Search results

So, basically, your argument boils down to "it's can't be a figure of speech because it can't be a figure of speech"? That's what I'm getting from the above. Why can't "mouths" (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h6310) be used figuratively? (which word, by...

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH! That was hilarious!

?

By the way.... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05055-7

History as a witness: And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.The sea gave up the dead who were in...

Nope. I'm saying that math proves the earth is an oblate spheroid. So again, you're faced with the problem of murderers getting away with murder because no eyewitnesses are available. So are you not able to apply that reasoning to passages that say "by the mouth of two or three witnesses"...

To someone who isn't paying attention to what they're reading, of course it says "eyewitnesses." Funny how you think I'm quoting 2 Corinthians 13:1. Not that it matters, but I'm quoting what that verse is quoting. Actually, it does matter, because context is important. “One witness shall not...

I didn't say "eyewitnesses." I said witness(es). If you need two or three eyewitnesses (according to you) to establish that this suspect murdered that woman in the middle of nowhere with no one around, then you may as well let the suspect go, because he made sure no one was around to witness...

And what about using math to predict outcomes? I know that without math, my car's engine wouldn't function at all, my garage door wouldn't open, or would open too fast and damage my house, my TV wouldn't function properly, etc... Bridges wouldn't be able to stand under their own weight...

Tell me, PJ, how many times were people in the Old Testament referred to or referenced in the new? What about events and places? Were they used by the person in the NT to make his point?

So using historical evidence is out of the question when trying to determine something that happened in the past... Gotcha... Thanks to you, we can now no longer solve cold-case files.

"By two or three witnesses a matter is established..." -God Observational evidence = one witness Math = one witness Historical evidence = one witness

You would be correct. Keeping that in mind, why do "environmentalists" say we need to conserve on water usage?

Question for you, Peeb. Not including the water lost in space due to extraplanetary activities (such as the ISS, the moon missions, etc), how much water do you think the earth has lost since the Flood? (And I say "since the Flood" instead of "since Creation" because of the Hydroplate Theory.)

Nope.

"Magic!"

Alternately, you could upload the photos/images/screenshots to imgur.com and make them private, that way you just have to post a link to the image here...

Don't forget that Flat Earthers are NOT exclusive to YECs or even creationists in general. One of the leaders of the Flat Earth Society is an atheist who adheres to naturalistic evolution.

Quite. YECs don't reject any evidence, we just interpret it differently. Your post seems more like poisoning the well than anything, Chair. Do you have something you would like to add to the conversation? Or are you just here to bash YECs?

PJ, you seem to have forgotten what God said about evidence. Let me refresh your memory. “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. - Deuteronomy 19:15...