A little more about evolution by the experts.

I was responding to your angry, frantic rant. Nothing triggered about my post. Have a conversation with your gods about managing your anger and frustration.

I'm actually laughing right now. I've never encountered anyone who projects more than you. :) Since having a real discussion with you doesn't seem to be possible, I'll leave it at that, because this is getting silly. I'll be praying for you.
 
A f
A flood that covers the mountains by 22 feet isn't a tide. BTW, Saudi Arabia never flooded.
It covered the inhabited hills by 22 feet. No need to cover Mt. Everest, there was nobody up there. ;)

Those few who might have climbed above the flood waters would soon die of starvation or exposure.
 
Gosh. I don't often tread into this sub-forum, but the atheists in here are some nasty little sht fkrs, aren't they?

My goodness.

It really is unfortunate. It would be great to have some genuine discussions that involve a modicum of goodwill and sincerity, but with the nasty ones that appears to be impossible. Thankfully they're not all like that. Blues Man is one who is capable of having a discussion without the trolling, projection and angry lashing out. I give him props for that.
 
That's what the translators say it says. Read it again in Strong's, using the various definitions of "hills".

Notice that they also say that waters sprung from beneath the earth as well. The bible says those waters came from the sea. So who's correct, the translators or the original text?

Another interesting test. Read the account of the forbidden fruit, then using Strong's, determine if "gave" was the best word to describe the passing of the fruit from Eve to Adam, and why it might have been used.
 
T
That's what the translators say it says. Read it again in Strong's, using the various definitions of "hills".

Notice that they also say that waters sprung from beneath the earth as well. The bible says those waters came from the sea. So who's correct, the translators or the original text?

Another interesting test. Read the account of the forbidden fruit, then using Strong's, determine if "gave" was the best word to describe the passing of the fruit from Eve to Adam, and why it might have been used.
There's no such thing as fountains of the deep. The flood was in the Euphrates river basin, which is relatively flat, and was fed by spring snow melt from the Zagros mountains and spring rains. It flooded from time to time. That's what built the Delta south of Basra.
 
That's what the translators say it says. Read it again in Strong's, using the various definitions of "hills".

Notice that they also say that waters sprung from beneath the earth as well. The bible says those waters came from the sea. So who's correct, the translators or the original text?

Another interesting test. Read the account of the forbidden fruit, then using Strong's, determine if "gave" was the best word to describe the passing of the fruit from Eve to Adam, and why it might have been used.
Post the verse that said the flood waters came from the sea. Which sea?
 
T
There's no such thing as fountains of the deep. The flood was in the Euphrates river basin, which is relatively flat, and was fed by spring snow melt from the Zagros mountains and spring rains. It flooded from time to time. That's what built the Delta south of Basra.
There's no such thing as fountains of the deep

Uh huh...
Boiling hot lava as described in the Talmud 1,500 years ago.
 
15th post
You think Noah's global flood was molten lava?
At least half of the flood was caused by subterranean waters, or did you not read the verses.
And I still don't care what paid off atheist archaeologists say about anything.
 
Post the verse that said the flood waters came from the sea. Which sea?
Sure.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


The KJV translates Strong's H8415 in the following manner: deep (20x), depth (15x), deep places (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
  1. deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea
    1. deep (of subterranean waters)
    2. deep, sea, abysses (of sea)
    3. primeval ocean, deep
    4. deep, depth (of river)
    5. abyss, the grave
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
תְּהוֹם tᵉhôwm, teh-home'; or תְּהֹם tᵉhôm; (usually feminine) from H1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean watersupply):—deep (place), depth.

The adjective great deep strongly suggests a singular source of water.
 
Last edited:
I even explained how to get to God, too, starting with one's faith. Anyway, yours is relegated to the seven seals.

View attachment 626028


iu
Its odd that god only makes himself available, which is bullshit anyway and you know it, to believers. It would be more beneficial to the cause if he made himself visible to atheists. You keep telling us we are the ones who need convincing and redeeming. But no. You selfish conceited pigs keep the supposed truth to yourself.

How stupid is it to suggest I must abandon everything to see your god? When simultaneously he could appear only once and the whole world would be convinced immediately.

God does not exist and never did. You do not have unique access to anything like you portray your faith gives you.
The more intense your faith and reliance on it, the greater the chance there is no god because it obviously is what binds you to your addiction.
Faith and delusions do not equate to fact.
 
Sure.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
surada will edit that verse out of her mind.
I just love it when she makes believe she actually read the chapter.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom