way 2 go
Well-known member
thank you for saying it another way
I remember Bob Enyart
restating the golden rule in reverse
' don't do to others that which you don't want done to you '
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
I remember Bob Enyart
restating the golden rule in reverse
' don't do to others that which you don't want done to you '
No need for sorrow, it's just the way it is between some people.
I didn't say you were.
That is you reading an intent in my posts that was not there.
That's a neat thing about language, one can express the same concept in different ways.
The premise being here that you're expressing the same concept, which isn't clearly the case.
For you to say that there is "No indication that it (the flood) was not global." is grammatically identical to me saying that there is no indication that you're not good person. The construct, when clung to persistently, implies the possibility that the opposite is true. It's a politician's trick where he can sound like he's saying something without actually saying it.
In fact, I can see no reason at all that would make any sense for you to so stubbornly refuse to abandon the clearly ambiguous double negative other than that you want to leave open the notion that Noah's flood was something other than global.
OK by me if you want to think that.
Others didn't have a problem understanding what I meant.
Right Divider
Body part
Nobody misunderstood what you said.
The point, once again, is that it's so much better to simply say that the Bible confirms a global flood.
There are many understandable ways to say it.
Right Divider
Body part
It's better to claim what the Bible says rather than what it does not say.
Alternatively, it is not better to not claim what the Bible does not say.
Clear as mud? Wait, ...what?
I did.
Stuborness is foolishness.
Sometimes.
Sometimes one stands their ground.
Standing ground on poor grammar is stupidity in action.
I don't think one should consider poor grammar in scripture as stupidity.
Scripture isn't the one using poor grammar. You are.
The Bible affirmatively states that the flood was global. It says:
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. . . . Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters.And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. - Genesis 7:11-12,17-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:11-12,17-20&version=NKJV
It isn't scripure's grammer that poor, its yours! You are the one insisting on using what you've been repeatedly and accurately told is a double negative and its been explained to you, in I'd don't know how many ways, why its confusing/misleading/wrong, and yet you stubbornly persist in its use for no dicernable reason other than that you don't want to be caught changing your stance on something as mundane as a point of grammar.
Right Divider
Body part
He's was not talking about poor grammar in scripture. He was talking about your insistence on using poor grammar and a poor argument when a good grammar and good argument exists.
So poor grammar in scripture is fine.
I don't insist that precise grammar must be used, nor have I insisted that poor grammar must be used.
I can understand what is meant either way, so I don't make mountains out of molehills about it.
If I did I would be making a big deal out of Clete's post above.
Right Divider
Body part
There is no poor grammar in scripture.
Care to make even the slightest attempt to show me even one single example of poor grammar in scripture?
NO!
Typos are mistakes. What you're doing is no mistake. You are INTENTIONALLY insisting on using flagrantly poor grammar FOR NO GOOD REASON!
At this point it isn't even about the grammar error itself, its about your inexplicable stubbornness to acknowledge it as an error and your irrational insistence on its continued use.