At this point, the hardest question for Christians might be “have you actually read and tried to understand this bible of yours?”
How could the Native Americans have been Christian, before the Europeans arrived, if God never revealed himself to them?
I imagine that this is the question which was on the minds of European immigrants, until the new order became natural, that lead to the creation of the LDS church. It helped to explain this rather vast oversight on God’s part.
So I guess you aren’t a Christian. It’s good that you are now using words like “seems”.
“Even those who refuse to believe are not damned. They get an eternal life absent pain and suffering. They may not get ice cream on Sundays, but they are neither punished or tortured in any sense of the word.”
For basically all of the Christians I know, the afterlife for the unsaved involves an eternity of extreme physical pain. Though some Christians believe what you’re talking about. You seem to be insisting that your view, which you don’t even believe in, is the correct one.
Your post #117 comes up with a problem that I doubt any Christian would have any problem with. (“There was no way they couldn’t fail in keeping one of the commandments.”) Like has been said, not eating of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) doesn’t stop them from breeding.
I think that would be a very easy question for the two pastors.
Do you seriously think the numbers involved were done in a purely oral way? They even made sure that everyone not on the ark was dead when it was time for the Flood. I’d have a lot of trouble doing it without writing things down.
Like I’ve said before how do you know which parts were part of the original story and which parts are embellishments?
I think it means that from that point on childbirth would be very painful - compared to other animals.
Morgenstern seems to insist that his interpretation is the correct one rather than talking about how things seem based on their reasoning. Then he comes up with things that don’t have much Biblical support e.g. that they’d only know how to breed if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
No doubt you would, but be that as it may, those from an oral tradition are capable of far more, and there’s nothing there beyond a few days cramming and some mnemonics. Have you never memorised tables or equations, or for that matter names and dates for an exam?
There are about 30 2-3 digit numbers there that need to be in the right order. I’ve used mnemonics but they involved literacy. With writing these numbers are 2-3 digits but without writing I think many more things would be needed - even more than in the Roman number system. Like I said about the ages near the Flood, they knew about multi-digit addition and I think that requires writing.
And thus, death was introduced into an otherwise “immortal” world.
Romans 5:12
Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned…
A world without death is an immortal world.
That’s why they had so many children in the garden, right… After all, they were commanded to, so they surely must have done it. Wonder why Genesis is silent about all those born, in the Garden, to Adam and Eve?
Your questions are so far from genuine that I am losing any desire to respond to you.
Could it possibly be that the Bible contradicts itself?
There’s no doubt that that occurs. Additionally, there are translation errors and different versions of the Bible.
sigh Jell-O wall nailing time again, I see.
I am talking about this particular argument. In this particular situation could the Bible be contradicting itself?
Oh, I see, now that you’ve clearly stated your question, you want me to find contradictions in this particular issue?
:smack::smack::smack::smack:
Is it possible that neither one of you are completely right or wrong on this particular matter because the Bible is contradicting itself?
Neither one of who?
What is the answer to: 14 k of g in a f p d?
More prayer, my son.
Then challenge him on his specific errors.
Don’t dismiss all non-Christians and their opinions. That’s blanket prejudice and unreasonable. You could conceivably show that non-Christians are incorrect in Bible interpretation slightly more often than Christians (although the actual evidence shows exactly the opposite effect.) But you certainly can’t show that non-Christians’ assertions regarding Bible interpretation are irrelevant.