Originally posted by Jorge
View Post
Ok smart A.., I'm opening a thread and I will give you the opportunity to post all the SCIENTIFIC evidence or data that points to the world younger than 10,000 years. And we'll see what sort of a 'challenge' you can present. And I will keep bumping it, and bumping it. And each time I bump it, I will quote what you just said. Time to put up or shut up Mr. Fernandez. And I will in each bump keep a counter of how many posts you have created that actually posit some evidence that points to the universe or the Earth being <10,000 years old.
EDITED TO ADD:
I had meant to comment on this but kept forgetting. Here it is ...
"And how much physical evidence exists which directly contradicts those events? How many records from those places and times describe the events in question and tell a story which directly contradicts the scriptural accounts of what you mention?"
Do others here pick up (as I have) on what O-Mudd is implying (or more than merely 'implying')?
Yup, he sure is - he's implying that (some or most of) the miracles spoken of in Scripture ARE NOT TRUE!!! He is letting the "physical evidence" trump God's Holy Word.
I had meant to comment on this but kept forgetting. Here it is ...
"And how much physical evidence exists which directly contradicts those events? How many records from those places and times describe the events in question and tell a story which directly contradicts the scriptural accounts of what you mention?"
Do others here pick up (as I have) on what O-Mudd is implying (or more than merely 'implying')?
Yup, he sure is - he's implying that (some or most of) the miracles spoken of in Scripture ARE NOT TRUE!!! He is letting the "physical evidence" trump God's Holy Word.
The examples I gave were the feeding of the masses, Jesus walking on the stormy sea and the resurrection of Lazarus. So at least for those three events O-Mudd is saying -- just read above -- that there is "contradictory evidence"; i.e., they may not be true.
The fact that for Jesus to walk on the water something miraculous must have happened is NOT evidence that contradicts the event.
In fact, it is very unlikely ANY evidence exists that can tell us anything objective about the event. One believes it or one does not.
Likewise the Resurrection of Lazurus.
I cannot tell a lie: I am now genuinely believing that O-Mudd's faith is actually some pseudo-Christian cult which, as God warns us in 2 Timothy 3:5, "... having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." If O-Mudd is not there, he is well on his way. I mean, what's next on O-Mudd's list of things to delete / alter from Scripture? WOW !!!
Go back and read my post a few more times Jorge. You clearly need to.
For the sake of those that might be inclined to put stock in Jorge's confusion as he and you share common ground on the issue of YEC, let me state for the record that I accept the miracles Jorge is talking about (Resurrection of Lazurus/Jesus walking on water etc.) here AS miracles. He simply completely misunderstood the point of my post, which was:
Some texts of scripture require information outside that text to fully understand how to interpret it. Jorge ASSUMES that the events of Genesis 1 proceeded miraculously and that the text was meant by God to be read in a technical manner. My point is that the evidence would strongly indicate Jorge's ASSUMPTIONS in that regard are incorrect.
There is nothing in that which calls into question the miracles of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.
Jim
Comment