A flood huh, yea right

Think of this as a letter from the editor (the title of this post is from the skeptics point of view, where the Creator is challenged)

Ah yes, the flood of Noah.  From where I sit, they who do not believe the account are at a supreme disadvantage for debate, therefore I will not take de bait to argue endlessly. The flood ‘doubt’ is simply a smokescreen used as an eternal ping-pong match of epic proportion, which justifies unbelief, confirms doubt, and puts fuel on a topic which has long been settled.

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth….and the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased…and the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth….the waters prevailed 150 days… And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

For every reason FOR a flood from nature, science, the scriptures, and observation, there will be a hundred objections AGAINST, using the same proof. There will be new information, new web sites, a thousand more links, new reasoning, proof of man’s tremendous advances in the sciences, all designed to say ‘no flood,’ and of course one must say this, for the same ones say: ‘there is no God.’

Is anybody really surprised? Has the long hallway of time changed the heart of man, at all?

We will never know ‘the world that then was,’ in this lifetime, and this thought alone is one reason WHY people cannot see beyond the scope of their own skepticism.  Something drastic occurred in the longevity of man:  Methuselah 969, Moses age 120. Nowadays threescore and ten.

Some will assert the highest mountains today were but mere hills then; some will say the Alps were made due to massive water pressure; while others will say the Alps kinda sorta, just evolved.  And the merry-go-round will keep turning.

Lake Tahoe is some 6,000 ft above sea level, and at its deepest point is 1700 ft or so, and there is enough water to cover the state of California 3 ft deep. Some will say, yep, that means nothing; all it proves is nature evolved on its own, and water collectively ran downhill and formed a beautiful lake. Others will say, ‘yep, from whence cometh the mountains?’ and the round table of argument will provide no relief.

As I said, it is an endless and profitless discussion, UNLESS there is an absolute which settles all controversy. There is indeed. Scripture answers deep unto deep.

There is also a principle in life where the testimony of a good man is invaluable and sought after.  I know several men of mettle who have good testimonies, you do also, but I would like to look at a few others; you decide for yourself if their word is good.

Noah was a good man. He built an ark, using the dimensions given him by God, taking 120 years to erect. Just like today, he was mocked, thought to be deranged and a fool, and he pressed on……….until the day God shut the door and deluged the earth in water. And the world which then was, being overflowed with water, perished.  (enter more endless debate as to HOW)

Today we see the rainbow, Noah saw the first one, as a reminder of God’s covenant that he would never destroy this earth by water AGAIN.

The testimony of a good man. Critically important. Enter the word of the Lord Himself while walking the earth: ‘As the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the son of man be………………they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark.’  Verifiable, reliable, truthful.

Not only did he verify the account of Noah, he spoke of the ark and the flood with absolute certainty. The testimony of a good man. I would be slow to criticize and disbelieve the word of God himself. (enter the accusation of the naive mind of Christ)

The testimony of a good man. The Hebrew writer thousands of years later said that ‘Noah being warned of things not seen as yet, prepared an ark.’  Verifiable, reliable, truthful. (enter the accusation of hearsay)

Peter the apostle wrote  that ‘the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.’ Verifiable, reliable, truthful. (enter the accusation of the stupidity of Peter)

Here we have a triple testimony of three good men, all testifying of the flood of Noah and the patience of God, one of which was the Lord himself.  I would be slow and careful to mock His word, and speak of him as if he was deranged.

You either believe the flood of Noah or not. Then again, if you have trouble with ‘faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity,’ or ‘there was a man sent from God whose name was John,’ or ‘drink a little wine for your stomach’s sake,’ or how Gabriel made Zacharias mute, or how David smote Goliath of Gath with one smooth stone, than I suppose believing there was a flood may be hard to swallow also.

And what is forthcoming?  Mockings, demands of ‘proof,’ insults, aspersions,  mistakes in scripture, delusional accounts, God’s word is passe, on and on and on.

Me? I’m stickin with He who paints rainbows.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Genesis- in the beginning and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to A flood huh, yea right

  1. Ooh… seems I stumbled across this first. 🙂 I like the last sentence particularly.
    Sometimes, everything does seem like a game of Pong where neither person moves their paddle… but I hope that someday, the truth will become clear enough for all of us to see it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Wally Fry says:

    Yep…plenty of arguments either way…so Im going with the One who painted the rainbow….nice again ColorStorm.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Kinda hard to malign the testimony of Christ too Wally, huh?
      Couple that with your rainbow vote, and I’m thinking the deluge is history.

      Current tally:
      God’s word 3.
      No opposition, (nor where there ever be any other than a paltry voice of protest)

      Liked by 1 person

  3. ColorStorm says:

    I said:

    “For every reason FOR a flood from nature, science, the scriptures, and observation, there will be a hundred objections AGAINST.”

    David said:

    ‘Ok, so you understand the reality of the overwhelming evidence against the Flood. Then you deny it.’

    But, ah. I use the word AGAINST not to give you credibility, but to prove that the assaults AGAINST a flood and scripture will continue.

    As far as ‘we’re done here,’ yea, that’s kind of the idea when everything I said in the post is denied.

    Try finding fault with the witness of scripture, and the writers as noted. Try to deny the account of Genesis as I wrote, then try to deny David the words of Christ Himself. Good luck with that.

    Remember the rainbow.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Wally Fry says:

    ColorStorm. ..may I interject with a question? For David. Why all the energy? If we are so obviously wrong that no reasonable person could possibly believe it…why so much effort?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. David says:

    Wally,

    “If we are so obviously wrong that no reasonable person could possibly believe it…why so much effort?”

    That’s a very good question. Perhaps it’s because I find CS’s way of thinking (and I assume, your way of thinking as well) to be so odd and so different that it attracts my attention as any curiosity would attract my attention. Given that you all are so obviously wrong about the Flood question, I’m truly fascinated that you could believe this anyway.

    However, at this point in time, I may have to conclude that I’m genuinely wasting my time, because I really expected a more interesting response from CS here. You see, the Flood account offers the possibility of testing the hypothesis that the Bible is what CS says that it is. CS makes an a priori claim that the Bible offers absolute and perfect truth with every word (oh, and that God is perfect, too, of course). But what if that happens to be wrong? How could you tell?

    Unfortunately, CS has zero interest in considering the possibility of error. Instead, it’s just more of “I believe God said it, and that settles it,” again and again and again. To be honest, that gets kinda boring after awhile. I appreciate the privilege of posting here, but this is getting a little tedious.

    Like

  6. ColorStorm says:

    David

    Did u read this post entirely and did u think about the ramifications of the testimonies?

    As to your rainbow concern- why would an absence of it prove the earth lacked in anything? A rainbow came AFTER judgment…

    All things in their time….if it was meant for a sign… then obviously it was never needed. Kind of speaks to me of inspiration, wouldn’t ya think

    Like

  7. David says:

    “Did u read this post entirely and did u think about the ramifications of the testimonies?”

    Before one considers “ramifications”, one must consider the accuracy of the testimonies themselves and/or whether or not the testimonies even occurred as described in ancient texts. However, you are incapable of considering these points.

    Like

  8. David says:

    “As to your rainbow concern- why would an absence of it prove the earth lacked in anything? A rainbow came AFTER judgment…”

    In a perfect world, nothing more is needed, neither rainbows nor judgement.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Well, with you and me in the world, its kind of not perfect now eh.

      ‘I do set my bow in the cloud……….and I will look upon it………………that I may remember………….’

      Like

  9. Arkenaten says:

    @Wally

    ColorStorm. ..may I interject with a question? For David. Why all the energy? If we are so obviously wrong that no reasonable person could possibly believe it…why so much effort?

    I think we have discussed the reasons before – in this case, by ensuring that for every argument Creationists put forward, scientific data is presented to ensure children are not corrupted by indoctrinated fools like you, Wally.
    Fortunately, this biblical garbage is not taught in schools and only a minority of people believe it. Hopefully, Ken Ham and his ilk will be seen for what they are: deranged, and will be prosecuted and prevented by law from teaching this nonsense to children.
    And why not? The Klu Klux clan are illegal, as is apartheid.
    I can’t see any reason why teaching this tripe should not be outlawed as well.

    Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      Also Ark…what would you suggest the penalty be for being a Christian?

      Just remember some things. His Word shall not return void…….the gates of Hell won’t prevail against His church…and one last one….He loves you just as much as He loves me, ColorStorm, or any other person….and that’s even after all you have chucked at Him.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        Really ark? Outlaw it? Does it frighten you that badly?
        Also Ark…what would you suggest the penalty be for being a Christian?
        Just remember some things. His Word shall not return void…….the gates of Hell won’t prevail against His church…and one last one….He loves you just as much as He loves me, ColorStorm, or any other person….and that’s even after all you have chucked at Him.

        Frighten? RFLMFAO. What a ludicrous thing to suggest.
        The only interest I truly have is for the children who are not able to tell you and your ilk of emotional passive/aggressive bullies, where to stick your farking ridiculous religion.
        That you have not once offered a single credible piece of verifiable evidence for any claims you have made since we entered into dialogue merely reinforces the belief that you are merely using religion as a crutch to bolster some emotional shortcoming.
        For this I can extend a modicum of sympathy, but have none if you are intent on spreading this emotionally crippling diatribe to kids.
        What you believe, especially garbage like Noah’s Flood, etc, has already been scientifically proven to be wholly redundant. As for ‘’hell’’ and ‘’sin’’: every time you raise these subjects, and especially hell, you once again demonstrate your abject ignorance of the history and etymology.
        Instead of being a whimpering sycophant for the likes of colorstorm why not educate yourself properly? You will soon find that whatever emotional deficiency you believe you have will dissipate quickly in the face of science and the simple beauty of nature.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Sooooo…what would you have the government do to us?

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          🙂
          On an individual level – nothing. As this would only have negative repercussion on kids whose deranged parents would likely redouble their malignant intentions.
          But in a big picture scenario your piss willy religion is slowly but surely being shown the door. Just look at the stats in every upwardly mobile first world culture ( not sure about the USA)
          But what would have an immediate impact would be to hit you all where it hurts – you pocket. Tax the churches.
          Don’t be surprised if that is not on the cards in some form or another.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well…He did tell Peter that even the gates of Hell would not prevail against His churches..keep on kicking, my friend. I’m gonna start calling you Don….you know as in Quixote?

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          And still, you have not the integrity to answer the charges against the spurious crap concerning Noah’s flood. Why is that , Wally? Does it frighten you that much?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          What has been established is that there are dissenting opinions…you pick yours and I pick mine…Im fairly sure going with the One who spoke things into existence is a safe bet.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Ark

          Okay…let’s look at your for the most part nonsensical argument.

          What, exactly is the “scholastic” world? Is that everybody who either goes to or works at a school? Does that include school janitors?

          The archaeological world? Really? Every single archaeologist in the world? Without exception. Pretty sure you are wrong there.

          ALL Jewish scholars and archaeologists? Really…are you actually saying that ALL Jewish scholars believe the Pentateuch is myth? I bet I could find at least a few Jewish Scholars who have much faith in what they read in the Pentateuch…just sayin.

          William who? Ohhhh….you mean Dever…got it. Ark..when you do these frantic Google searches to dredge up your inane statements…at least spell it correctly. It really takes away from using a name as a source if you don’t even know it well enough to spell correctly.

          You are in the business of throwing around accusations concerning evidence..etc…why don’t you try some yourself.

          Shuck and dive? Um…pretty sure you messed that one up to…it’s shuck and JIVE…you know…we shuckin and jivin.

          And…no plans whatsoever on answering your question…might as well give an answer to a turnip…in fact I would expect more consideration from a turnip.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Here you go, Wally. Something to think about.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well…you are factually incorrect. I promise there is um…at least one archaeologist who considers the Bible factual.

          And my point with that comment was…you constantly pick at the smallest of details to prove your position, yet you are in complete error on many of your small details.

          You demand proof, yet you throw around generalizations like candy.

          And coward? Ark…you don’t scare me, after all..if God is for me who can be against me?

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Again, so what? People disagree. Ark, if you put 10 scientists or archaeologists in a room, you would get 10 opinions. Next.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Not about the flood you would’t. Nor about the Pentateuch or evolution.
          The link was merely to highlight how fractious your supposed god breathed iron clad religion truly is.
          Truth will always win the day – eventually. Religion is based on lies and it’s as simple as that.

          Like

    • David says:

      Instead of worrying about a misspelled name, maybe you should try reading some of Dever’s books. I have. They’re very interesting.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wally Fry says:

        Now…how do you know if I have or not? Maybe that’s how I knew how to spell his name. Or maybe not…never know…im just a fundie pinhead…irrational…never know which way Im gonna turn.

        Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      Hey…I learned the smokescreen trick honestly. Ark? He’s not looking for honest thought trading. Just taking pot shots. Dever has expressed doubt that he even believes in God….if true…then his opinion on Scripture is useless. The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. …..without the work of The.Holy.Spirit….no one can understand.

      Like

    • David says:

      “If you put 10 scientists or archaeologists in a room, you would get 10 opinions.”

      So, this is your response to ANE archaeology and geology? You really want to go this route when the same can be said for theologians?

      Put 10 theologians in a room, and you get 10 opinions. Conclusion? We can ignore them, right? Opinions differ, so the vast majority of theologians (if not all of them) must be completely wrong and can be dismissed? Opinions differ, therefore, God does not exist. QED.

      Again, isn’t it terrible that we have no way whatsoever for testing opinions about the physical, material, nature world? Wouldn’t it be great to have a….what shall we call it…a method?

      Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      Hey…I learned the smokescreen trick honestly.

      Smokescreen is still a smokescreen, regardless of where or how you learned the trick.

      “Dever has expressed doubt that he even believes in God….if true…then his opinion on Scripture is useless. The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. …..without the work of The.Holy.Spirit….no one can understand.”

      Dever had a change in belief, in part, because he expect archaeology to confirm the Bible. He did the archaeology himself. The archaeology did not confirm the Bible.

      So, without an a priori commitment to the proposition that the Bible offers absolute inerrant truth, one cannot conclude that the Bible offers absolute inerrant truth. You must believe absolutely and without wavering that the Bible offers absolute inerrant truth (thanks to the Holy Spirit) before you can discuss the proposition that maybe, just maybe, the Bible does not, in fact, offer absolute inerrant truth. In other words, the game is over before it is played.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Yes David I do believe that truth….thats the foundation. The best foundation….one can accept it or reject it. The choice is our own. Just consider. David…read the Book of John. Not critically looking for errors….but just to hear what it says…life changing truth there my friend.

        Like

  10. David says:

    “Well, with you and me in the world, its kind of not perfect now eh.”

    Quite right. Humans are imperfect. And who created the imperfect humans?

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      S. I. N.

      Wrap your mind around that, and its all easy.

      Don’t try blaming God, and try to stay on point: Flood, now your getting warmer. Read Genesis 6 through 9, its all there and rather plain

      Like

  11. David says:

    “S.I.N.”

    The creator blames the creation for a flaw the creator created. Wrap your mind around that, and its all easy.

    “Read Genesis 6 through 9, its all there and rather plain.”

    Yes, I get it. You believe God said it, and that settles it. Tedious.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Well david, you have heard the good word,
      you may decide against it.

      By the way, a correction to your observation:
      God said it, THAT settles it; it is irrelevant whether I believe it.
      It is Forever settled in heaven, Psalm 119.

      I’m guessing you have no alternative to a Creator; but tkx for the visits,
      and come back again when u find a suitable topic

      Like

  12. Hey CS, there’s a lot of stuff in here that I would debate you on, but the quick thing I would like to comment on is this part of your post:

    “I would be slow to criticize and disbelieve the word of God himself.”

    This is an example of begging the question. It’s an informal fallacy in argument. It makes the rest of your post as a reason to believe in God less persuasive.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      I don’t think so SB. Here’s why.

      The context was the testimonies of the men given, in their very words, one of whom was the word of God himself, ie, Christ.

      I could have just as easily wrote ‘I would be slow to criticize the word of Christ himself,’ but simply wanted to draw attention to the ‘word.’

      Others may not recognize as you do, but I think the difference between ‘itself’ and ‘himself.’ is plain.

      But the more important question, did He speak with absolute authority as to the issue of the day here: the flood?

      That said, i would still think most reasonable would be slow to criticize (the word of God himself) Christ, ………..then again, maybe not.

      By the way, I can’t make anybody believe in God, just don’t have that kind of strength.

      Like

    • David says:

      What has been established is that there are dissenting opinions…you pick yours and I pick mine.”

      Yes, you have your opinion about an event which may or may not have happened in the physical, material natural world, and I have may opinion about an event which may or may not have happened in the physical, material natural world. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a method which would allow us to test opinions about the physical, material, natural world so that we might come conclusions about which opinion is more likely to be accurate? Wouldn’t that be great? But, alas…

      Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      Arggh! Wrong place again!

      Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      I wish there was a “Reply” button at the end of your “Which is easier to verify: (as in the presentation of evidence?)” comment, as I wanted to say I’d have to answer “Ark” all the way —

      Like

  13. Arkenaten says:

    CS; you use the word verifiable throughout this post.
    Please explain how any of your assertions are verifiable?

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Which is easier to verify: (as in the presentation of evidence)
      A rainbow created by God, or a photograph taken by ark?

      Arkenatens photography of spiders, or the imprint and recording of God’s word, Christ’s word, Peters word, and the Hebrew writer’s word?

      Which is more truthful:
      Arks writings about butterflys, or Peter’s writing about the flood?

      Which is more reliable:
      The word of Christ saying there was a flood, or the word of Ark saying there was no flood?

      Which is verifiable, reliable, and truthful, and will endure:
      Arks negatives, or the word of God?

      The ‘presentation of evidence’ is the word of God, as factual accounting by reliable and truthful people. It is ALL verifiable, just like the image in the camera.

      .

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Arkenaten says:

    @Wally

    Now…how do you know if I have or not? Maybe that’s how I knew how to spell his name. Or maybe not…never know…im just a fundie pinhead…irrational…never know which way Im gonna turn.

    How do we know? Simply because anyone with a modicum of integrity would approach this topic without the need to continually shuck and jive ( how’s that, Wally?) and address the issues with openness and honesty.
    Two things you are unable to do, it seems.

    Like

  15. David says:

    “If you put 10 scientists or archaeologists in a room, you would get 10 opinions.”

    So, this is your response to ANE archaeology and geology? You really want to go this route when the same can be said for theologians?

    Put 10 theologians in a room, and you get 10 opinions. Conclusion? We can ignore them, right? Opinions differ, so the vast majority of theologians (if not all of them) must be completely wrong and can be dismissed? Opinions differ, therefore, God does not exist. QED.

    Again, isn’t it terrible that we have no way whatsoever for testing opinions about the physical, material, nature world? Wouldn’t it be great to have a….what shall we call it…a method?

    Like

    • Wally Fry says:

      Well…these comment threads confuse me also David…no prob.

      You are very correct in your statement. Disagreement among adherents of a view does not make the view itself invalid. Science or archeology …I would never propose that. However that is precisely what some non believers argue….that because Christians diverge in some areas…then the worldview itself must be wrong. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander my friend.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        No, Wally, you actually misunderstand.
        Your divergence is based on interpretation of the supposed , innerant word of your god, Yahweh. Why should there be any need to interpret an innerant word?
        Do you understand?

        Let me put it in plain language for you

        When a woman says ‘No!’ to a man’s sexual advances it means No. There is no ambiguity and any further advances by said male is considered sexual assault.
        Do you understand, Wally?

        If the bible is the innerant word of your god, Yahweh, then please tell us which damn version is the right one?

        Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well….what is the divergence among scientists caused by then. Perhaps it is you who fail to understand. …well not perhaps. ..without doubt.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Scientists do not claim their data is god breathed, now do they? And as far as the biblical claims are concerned, almost every archaeologist – with the exception of fundamentalists, of course, – are in agreement, with perhaps only minor details where they have a slight difference of opinion.

          Tell me, are you behaving like a complete twit on purpose, Wally?

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well..let the name calling begin..sheesh…I thought you had to be 18 to be on here…apparently you are stuck in middle school..when all else fails..call names.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Oh, and you have still not revealed the name of your archaeologist who concurs with the biblical tale of the Exodus ( and who does not consider the Pentateuch myth.)
          I am very interested to read his/her perspective. What’s his/her name, Wally?

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          That question is absurd..you know darn well there are scholars who believe that..what good would a name do? You would just claim they are not qualified, or reputable, or certified or whatever. Why so much effort to fight this? If we are so stupid, we will just die out naturally right? You just make us last longer by fighting…what is the POINT?

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          @Wally

          That question is absurd..you know darn well there are scholars who believe that..what good would a name do? You would just claim they are not qualified, or reputable, or certified or whatever. Why so much effort to fight this? If we are so stupid, we will just die out naturally right? You just make us last longer by fighting…what is the POINT?

          No, it is not absurd at all. Your refusal to supply the name suggests you are afraid of falling foul of a straw man or you are not being entirely honest with your claim that you are aware of a professional archaeologist that believes in the biblical tale from Genesis/historical veracity of the Pentateuch.

          I have explained numerous times the primary reason why I challenge every religious fundamentalist claim – to help prevent children from being inculcated with unverifiable religious claptrap.
          Also, that you might be educated along the way is also hoped, but as you re an adult and able to exercise freedom of choice, this is of secondary importance.

          Yes, you are correct, religion will die out, but it would be nice if it died sooner rather than later, maybe saving a few lives along the way?

          So, the name of the archaeologist, please, Wally?

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Wow..you guys sure spend a lot of effort to counter a belief that makes no sense. If we are just so wrong, why not just let us die out naturally?

          Liked by 1 person

  16. ColorStorm says:

    Hey arcH1x

    Thank you for proving the facts of Lake Tahoe.

    You will be pleased to know that just last year, The TAHOE TOUR GUIDE said IN PERSON the depth was 3 feet.

    Apparently, water measured on a FLAT surface (14 inches) is a far cry different that water measured where hills are involved. Yea, kinda makes sense.

    I’m guessing the learned GUIDES are aware of the Tahoe facts page 😉

    But as usual, you missed the point entirely with the relationship of water to the post.

    Like

    • David says:

      So, what point were you (CS) trying to make with the Lake Tahoe comment?

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Sure thing David, I brought it up in the context of a Flood.

        One simple lake, high atop a mountain, one more example of the massive containment of water and how easily it is determined that a state the size of CA can be enveloped by the water of Lake Tahoe.

        Now multiply this by the amount of water in the WORLD, unleashed, and a flood of monstrous proportion as stated in scripture, and directed by God, can EASILY be seen.

        And this does not even touch the geological changes to the earth due to water pressure the likes of which you have never seen.

        ———–And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered—————-

        So the question is not why people believe it, but why YOU do not.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          arcH-
          David- etc

          You are working waaaay too hard to justify your unbelief. It really is amusing watching you justify your ‘no God, no flood’ idea.

          Have you never read how ‘ALL the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and all the windows of heaven were opened?’

          You just don’t get it do ya; waters below and from above,

          Then there is always the idea that ‘the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.’

          You are insulting yourself by making God appear so small. Is anything too hard for He who created water in the first place?

          A flood, yeah right, it really is a no brainer.

          Like

    • David says:

      “One simple lake, high atop a mountain, one more example of the massive containment of water and how easily it is determined that a state the size of CA can be enveloped by the water of Lake Tahoe.”

      Yes, IF the state of California was COMPLETELY FLAT and surrounded by a wall that was three foot (or so) high. In short, your statistic is utterly meaningless.

      “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered”

      So, how high were the highest hills when the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth?

      “And this does not even touch the geological changes to the earth due to water pressure the likes of which you have never seen.”

      I’m afraid that your understanding of geophysics is questionable. What happens to the temperature of water when you put it under pressure “the likes of which you’ve never seen?” What happens to atmospheric temperatures when you let the cork out of the pressurized bottle so the the water can cover the Earth?

      “So the question is not why people believe it, but why YOU do not.”

      Because I don’t get my fantasies about geophysics from Answers in Genesis.

      Like

    • David says:

      “Now multiply this by the amount of water in the WORLD, unleashed, and a flood of monstrous proportion as stated in scripture, and directed by God, can EASILY be seen.”

      Yes, this is something that would be easy to see in the geologic record of the Earth. People looked for it. They didn’t see it.

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Evidence? Oh yea, its there, people just ignore it or explain it away. But if scripture is not enough for you, then I just can’t help ya.

        By the way, I have been in a flood and seen damage done in mere seconds that a skeptic would find hard to believe.

        Sound familiar?

        Read the book, its all there.

        Like

    • David says:

      “You are working waaaay too hard to justify your unbelief. It really is amusing watching you justify your ‘no God, no flood’ idea.”

      Actually, this is easy. The hard work has been done by scientists over the past two hundred years or so.

      “Have you never read how ‘ALL the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and all the windows of heaven were opened?”

      Question: Where were the fountains of the deep located before they broke open? Were they beneath the sea floor?

      Like

    • David says:

      “Is anything too hard for He who created water in the first place?”

      Yes, I understand. It was a miracle. No evidence or rational argument required. But even miracles can be tested by predictions about what they would do to the physical, material world.

      Look at the physical, material world. It does not appear as your miracle predicts that it would look had your miracle occurred. Your miracle didn’t happen.

      Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      You are being childish David-

      ‘Counter the physical realities of the earth?’ C’mon David, think about your question.

      ‘The world that THEN was……………….’ is not as it is NOW.’

      You do not believe that, but that is not our problem. The great flood kinda changed things, when the fountains of the deep were opened, as I repeat.

      Open your mind and heart to the POSSIBILITY that God and Genesis know more than you.

      And yes, my observation of a local flood was just to point out the devastation in seconds that which took a hundred years to build. Sorry u cant see the connection.

      Like

    • David says:

      “‘The world that THEN was……………….’ is not as it is NOW.’”

      Right. So, basically, now you’re saying that you can just make sh*t up. All of science says that the Flood didn’t occur? No problem. You see, everything was different then! So, if God’s world was perfect before the Flood, what is is now, given that everything is different?

      You missed the point I was making here. Even if the world that then was was different, even if there was miracle after miracle, all of these things would leave their mark on the world as it is today. But the marks aren’t there.

      “My observation of a local flood was just to point out the devastation in seconds that which took a hundred years to build.”

      Yes, I understood your point. Reference to a LOCAL flood is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a GLOBAL flood occurred.

      “Where were the fountains of the DEEP…………………..?’”

      Yes, that’s what I asked. Where were the fountains of the deep? I want you to tell me so that you can’t change the answer in the middle of the discussion. Where do you think the fountains of the deep were located?

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        David-

        I understand your lack of information hinders you, but please don’t accuse me of ‘making stuff up.’

        Do u think I picked up God’s word yesterday?

        Hear God’s word, NOT MINE:

        ‘For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

        Whereby the WORLD THAT THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished.’

        And herein answers all your questions. Do yourself a favor, think about this for a day, a week, a month, or a year.

        As I like to say: God is not on trial, man is.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          ‘For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

          Whereby the WORLD THAT THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished.’

          Your god didn’t say that, scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age men said that.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Your house of cards just came crashing, and severely.

          LET IT BE KNOWN UNTO YOU AND YOUR BRETHREN:

          This word was spoken by the apostle Peter.

          THE WORLD THAT THEN WAS, BEING OVERFLOWED WITH WATER, PERISHED.

          That’s right, the ignorant fisherman penned these wonderful words of inspiration and infallible proof.

          As to the eternal pong match, you no longer have a paddle. See u maybe on another post.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          That’s right, the ignorant fisherman penned these wonderful words of inspiration and infallible proof.” – And clearly a superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Iron Age illiterate fisherman was basing his supposition – and that’s all it could have been – on misinformation – the words of superstitious, scientifically-ignorant, Bronze Age men.

          Like

    • David says:

      “God is not on trial, man is.”

      That’s correct. God is not on trial.

      Your human vision of God is on trial. The views of ancient Hebrews are on trial. Yes, “man” is on trial, but not in the way that you think.

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        David-

        I suggest u read the initial post about the ‘eternal ping pong match, and decide:

        Why do you try to put God into your image? You either believer the account of scripture or not.

        Spend time in the scriptures, all your answers are there for the taking. You are trying to find flaws in God, no can do.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Spend time in the scriptures, all your answers are there for the taking.” – Written by scientifically-ignorant, Bronze Age men.

          Like

  17. archaeopteryx1 says:

    I wanted to respond to Wally’s question:
    what would you suggest the penalty be for being a Christian?” – I would suggest no penalty whatsoever – being a Christian is its own punishment.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. archaeopteryx1 says:

    it’s clear that you do not wish to discuss this biblical error.” I think he does, David – the problem lies in his definition of “discussion.” Discussion, for him, means throwing scripture at facts, much like monkeys throw feces.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. David says:

    I never did get an answer to my question about the location of the fountains of the deeps. So, where were they?

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Well David,

      The Deep belongs to the Creator, and obviously is not today what it was then,

      This was answered already for you, ahem, Peter did actually, yea, the ignorant fisherman.

      Need I remind you AGAIN of the eternal ping pong game…

      as clearly stated in the original post.

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ asks the Creator to arrogant man.

        And I can safely say, ‘Thou alone art Lord.’

        Others can answer and put proverbial foot in mouth. Maybe you can answer your own question David.

        Like

      • David says:

        “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?”

        Yes, I’ve had that passage recited to me many times. It’s an excellent way to end any questioning.

        But there’s a problem here. Are you, CS, omniscient? A yes or no will suffice.

        Like

      • David says:

        No sir
        No way
        No how

        Ok, you’re not omniscient, so you could be wrong a given conclusion, correct? I could be wrong, too, of course. We’re all fallible.

        So, given that you can be wrong about a given conclusion, it follows that you could be wrong about your conclusions about the Bible, God, etc. Correct? It’s a possibility?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          If I am correct about ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,’ then my conclusions are also correct.

          If I am wrong about ‘in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ then yes, I would be also wrong about everything.

          The lights and perfection as revealed in scripture, from creation and everything that follows, appears to give the edge to God, and by default, they who rest on His promises. just sayin.

          As to infallibility? Yes God is. And He is the beginning of ALL wisdom. If you only knew……

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Then we have a wee book called Amos, which alone demolishes everything you just wrote.

          Amazing eh, how folks get so jumpy about the idea of a flood.

          The ruling on the field stands:

          ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth…’

          Archx1 guilty of: ‘Holding the truth in unrighteousness.’

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Amazing eh, how folks get so jumpy about the idea of a flood.” – “Jumpy”? I just proved that it was physically and scientifically impossible, but you’ve probably deleted my proof by now –

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          YOU just proved is was scientifically and physically impossible….’

          Wow arcH, I guess I should be impressed? Which one of your friends put earth’s moon in place so we could see at night?

          Yea, that’s how absurd your comment is.

          Like

      • David says:

        “If I am correct about ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,’ then my conclusions are also correct.”

        I don’t believe that the second part of this sentence logically follows from the first part of the sentence. Being correct about one thing does not make you correct about all things.

        It’s certainly possible that “God created the heaven and the earth” and that the Bible is correct about this. However, this in no way proves that the rest of the Bible is perfect, and it in no way suggests that your other conclusions based on the Bible are correct. One correct statement at the start of the document does not make the entire document infallible and inerrant. That’s not a logically sound conclusion. It’s quite possible that there is an entity capable of creating universes, but at the same time, it’s possible that most of the the human writings and imaginings about this entity are wrong. The problem here is that you’ve conflated the argument for deism with the argument for Christian theism.

        However, the more important question is this. If it happens that you are incorrect, how could you determine this? If you’re wrong, how can you know that you’re wrong? You’ve acknowledged that you may be in error, so the next step is to test for error. To do this, you would have to ask questions, right?

        But the passage that reads “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” has the effect of shutting down questioning. If it happens that you are wrong about the flood, how are you going to know if you don’t ask questions or test the hypotheses?

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          No David,

          With other documents, you would be correct as to ‘something being true,’ does not follow everything that follows is true.

          The word of God is self proving. If Genesis 1.1 is correct, then equally true is how the sun, moon, stars were created, how animals and man were made. Was there a flood?

          This is the context of what I mean when I say ‘everything that follows is true,’ it is not ME being true, but God’s word being true.

          I am simply attesting to it. Interpretations sometimes are different, but not the truth of those interpretations.

          And I did not acknowledge ‘I may be in error,’ as God’s word is infallible.

          Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        David

        God wants you to use your ‘testing’ mechanism. Are you aware of the many men of science and learning who have tried to find faults with God’s word and have walked away as men of faith?

        People think that the scriptures are somehow ‘intellectually inferior’ than other disciplines, and it is the complete opposite.

        Approach your learning of THAT book as u would with any other passion. Don’t rely on what I or anybody else says, search your self, try to find a flaw or defect.

        There are layers after layers of truth and knowledge just waiting to be unfolded.

        Mormon? Not interested in speculation.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Are you aware of the many men of science and learning who have tried to find faults with God’s word and have walked away as men of faith?

          No – how many?

          As mentioned earlier, a full 85% of the members of the Academy of Science are atheists.

          There is no god.”
          ~~ Stephen Hawking ~~

          “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on.”
          — Neil Degrasse Tyson —
          astrophysicist

          “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
          — Albert Einstein —

          And then, there’s you —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          85%? I’d be just as well if it was 99.9999999. Aw heck make it 100% against, I’ll still side with God’s word.

          Since you like to name drop, and never even consider the possibility of anybody of faith having intellectual prowess, read up on a fellow.

          Sir Robert Anderson was an agent for Scotland Yard. His mental abilities are (were) second to none when it comes to investigation, particularly in the scriptures, where he was known for ‘digging for clews.’

          Of his many excellent books, ‘The Silence of God’ is still unsurpassed, as well as ‘The seventieth week of Daniel;’ however, for you, he wrote a book called ‘A doubters doubts on science and religion,’ or something close.

          Btw, his books on atonement, redemption, prophecy, Israel, are some of the very best.

          You may want to peruse his works, it make take you a few years, but I’m guessing it would be worth it.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Ah, you must mean Sir Robert Anderson (29 May 1841 – 15 November 1918), who wrote before modern 20th- and 21st-Century techniques were adopted for the studies of geology and archaeology – yeah, I’d hang on his every word if I were you, but I am SO glad I’m not!

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yea, him. Tkx for giving the birthday, did not know that. But you greatly err, thinking they were somehow ‘behind the times’ because they dd not have the ahem, internet. I submit their learning was more valuable having lesser tools.

          Are you forgetting about the greatest buildings designed and built, and to this day endure? You would say these ‘builders’ were less capable and less qualified than modern structures? You will lose this argument 100% of the time; ask around.

          Read the life and times of Webster, the dictionary genius. Tell me if there is a man today who has his mental acumen.

          There is no man today that could keep up with the mind of Anderson. Why don’t you read his work, instead of criticizing it.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          archx1

          Incontestable? That’s the beauty of the written word now is it, so there is NO ambiguity.

          This is why you spend try days attacking the scriptures,TRYING to find a defect. Not working out to well huh.

          Each day is another useless hammer.

          ‘In the beginning God………….’ true then, now, tomorrow, always.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          ‘In the beginning God………….’ true then, now, tomorrow, always.” – So says another fallible human, just as superstitious and scientifically-ignorant as those Bronze Age priests who first wrote it – you’d think that 2500 years would make a difference, but nooooo —

          Like

      • David says:

        “Approach your learning of THAT book as u would with any other passion. Don’t rely on what I or anybody else says, search your self, try to find a flaw or defect.”

        I’ve search. I’ve found defects. I’ve explain this to you. What more can I say?

        “Mormon? Not interested in speculation.”

        Speculation. I don’t understand. The Book of Mormon is infallible. Where’s the speculation?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Briefly:

          -God created all that is?
          -the ‘first couple?
          -sin introduced in Eden?
          -THE flood?
          – Moses received law?
          -Abraham promised a seed?
          -Messiah promised
          -Christ lives, dies, resurrects, ascends, sits

          Are any of these defects?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Are any of these defects?” – all stories told by superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Bronze and Iron Age men.

          Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        “Are any of these defects?”

        Defect as in some of these things are incorrect.

        Like

      • David says:

        “But you greatly err, thinking they were somehow ‘behind the times’ because they dd not have the ahem, internet. I submit their learning was more valuable having lesser tools….Tell me if there is a man today who has (Webster’s) mental acumen.”

        Mental acumen alone is not enough. What is also very significant is the accumulation of information and knowledge. This is why 19th century builders couldn’t build the space stations that 20th century builders could build. This is why Anderson or Webster, geniuses or not, could never have built a rocket to the moon. The accumulation of knowledge matters.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Knowledge is not wisdom. There are engineers who cannot change a light bulb without 3 men and a set of plans.

          Your space station today will be old news tomorrow, but what was true yesterday will be true tomorrow. It’s hard to improve upon 2 plus 2.

          There are improvements in ‘kind,’ ‘knowledge changes’ tkx to the rapid access of data, but God’s word is changeless, and will long outlive the earth.

          Yes, I’ll take the likes of your ‘genius’ ilk, common men, with outstanding vision, and accomplishing more having lesser resources. I know you agree.

          Like

      • David says:

        “Knowledge is not wisdom. There are engineers who cannot change a light bulb without 3 men and a set of plans.”

        So, now you’re dismissing the value of accumulated knowledge? Oy vey, this is depressing.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          So u didn’t appreciate my light bulb comment to prove a point?

          Nobody is foolish enough to dismiss knowledge. For God’s sake, look at advances in medicine alone.

          As mans knowledge increases, his knowledge of God decreases. Its that simple. 85 per cent of scientists agree, so its said.

          Again, knowledge and wisdom are not twins, neither are two sides of the same coin. I am all for science, it is simply foolish to leave Him out of His own creation.

          Again, my friend in the lab relates: if a man is honest, he will see God in every aspect of science; and his colleagues agree, but will not admit it. publicly. (all phd’s in microbiology)

          I think there is a huge part of the 85% who will also never admit.

          Like

      • David says:

        “Nobody is foolish enough to dismiss knowledge.”

        But that is exactly what you’ve done in comment after comment after comment.

        Ok, good. You don’t dismiss knowledge. So, you understand Arch’s comment about modern 20th- and 21st-Century techniques adopted for the studies of geology and archaeology. Now you understand why one might question the conclusions of someone who lacked the knowledge of 20th and 21st century knowledge. Glad that’s cleared up.

        “That’s the beauty of the written word now is it, so there is NO ambiguity.”

        No ambiguity in the written word? Am I misunderstanding you here. Are you really saying this?

        “This is why you spend try days attacking the scriptures,TRYING to find a defect. Not working out to well huh.”

        It’s working out great! Plenty of defects to be found. Can’t help it if you chose not to see or hear.

        “Each day is another useless hammer.”

        You know, CS, you remind me of a certain de-limbed Black Knight in a certain Monty Python movie…”Tis, but a scratch.”

        Like

      • David says:

        “I am all for science, it is simply foolish to leave Him out of His own creation.”

        Another irrelevant point. This is NOT about leaving God out of science. This is about whether or not the planet was completely covered in water approximately 4500 years old. If you are really and truly “all for science”, the the answer is clearly no it wasn’t.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I believe God. I believe his accounting is correct, He created the world, man went south, in time there was a flood, a huge deluge of water-

          -Noah was the patriarch

          -Christ affirmed it-

          -the Hebrew writer affirmed it-

          -the apostle Peter brought insight into the narrative that was well, kinda special.

          and you do not.

          Now what?

          Like

      • David says:

        “I believe God. ”

        No, you don’t. You believe the words of an ancient culture. That’s all you have. Words. Marks on paper. If you’d never read these words or been told about these words, you’d believe something completely different. No doubt, given your personality, you’d tell me that these different words were the absolute perfect truth.

        Nothing I can do about this.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          You are becoming redundant and remind me of a fellow and a few of his new founded enemies.

          This man was born blind. No clue as to the color blue or yellow ochre.

          He was given sight by the Lord, he now had vision for the first time. He saw color. Guess what? A group of men came along and chastised him for his ‘alleged’ blindness. (John 9 btw)

          They did not believe he was born blind until they talked to his parents. ‘Yep, this is our son, and he was born blind.’

          They tried everything under the sun to discredit his new sight, thus attacking He who gave him sight.

          This is what you and your brethren do. You attack people just as you did here, telling me, ‘you don’t believe in God,’ and by so doing, you are insulting God, by justifying your own disbelief..

          I’m telling you fella, I was blind, now I see. Maybe u would like to talk to my parents?

          The blind man was also a lesson to they who had eyes that saw not, as they reveled in their own importance,

          Like

      • David says:

        “You are becoming redundant.”

        You’re right. Just one point. I’m not insulting God. I’m insulting you. Got it?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          In a similar fashion David, Saul of Tarsus was persecuting Christ who he did not believe in by harassing believers.

          Just so u get it, but from where I sit, insults are a compliment.

          Happy new year though, really.

          Like

      • David says:

        “From where I sit, insults are a compliment.”

        That’s cool. Long as you understand where the insult is directed.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          So you do believe in the God of heaven?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          I happened to think of a vid I have, its on the sidebar on the home page called ‘chasing ice.’

          Its only 5 min. or so, but the audio is worth noting, the visual speaks for itself.

          kinda reminds me of the ‘deep breaking,’ but hey, I never saw it, but I’m guessing an analogy can be made.

          Don’t get too wrapped up in the ice over water- just consider the bigger picture-

          Like

      • David says:

        “So you do believe in the God of heaven?”

        I believe that I’ve been engaged in a fruitless discussion about an event that did not occur. You tell me if that means I believe in the God of heaven.

        Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Hey arK-

      The name of this site is not ‘masters of prolixity.’ How many times do I need to hear about bronze age idiots? etc etc etc.

      Here I thought you would understand what moderating means.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Arkenaten says:

        I would imagine the number of times you have to read about Bronze Age idiots ( your words) is in direct proportion to the amount of times you deny those same Bronze Age idiots, CS.

        Once you acknowledge that they were simply men and woman who likely didn’t understand so simply wrote stories to illustrate a point then maybe we will acknowledge you are at last using Critical Thinking.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Very clever to try to soften the blow of yourself and your brethren;

          Please don’t try to backpedal your defamation of ‘holy men of God,’ as your cement footprints are a mile long.

          You would have far more credibility if you said you simply do not believe the scriptures, that try to malign good men of character who were blameless in what they wrote….

          I’ll repeat:

          ‘…and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

          Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.’

          Do ya now have an insult of the day for this man of God?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Arkenaten says:

          If you tell me which god are you a ”man of” then I will try my best to find a suitable end of day insult for you with pleasure.

          So, your god”s name is …?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I’ll give it to you in good faith.

          A daughter arguing a case in front of her father on the bench in court, would NEVER call him ‘Daddy,’ or
          ‘John.’

          In THAT relationship, It is ‘YOUR HONOR.’. It is a matter of knowing your place and His.

          This is why you cannot see the same thought regarding the names of God. There is God as over all and above all, He is simply the God of creation.

          The heathen could not possibly know ‘The
          Lord of righteousness,’

          Other men of God knew him as El Shaddai, (the God of the breast, El Elyon, (the most High God, so take your pic. There are dozens more, but i’m guessing you will cast aspersion, to borrow from the words of tiny Tim, ‘on each and every one.’.

          The name is in proportion to the relationship; some know Him as Abba.

          My brother is an uncle, a nephew, a son, a brother, a brother in law, same person, different ‘names.’ Get it?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Arkenaten says:

          Sorry, I got a bit lost in all this Colorstorm.
          Just type out the name – not title anagram, allusion insinuation, just the damn name of your god , please. It’s late and I want to go watch the second half of the Liverpool game.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          ArH-

          You are embarrassing yourself. My original comment stands.

          An unbeliever trying to destroy the names of God is purely laughable. And yes, your toying with the names of God Almighty as if he were a game will probably end up in the trash bin.

          (el shad-di’)
          All-Sufficient One, Lord God Almighty

          Use in the Bible: In the Old Testament El Shaddai occurs 7 times. El Shaddai is first used in Gen 17:1.

          El Shaddai in the Septuagint: theou saddai…God Shaddai;pantokratôr (for Shaddai)…the Almighty

          MEANING AND DERIVATION:

          El is another name that is translated as “God” and can be used in conjunction with other words to designate various aspects of God’s character.

          Another word much like Shaddai, and from which many believe it derived, is shad meaning “breast” in Hebrew

          This refers to God completely nourishing, satisfying, and supplying His people with all their needs as a mother would her child. Connected with the word for God—El—this denotes a God who freely gives nourishment and blessing, He is our Sustainer.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          yes, your toying with the names of God Almighty as if he were a game will probably end up in the trash bin.” – No “toying” involved – actual, verifiable history, combined with scripture from your own belief system and sound logic. Can’t stand your followers (both of them) hearing any but your own jaundiced view of things, can you?

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Another example of cocked-up theological geography. Does the average Crispyian know just how far those pigs would have had to run to reach that cliff?
          Sure as Hades the gospel writer was not aware. lol.

          Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Which one of your 193 comments are you referring to?

        Oh, I remember, the one that you repeat 3 times a day.

        Like

    • David says:

      Good to have this confirmed. I was wondering if I was losing my mind.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        @David

        I was wondering if I was losing my mind.

        I think this is probably a separate issue and one I wouldn’t like to venture a guess about at this point.
        I know for sure that Arch has lost his marbles.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s