Proof of the flood is an entirely different topic of conversation than the one we are having.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
