DeletedUser8396
Guest
Settings (top left of forum) -> Left side of screen -> Under My Settings, Edit Signature -> Either upload or link an image with the
Settings (top left of forum) -> Left side of screen -> Under My Settings, Edit Signature -> Either upload or link an image with the
Link of time
Phrourach
"The Book of Enoch is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great‑grandfather of Noah, although modern scholars estimate the older sections to date from about 300 BC"
Unless Scientology raided Wikipedia this morning I believe I am correct.
Unless Scientology raided Wikipedia this morning I believe I am correct.
Last edited:
DeletedUser50332
Guest
Did you also Google some of the other books too?
As an aside, if we had included the Gnostic Gospels, we might have had a women writer in the Bible - The Gospel of Mary.
As an aside, if we had included the Gnostic Gospels, we might have had a women writer in the Bible - The Gospel of Mary.
Link of time
Phrourach
I don't see the benefit 
(This is a joke, don't sue me)
Anyways, this is horribly irrelevant to the topic. Do you believe he exists?
(This is a joke, don't sue me)
Anyways, this is horribly irrelevant to the topic. Do you believe he exists?
Last edited:
DeletedUser8396
Guest
Many of the Gnostic books aren't accurate though.
DeletedUser
Guest
This presumes that the bible is accurate. Does it not?
DeletedUser8396
Guest
Considering those who hold the belief compiled the book and believe it to be accurate, they excluded those thought inaccurate and illegitimate. This really isn't much up for debate.
DeletedUser
Guest
What of the Book of Genesis Part 1 which purports that the Earth was formed before the Sun ie God made the earth on Day 2 and the Sun Moon and the Stars on Day 4. Aside from bio-mechanical problems, this flatly contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, in which planets form in the accretion disk created by a young star.
This flatly contradicts scientific hypotheses on planet formation where planets are created by a young star ( or in a more recent theory by the debris of asteroids orbiting around the Star). Simply put - it is erroneous to hold that earth was created before the Sun.
Now - If that error is to be accepted then you have to ask why was it asserted in the very first book of the bible...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser8396
Guest
*sigh* There's honestly no point in debating this with you if you can't grasp the difference between internal logical consistency/internal accuracy (in adherence with the belief in supernatural) and scientific accuracy.
DeletedUser
Guest
hahaha In order to understand the bible you must achieve a level of supernatural belief of God's existence that allows one to subordinate and ignore all fundamental flaws / errors in the words of the old testament. (Therefore it follows that all dialogue concerning the existence of God is redundant unless the writer can demonstrate their own belief in the supernatural) OK pebzy I got that
Link of time
Phrourach
I always thought since God created logic He had complete control over it.
DeletedUser8396
Guest
Who said he created logic? Lol.
Archon, I might waste my time arguing with you later. On a phone atm.
DeletedUser
Guest
Don't inconvenience yourself on my account, my good sir
However should you deign to stoop to my level then I caution you in advance. I want direct and scientific explanations to the question I raised on the "accuracy of creation as written in the Book of Geneisis. I do not want sophisitic nonsense which attempts to cover all errors and flaws by claiming that the biblical scriptures are divinely inspired and therefore inconsistencies should not be viewed as such!
DeletedUser8396
Guest
Don't inconvenience yourself on my account, my good sir
However should you deign to stoop to my level then I caution you in advance. I want direct and scientific explanations to the question I raised on the "accuracy of creation as written in the Book of Geneisis. I do not want sophisitic nonsense which attempts to cover all errors and flaws by claiming that the biblical scriptures are divinely inspired and therefore inconsistencies should not be viewed as such!
Then it is much a waste of my time as that's all I care to offer.
DeletedUser33530
Guest
This whole thread is essential about logic being higher than God.
Link of time
Phrourach
Which I highly disagree with. Are we done here?
DeletedUser8396
Guest
Then prove me wrong lol
DeletedUser33530
Guest
↑↑↑↑↑↑
DeletedUser
Guest
The simple argument to the OP is that whichever "God" came first confined itself.
In the beginning, the God was everything. That was all there was, this God's consciousness.
It pulled itself into a singular body, a singular consciousness as logic and numerical sense as we know it was defined.
It has been eternally singular as long as singularity has been defined, and before that it is irrelevant.
In the beginning, the God was everything. That was all there was, this God's consciousness.
It pulled itself into a singular body, a singular consciousness as logic and numerical sense as we know it was defined.
It has been eternally singular as long as singularity has been defined, and before that it is irrelevant.
DeletedUser8396
Guest
But since God must be eternally consistent, he must be eternally singular, meaning singularity and numbers were eternal as well.