Search results

For those interested in the geology of the flood, I recommend this video...

Instead of dodging and throwing shade from the peanut gallery, how about you deal with your own lack of integrity.

And your point is...?

I didn’t say “inerrant”. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Yes, but that doesn’t prove those mountains existed after the flood.

Wrong; it indicates that those rocks were under the sea surface at some point. Let’s not make logical errors. Again, geological research suggests strongly that the uplift of mountains occurred during or soon after the flood.

My like or dislike of the reconciliation is irrelevant. You have provided an explanation in which the numbers make sense but the text doesn’t. For that reason, it doesn’t hold water.

Agreed... so the "taken" must be consistent with the "took" from the flood story. Further, the ones whom the flood took cannot be the eight, because... "They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark" Notice it is until...

I have no problem at all with the text, because I understand how such differences come to be. I simply use it as proof that the KJV is not perfect.

No, according to YOU... By your own words, the KJV cannot be the word of God, because it contains two versions of the same story with clearly contradictory words and "truths". You dug your own hole. It's time to get some integrity and own it.

You have ignored my simple questions; I'm just treating you as you want to be treated.

Your continued refusal to define the words you use tells me that your words are meaningless.

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. 2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in...

"Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word 'and,' and the first noun has the article ('the') while the second does not, both...

That, sir, is called speculation.

The text says "upon the mountains of Ararat", not "on Mount Ararat." It's describing a region, not a mountain. Further, nothing in the text indicates that the mountains existed prior to the flood, and many places were named anachronistically in Scripture.

Let's go back to the flood again; how does your theory fit in that story?

Okay, then in your view, to what does the 50-50 ratio refer?

Huh? You were arguing that it is a ratio of 50-50. Now you're saying that it's not.

We disagree. Let's leave it at that.