Surreal day on the job...more of the same on the way.

[Godscreated]

Your an idiot who can't see the tree for the forest, study the Bible and quite acting like a four year old, then come back in about twenty years and we'll discuss the Bible, until then I'm through arguing with you and you childish ways.

[EgoDeath]

Your an idiot who can't see the tree for the forest, study the Bible and quite acting like a four year old, then come back in about twenty years and we'll discuss the Bible, until then I'm through arguing with you and you childish ways.

So, I've said multiple times now that I've studied and read the Bible but you continue to imply that I haven't without any real reason to assume so. And now you're insulting me calling me childish when I haven't insulted you once - how ironic.

What's your problem? I have been polite to you I just happen to disagree with you. There's no reason to act like this.

[Angrboda]

Your an idiot who can't see the tree for the forest, study the Bible and quite acting like a four year old, then come back in about twenty years and we'll discuss the Bible, until then I'm through arguing with you and you childish ways.

So, I've said multiple times now that I've studied and read the Bible but you continue to imply that I haven't without any real reason to assume so. And now you're insulting me calling me childish when I haven't insulted you once - how ironic.

What's your problem? I have been polite to you I just happen to disagree with you. There's no reason to act like this.

Apparently, disagreeing with a Christian is tantamount to burning them at the stake. So, like, stop persecuting him.

[Godscreated]

Your an idiot who can't see the tree for the forest, study the Bible and quite acting like a four year old, then come back in about twenty years and we'll discuss the Bible, until then I'm through arguing with you and you childish ways.

So, I've said multiple times now that I've studied and read the Bible but you continue to imply that I haven't without any real reason to assume so. And now you're insulting me calling me childish when I haven't insulted you once - how ironic.

What's your problem? I have been polite to you I just happen to disagree with you. There's no reason to act like this.

That was not meant for you, it was directed at FM because that is what he is, he is ill suited to argue the scriptures and most other things.

GC

---

 I didn't figure you knew much about the Bible there are and have been for quite awhile chronological Bibles, they read well I know I've read one. reading a book and studying a book are two totally different things. Attending Bible study doesn't mean you were learning, I've seen many who attended Bible studies and learned little to nothing, quite sad that many of  today's Christians do not know what the Bible teaches.

GC

GC

GC

Yes and they've made chronological Bibles for a reason - normal Bibles are inherently hard to study because everything is out of order. It's easier for you to assume I didn't study the Bible, or even if I did I must not have learned anything, because then it makes it easy for you to dismiss anything I have to say on the subject. It's much harder for you to tackle this if I am actually well-versed in scripture.

But, I doubt anything I could say could prove otherwise to you. And I don't really care to prove it to you. The bible is jumbled nonsense with fairy tales sprinkled in.

 A non chronological Bible can be confusing but only if you do not study it. Each of the books were written by different men and placed in the Bible mostly by the date of it's writing. Some of the authors time lines over lapped so of coarse they were telling some of the same things. Another reason they were telling some of the same thing is because God was working through them to tell the Israelites what was going to happen to them because of their disobedience to God. Over lapping time lines with historical writers of any age will have similar stories, we just do not put those in history books. The Bible isn't a history book, though it does contain history of a people and their connections to other people and most certainly God. It wasn't the purpose of the original people who put the Biblical canon together to do anything other than present each book as it was written, apparently as they were reading and studying each book they realized that these stories were related within a certain time line ans saw no problem with this. The chronological Bible was put together to make it easier to understand for those who haven't studied the Bible in detail. The Bible is a completely true writing and no one as proven any of it to be false and they have had 2000 years to do so.

GC

[Fake Messiah]

That was not meant for you, it was directed at FM because that is what he is, he is ill suited to argue the scriptures and most other things.

GC

When GC is cornered and shown wrong about the Bible be starts crying: "You're not qualified."

[EgoDeath]

That was not meant for you, it was directed at FM because that is what he is, he is ill suited to argue the scriptures and most other things.

GC

Okay. Your post came directly after my post. This is why it's important to quote people or at least use the mention feature; it's just good manners and gives people a chance to know they're being mentioned or replied to. Directing a post, especially an insulting post, at someone without mentioning them or quoting them is akin to whispering an insult under your breath as the other person walks away. It's tasteless and at least a little cowardly.

A non chronological Bible can be confusing but only if you do not study it. Each of the books were written by different men and placed in the Bible mostly by the date of it's writing. Some of the authors time lines over lapped so of coarse they were telling some of the same things. Another reason they were telling some of the same thing is because God was working through them to tell the Israelites what was going to happen to them because of their disobedience to God. Over lapping time lines with historical writers of any age will have similar stories, we just do not put those in history books. The Bible isn't a history book, though it does contain history of a people and their connections to other people and most certainly God. It wasn't the purpose of the original people who put the Biblical canon together to do anything other than present each book as it was written, apparently as they were reading and studying each book they realized that these stories were related within a certain time line ans saw no problem with this. The chronological Bible was put together to make it easier to understand for those who haven't studied the Bible in detail. The Bible is a completely true writing and no one as proven any of it to be false and they have had 2000 years to do so.

GC

No one has proved the claims of the Bible to be true. You can repeat this again and again but it doesn't make it any more true.

[Godscreated]

That was not meant for you, it was directed at FM because that is what he is, he is ill suited to argue the scriptures and most other things.

GC

Okay. Your post came directly after my post. This is why it's important to quote people or at least use the mention feature; it's just good manners and gives people a chance to know they're being mentioned or replied to. Directing a post, especially an insulting post, at someone without mentioning them or quoting them is akin to whispering an insult under your breath as the other person walks away. It's tasteless and at least a little cowardly.

First of all I'm not cowardly and speak my mind on many subjects and sign most of my posts. Second I thought I had quoted FM, I do not know what happened. Third I usually do mention the person I'm posting to if I do not quote them. I've always tried to practice manners here.

A non chronological Bible can be confusing but only if you do not study it. Each of the books were written by different men and placed in the Bible mostly by the date of it's writing. Some of the authors time lines over lapped so of coarse they were telling some of the same things. Another reason they were telling some of the same thing is because God was working through them to tell the Israelites what was going to happen to them because of their disobedience to God. Over lapping time lines with historical writers of any age will have similar stories, we just do not put those in history books. The Bible isn't a history book, though it does contain history of a people and their connections to other people and most certainly God. It wasn't the purpose of the original people who put the Biblical canon together to do anything other than present each book as it was written, apparently as they were reading and studying each book they realized that these stories were related within a certain time line ans saw no problem with this. The chronological Bible was put together to make it easier to understand for those who haven't studied the Bible in detail. The Bible is a completely true writing and no one as proven any of it to be false and they have had 2000 years to do so.

GC

No one has proved the claims of the Bible to be true. You can repeat this again and again but it doesn't make it any more true.

 No one has not proven them. Your reply doesn't even address my post.

GC

[EgoDeath]

First of all I'm not cowardly and speak my mind on many subjects and sign most of my posts. Second I thought I had quoted FM, I do not know what happened. Third I usually do mention the person I'm posting to if I do not quote them. I've always tried to practice manners here.

Okay, we can chalk it up to a one-time mistake. You don't need to "sign" your posts though, we know it's you posting because of your username. Quoting someone or mentioning someone is more important than "signing" your post.

 No one has not proven them. Your reply doesn't even address my post.

GC

I'll assume you meant, "no one has disproved them." Unfortunately, that's a laughably inaccurate thing to say. Let's just start with Genesis. Bible claims Earth was created before the sun. This is simply not true. We KNOW it's not true.

[Godscreated]

That was not meant for you, it was directed at FM because that is what he is, he is ill suited to argue the scriptures and most other things.

GC

When GC is cornered and shown wrong about the Bible be starts crying: "You're not qualified."

You are far from impressive and you were given a chance to argue Bible verses with me and you chose not to, so your statement is a lie in the first degree.

GC

[Godscreated]

First of all I'm not cowardly and speak my mind on many subjects and sign most of my posts. Second I thought I had quoted FM, I do not know what happened. Third I usually do mention the person I'm posting to if I do not quote them. I've always tried to practice manners here.

Okay, we can chalk it up to a one-time mistake. You don't need to "sign" your posts though, we know it's you posting because of your username. Quoting someone or mentioning someone is more important than "signing" your post.

When I do not sign a post it's either by accident or to let the person know that I see them as ridiculous.

 No one has not proven them. Your reply doesn't even address my post.

GC

I'll assume you meant, "no one has disproved them." Unfortunately, that's a laughably inaccurate thing to say. Let's just start with Genesis. Bible claims Earth was created before the sun. This is simply not true. We KNOW it's not true.

 Yes you are correct bad choice of words on my part. So you were there to witness the creation of the solar system, interesting seeing how God was the only being in existence at the time. All the stories that have been conjured up about the birth of solar systems are at best guesses. There is no proof to say that the Bible is wrong.

GC