Re: Chez Watt: (long) Re: Narmer of Egypt
- From: jillery <69jpil69@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:22:59 -0500
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:56:44 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leilani7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:57 am, jillery <69jpi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:19:43 -0800, "Mike Painter"Ahhh..."refuses" is the right word, but not for the reasons you
<md.pain...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:44:31 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
An olive tree would not have been in the flood of Noah for a year
beause they can grow at lofty elevations in
Armenia. The water took 150 days to go up and then
150 days to drain off, which means that a tree growing
just below the tree line or a little lower would be one of
the last trees to be covered up by a rising flood, and
one of the first trees to be uncovered as the flood
subsided.
Do the math, Suzanne. It's elementary.
Watch a puddle after a rain storm and see if it empties as fast as it fills.
Exactly so. Based on my own experience with and understanding of
floodwaters, I recognize the biblical description of the Flood as an
approximation of regional floods naively expanded to a global scale.
Like your example above, Suzanne's apologetics are a continuation of
that process. She refuses to recognize that her scenarios are
impossible as described, and so invites laughter, derision, and scorn
on herself, her concepts, her Bible, and her God, as Augustine
explained long ago. ISTM that's a Bad Thing (c) to do, unless of
course that's Suzanne's intent. In that case she's doing just fine.
presume.
And exactly what are my presumptions, Suzanne? What I wrote is not
what I think is the cause of your posts, but the effects.
I think I am more subborn for "you that oppose me" than all
of you that are doing that are stubborn against me.
Your ideas listed above about the flood being local are not logical.
Your posts show a total inability to recognize logic.
The dove could have outflown a local flood, Jillery, and found ground
upon which to light with the sole of her foot.
The account of the flood is not written as an allegory, given the
great amount of details that have been written. The general
instructions are given in the account. The details of the calendar are
given and much math which can help someone to determne what calendar
is used. The very day the people entered the ark is given. Certain
dates are given during the flood. The location of the ark is given,
nad we can deduce it
likely would be the specific mountain called Ararat today is likely
because it is the tallest mountain in Turkey and the likely
place from which one could observe when the other mountains had begun
to be visible once the waters
started to drain off.
If someone could show you the actual ark on Ararat, what then? Would
it affect what you believe?
And how would someone show that what they found was the actual Ark?
How might that affect you or anyone reading this that didin't think
the flood of Noah really took place?
And...what do any of you know about what is known about Ararat
and the remains of the ark?
Changing the subject won't help you. Your scientific explanations are
nonsense. You believe the Flood happened as described in the Bible.
That's all you need to say. Let it go with that.
.
- References:
- Re: Chez Watt: (long) Re: Narmer of Egypt
- From: Suzanne
- Re: Chez Watt: (long) Re: Narmer of Egypt
- Prev by Date: Re: pistachios and taste evolution
- Next by Date: Re: The Seed
- Previous by thread: Re: Chez Watt: (long) Re: Narmer of Egypt
- Next by thread: Re: Chez Watt: (long) Re: Narmer of Egypt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
