Bible verse by verse

[_Bazooka]

Not at all.
First, you have yet to show that it is indeed God's Holy Word, as opposed to some blokes falsely claiming it to be God's Holy Word.
Second, you haven't answered the question that when (what you stated) God spoke about never flooding the earth again, wether or not flooding a portion of the earth but not the whole was including in God's Holy Small Print Clause 6.1.1.

If, as some (like bcspace) believe the flood of Noah was limited in geography (i.e. not a global event, but a local one) then He did indeed go back on His Holy Word.

Genesis 7:20 New Living Translation
rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks.

I used to think it was pointless trying to converse with you, I see I was overly optimistic...

[_LittleNipper]

Genesis 7:20 New Living Translation
rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks.

I used to think it was pointless trying to converse with you, I see I was overly optimistic...

Optimistic, is a word that hinges on the belief that God exists and the future is bright. I cannot imagine that you are optimistic about anything (as death is the only absolute you have to look forward to). I showed you BIBLICALLY that "Christians" who believe that there either wasn't a Flood or that it was only "local," do not have biblical support. Neither science (Water cannot cover the highest peaks unless it first covers all lower lying areas first), or what Christ himself taught, nor what the Bible clearly shows to you ----- supports any "Christian" belief other than a Worldwide Flood, Noah, and the ark were historic realities according to God's Word, His Son the Lord Jesus Christ --- along with His Disciples.

[_seven7up]

That's not what The Bible says.
In order for them to procreate they had to sin by eating of the forbidden fruit.
In fact, the way it reads, having children was a form of punishment for Eve.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

I hope you all don't mind if I throw my two cents in, as I have looked into this topic extensively.

We know what the Bible says, but interpretation is another matter. Some people interpret the Bible to say that Eve's conception and sorrow were multiplied in the sense that she became more fertile, but also would experience pain in childbirth.

I believe that the correct interpretation (and the Mormon interpretation) should be that Adam and Eve were physically capable of having children (ie they COULD). However, their mindset was such that they WOULD not have children. The LDS scripture provides this specific wording in 2 Nephi 2:23.

Now, I want you to keep in mind that there have been manuals from the LDS church which have been incorrect on this particular detail. For example, look at the previous edition of "Gospel Principles" regarding the fall of Adam and Eve and compare it to the more recent edition. You will find that the mistake was corrected by replacing the previous wording with a quote from the LDS cannon.

Old edition pg 32 "they were not able to have children"
New edition pg 28 "In this state , 'they would have had no children'" (2 Nephi 2:23)

In the next post, I will provide a very interesting LDS article from 1973 on the matter.

-7up

P.S. ...actually, better to place this discussion in the topic in which it belongs
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29109&p=786164#p786164

[_Quasimodo]

Optimistic, is a word that hinges on the belief that God exists and the future is bright. I cannot imagine that you are optimistic about anything (as death is the only absolute you have to look forward to).

So, Nipper. What do you think happens after death? The Christians I know can't seem to agree on this at all.

Some think that you go immediately to heaven (if you qualify) and are greeted by Angels and Jesus. Some think that you lie in the ground (maybe in an urn) and are bodily resurrected at the next coming of Christ. Others believe that you will travel down a long tunnel into a Heavenly light and be greeted by relatives and pets that have passed. I even know some that think there will be a "Rapture" where people will be pulled from their car seats and taken physically to someplace unspecific.

My closest experience with death was general anesthesia. I have a friend that is an anesthesiologist. He says that the lower levels of general anesthesia are as close as you can come to death without actually dying (he was my anesthesiologist during that surgery).

When administering the drugs, he asked me to count backwards from ten. I think I got to seven. The very next instant I was waking up in postop. I ceased to exist for the two and a half hours of surgery.

If I had died during surgery I wouldn't have known it. My unexistence would have continued forever. Maybe that is what death is.

[_Bazooka]

I showed you BIBLICALLY that "Christians" who believe that there either wasn't a Flood or that it was only "local," do not have biblical support.

I agree with you, the Bible certainly portrays the flood as a Global Catastrophe.

Neither science (Water cannot cover the highest peaks unless it first covers all lower lying areas first), or what Christ himself taught, nor what the Bible clearly shows to you ----- supports any "Christian" belief other than a Worldwide Flood, Noah, and the ark were historic realities according to God's Word, His Son the Lord Jesus Christ --- along with His Disciples.

I agree with you, except science does not support a global flood.

What you have yet to show is why the Bible should be seen as anything other than a collection of myths and legends written down by disparate group of opinionated or agenda driving individuals. How does the Bible demonstrate it is God speaking rather than how I have just portrayed it? How do you rationalise a loving God against the God you believe in that, by means of drowning, extinguished humanity -men, women, children, babies, unborn babies etc simply because things weren't going His way?

[_LittleNipper]

I showed you BIBLICALLY that "Christians" who believe that there either wasn't a Flood or that it was only "local," do not have biblical support.

I agree with you, the Bible certainly portrays the flood as a Global Catastrophe.

Neither science (Water cannot cover the highest peaks unless it first covers all lower lying areas first), or what Christ himself taught, nor what the Bible clearly shows to you ----- supports any "Christian" belief other than a Worldwide Flood, Noah, and the ark were historic realities according to God's Word, His Son the Lord Jesus Christ --- along with His Disciples.

I agree with you, except science does not support a global flood.

What you have yet to show is why the Bible should be seen as anything other than a collection of myths and legends written down by disparate group of opinionated or agenda driving individuals. How does the Bible demonstrate it is God speaking rather than how I have just portrayed it? How do you rationalise a loving God against the God you believe in that, by means of drowning, extinguished humanity -men, women, children, babies, unborn babies etc simply because things weren't going His way?

Romans 10:9

Parallel Verses

New International Version
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

New Living Translation
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

English Standard Version
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

New American Standard Bible
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

King James Bible
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Quran
Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. S. 109:1-6 Pickthall

Chapter 25 (Book of Mormon)
1 Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were ahard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

[_Bazooka]

What you have yet to show is why the Bible should be seen as anything other than a collection of myths and legends written down by disparate group of opinionated or agenda driving individuals. How does the Bible demonstrate it is God speaking rather than how I have just portrayed it? How do you rationalise a loving God against the God you believe in that, by means of drowning, extinguished humanity -men, women, children, babies, unborn babies etc simply because things weren't going His way?

Romans 10:9

Parallel Verses

New International Version
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

New Living Translation
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

English Standard Version
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

New American Standard Bible
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

King James Bible
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Quran
Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. S. 109:1-6 Pickthall

Chapter 25 (Book of Mormon)
1 Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were ahard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

*sigh*

[_Gunnar]

Romans 10:9

Parallel Verses

New International Version
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

New Living Translation
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

English Standard Version
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

New American Standard Bible
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

King James Bible
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Quran
Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. S. 109:1-6 Pickthall

Chapter 25 (Book of Mormon)
1 Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were ahard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

Come on, now LittleNipper, we've been through this before. You can't use the Bible's claims of its own infallibility as proof that it is infallible. That is circular reasoning, which is not and can not ever be reasonably acceptable as proof of anything whatsoever.

[_subgenius]

Come on, now LittleNipper, we've been through this before. You can't use the Bible's claims of its own infallibility as proof that it is infallible. That is circular reasoning, which is not and can not ever be reasonably acceptable as proof of anything whatsoever.

actually it is only a logical fallacy when trying to prove something via induction with empirical evidence....ironically science suffers from this same fallacy...for science cannot be proven inductively with empirical evidence - that is to say "science cannot be proven by science".
Nevertheless, just because something is not logical does not disqualify it as being a fact.

You may be limiting yourself to a regression argument (common among simple scientists)...wherein you belief that any proposition must be justified by another proposition....or that justification is linear.

So, while the Bible does have logical consistency, it does not necessarily have to succumb to the regression argument...it really only needs to be coherent - which it undoubtedly is...
Occams razor/Bayesian Probability is a great example of this...wherein a system that has several unrelated explanations is not as coherent as a system with just one explanation.

[_Gunnar]

Come on, now LittleNipper, we've been through this before. You can't use the Bible's claims of its own infallibility as proof that it is infallible. That is circular reasoning, which is not and can not ever be reasonably acceptable as proof of anything whatsoever.

actually it is only a logical fallacy when trying to prove something via induction with empirical evidence....ironically science suffers from this same fallacy...for science cannot be proven inductively with empirical evidence - that is to say "science cannot be proven by science".
Nevertheless, just because something is not logical does not disqualify it as being a fact.

You may be limiting yourself to a regression argument (common among simple scientists)...wherein you belief that any proposition must be justified by another proposition....or that justification is linear.

So, while the Bible does have logical consistency, it does not necessarily have to succumb to the regression argument...it really only needs to be coherent - which it undoubtedly is...
Occams razor/Bayesian Probability is a great example of this...wherein a system that has several unrelated explanations is not as coherent as a system with just one explanation.

What you basically seem to be arguing here is that no logical fallacy is invalid, if needed to defend LDS or other religious truth claims that cannot be otherwise defended. It still basically amounts to deciding a priori that those truth claims must be infallible and that one is therefore justified in dismissing out of hand any and all evidence to the contrary, no matter how seemingly compelling and incontrovertible. What your argument amounts to is a pathetic "grasping at straws", doing what ever it takes to desperately hold on to your currently held religious convictions.

I deny that the Bible is free from internal, logical inconsistencies or that it is undoubtedly and completely coherent. That it is either of those is very far from established beyond rational dispute or doubt, despite what you or LittleNipper might think.

I don't think you really understand the power of induction and empiricism as used by science to ascertain and understand truth, or how science really uses them. Induction must be used in conjunction with deduction, however. Using either one alone can lead to error. Our modern, technological civilization is eloquent testimony to and proof of how well the scientific approach to understanding reality works. Occasional mistakes inevitably occur, but because of the inherently self-correcting nature of this approach, there is a very high probably that these mistakes will eventually be exposed and corrected simply by continuing to use it.

On the other hand, the inherent unreliability and inconsistency of the religious, subjective faith approach to ascertaining truth has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. You and LittleNipper are extremely compelling evidence of that, whether you realize it or not! Besides that, when mistakes occur using that approach, their perpetuation is virtually guaranteed because of the very nature of that approach and the disinclination of those using it to seriously consider any evidence that casts legitimate doubt on their conclusions.