Skeptic's Challenge

[fta]

If St Paul tells Christians not to use swear words (Col. 3:8, Eph. 4:29), then why do you keep using the F-word?

You, I see from your profile, are an unbeliever, which means your objection to . . . objectionable language is either based upon an intellectual pedantic disposition or a perceived hypocrisy on my part. First of all, I should point out that I'm not a Christian. I was an atheist for the first 27 years of my life. My parents were atheists and I was raised, even as a small child, to believe that there are no obscene (dirty, filthy etc.) words. This is how I talk. I always have.

I see from your profile that you are a "Bible-Believer." But you're not a Christian, and you think swearing is OK despite the biblical prohibition. Very well then.

Here! Here! I give science a hard time when I talk to atheists because it challenges them.

Perhaps I am of an intellectual pedantic disposition, but the correct phrase is "Hear, Hear". The Bible says so: 2 Samuel 20:16.

Matthew gave the method of attempted suicide while Luke gave the results. Either Judas' rope or the tree limb from which it was hung broke and he fell down the cliff he tried to hang himself from and was split open by the rocks below.

Matthew was referring to a prophecy in the book of Zechariah 11:12, 13. He referred to it as "Jeremiah the prophet" most likely due to Jeremiah likely having been placed first in a group of books that included Zechariah. So Judas went to the Priests to return the money but they wouldn't accept it, and he threw it into the temple. The chief priests took it on his behalf and bought the potter's field to bury him in it. Matthew 26:14-16; 27:3-10

I find it highly unlikely that the authors of Matthew and Acts, working independently, both somehow failed to tell the full story of Judas' death, while filling in the missing details of each other's story. A much simpler, and more likely, explanation is that, while they did have one or more source(s) in common, they were working from different traditions and had received different versions of the story. Having been passed down orally for the first 30 or more years after the purported events, some disparity was bound to have crept in with the retellings.

But that's another contradiction for another day. As it stands, you've cleared up nothing about the contradictory Judas stories.

And let's not forget the report of St. Papias, a second-century bishop of Hierapolis. He assures us that Judas died not by hanging, but in a tragic chariot accident:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

 

[bigfield]

For over 9 billion years, or two thirds of the history of the universe, the planet Earth did not exist, therefore it cannot be reasonably claimed that the Earth was complete during that period. And 4.6 billion years ago is not the 'beginning' of the universe by any stretch.

I don't think I get your reasoning there. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. At what period are you referring to in which it couldn't be complete, and how did you derive at 4.6 billion years.

Genesis 1:1-3 states that God created the earth in 'the beginning', and that the earth existed before light existed.

However, light has existed since the first few seconds of the Big Bang, but the earth did not form until approximately nine billion years after the Big Bang.

If you want to know where I got Earth's age, check the source I provided in my previous post.

You are saying that they must have been created at the same time from Genesis 1:1? At that time, whatever time that was, they were both compete.

Genesis 1:1 states that both the earth was created before light was created. That is contradictory to science.

ETA:

The claim that the earth was created at the "beginning" of the Universe is just one of several scientific inaccuracies in Genesis 1.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What a intricate hyper-textual cluster fuck!

If St Paul tells Christians not to use swear words (Col. 3:8, Eph. 4:29), then why do you keep using the F-word?

This month's Greenside seems appropriate:

 

[Sajara]

It always makes me laugh when people rail against science while on a computer using the internet.

 

[Sajara]

What is the highest level of education that you reached in science DLH? Elementary school? High-school? Undergrad? Grad?

As Keith said, science doesn't do proves. It also is neutral on anything having to do with supernatural by its very definition, including God. I think the real issue here is that you don't know what science is.

Can you please give us the scientific method and a quick example of how it might be used to say...oh I don't know...how old a tree is?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I suppose the other thing to ask about is Babel. God seems to fear that man will build a tower that reaches the heavens. Seems like an irrational fear.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think I get your reasoning there. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. At what period are you referring to in which it couldn't be complete, and how did you derive at 4.6 billion years. You are saying that they must have been created at the same time from Genesis 1:1? At that time, whatever time that was, they were both compete.

So, you're saying that at Genesis 1:1, the Earth, the solar system, the stars and all that were already completed? It sounds to me that this is what you're saying. Is that a correct understanding on my part?

If that's the case, then during this passage at Genesis 1:14

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

What is it that God was doing on the fourth day?

When the Bible says that he "made two great lights", it sounds like the Bible is saying that he made two great lights. When the Bible says "He also made the stars", it sounds like the Bible is saying that he also made the stars. It doesn't sound like the Bible is saying that those two lights and the stars had already been there for billions of years and God did nothing that day.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, you're saying that at Genesis 1:1, the Earth, the solar system, the stars and all that were already completed? It sounds to me that this is what you're saying. Is that a correct understanding on my part?

If that's the case, then during this passage at Genesis 1:14

You folk are barking up the wrong tree. The First Story of Creation is a flat earth (try putting a dome over a sphere) with water above the sky and a sentient moon and sun.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, you're saying that at Genesis 1:1, the Earth, the solar system, the stars and all that were already completed? It sounds to me that this is what you're saying. Is that a correct understanding on my part?

If that's the case, then during this passage at Genesis 1:14

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

What is it that God was doing on the fourth day?

When the Bible says that he "made two great lights", it sounds like the Bible is saying that he made two great lights. When the Bible says "He also made the stars", it sounds like the Bible is saying that he also made the stars. It doesn't sound like the Bible is saying that those two lights and the stars had already been there for billions of years and God did nothing that day.

It was a goof off day for God. He really had done all that stuff on the first day, but commented the code out. So, on the fourth day, he just surfed the internet for most of the day, and played a few games of ping pong with his buddies, but in the status report to his boss he made it look like he was busy as shit.

Man, this apologetic stuff is easy!

 

[Keith&Co.]

So what Genesis says is 'in the beginning God had already satisfactorily completed the construction of the heavens (minus the sun, moon, stars, daylight, night-time) and the Earth (except for giving it form, and plant life and animals and people, and a beach to keep the waters from swarming up over the land).
Then he spent six days completely completing the Heavens and the Earth.'

Is that about right?

- - - Updated - - -

The First Story of Creation is a flat earth (try putting a dome over a sphere) with water above the sky and a sentient moon and sun.

Hey, why doesn't the Moon get a doghouse?
The Sun gets a home to spend the night in, why doesn't the moon?

 

[KeepTalking]

So what Genesis says is 'in the beginning God had already satisfactorily completed the construction of the heavens (minus the sun, moon, stars, daylight, night-time) and the Earth (except for giving it form, and plant life and animals and people, and a beach to keep the waters from swarming up over the land).
Then he spent six days completely completing the Heavens and the Earth.'

Is that about right?

- - - Updated - - -

The First Story of Creation is a flat earth (try putting a dome over a sphere) with water above the sky and a sentient moon and sun.

Hey, why doesn't the Moon get a doghouse?
The Sun gets a home to spend the night in, why doesn't the moon?

Maybe because the author noticed that the moon is often visible during the day?

 

[DLH]

I think that was intentional, to demonstrate his insignificance. Later Pharaoh's were mentioned by name, like Shishak, So, Tirhakah, Nechoh, and Hophra. But many prior to those were not named.

I'm interested in the Pharaoh issue. Even if I accept your rather absurd claim that Exodus' Pharaoh is 'insignificant' while other Pharaohs aren't, surely in your 'studies' you must have a good idea of which Pharaoh it was. Also, please give the proper egyptian name and dynasty for all of these other Pharaohs you mention.

I had assumed that you were talking about the Pharaoh in connection with Moses? Not all of that information is given in the biblical accounts, I will give what is given.

Shishak Sheshonk I, founder of the Libyan Dynasty. Ruled 21 years. Secceeded by his son Osorkon I. 1 Kings 11:402 Chronicles 12:1-12.

So Conspired with Hoshea against Shalmaneser V 2 Kings 17:3, 4

Tirhakah Taharqa. Modern historians and Biblical chronology don't agree. 2 Kings 19:8, 9 / Isaiah 37:8, 9.

Nechoh Contemporaneous with King Josiah (Herodotus II, 158, 159; IV, 42) Son of Psammetichus (Psammetichos, Psamtik I) 2 Chronicles 35:20–36:4 / 2 Kings 23:29-35 / Jeremiah 46:2

Hophra Called Ouaphre in Grek Septuagint (Jeremiah 51:30) Herodotus calls him Apries, thought to have reigned for 19 years though Herodotus says 25 (II. 161) Kere,oaj 44:1, 26, 29, 30.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm interested in the Pharaoh issue. Even if I accept your rather absurd claim that Exodus' Pharaoh is 'insignificant' while other Pharaohs aren't, surely in your 'studies' you must have a good idea of which Pharaoh it was. Also, please give the proper egyptian name and dynasty for all of these other Pharaohs you mention.

I had assumed that you were talking about the Pharaoh in connection with Moses? Not all of that information is given in the biblical accounts, I will give what is given.

You want to walk past this exclusion as if it were a minor detail. No one is asking why the local dog catcher's name in Ur wasn't given when we first read about Abram. We are talking about two incredibly important narratives, the story of Joesph and the Exodus where the Pharaoh is a major player. Yet, the name isn't given. Nor is it mentioned when Abram and Sarai take a cruise down to Egypt, where Abram kind of lets Pharaoh get all squelchy with his wife.

So the alleged leader of Egypt is continuously not named in any of these stories. Why? Not two chapters later we are introduced to the time of Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim. Err... Pharaoh leader of Egypt? Genesis even refers to some leaders we don't even know if they existed or not! Major dynasty down in the Southwest... er... leader what's his name of Egypt.

 

[Kharakov]

What is the highest level of education that you reached in science DLH? Elementary school? High-school? Undergrad? Grad?

As Keith said, science doesn't do proves. It also is neutral on anything having to do with supernatural by its very definition, including God. I think the real issue here is that you don't know what science is.

Can you please give us the scientific method and a quick example of how it might be used to say...oh I don't know...how old a tree is?

You pray for an answer. Then you add up the number of birds you see during a period of time, multiply or divide it by the number of rodents you see during the next period of time, and depending on which way the prevailing wind is, what you ate, and 3 other variables that I will not divulge at this moment, you subtract a specific number.

This will give you the precise age of the tree. Or you can take a core sample of the tree. Whichever is easier. As I am not at liberty to divulge the other variables of the aforementioned method to you, you probably have to take a core sample.

 

[DLH]

So, it begins by stating that the Earth existed as a place with water before the sun existed. This is scientifically inaccurate. In the second sentence of the book.

Then, we have light on the Earth before the sun or any other stars are around. What was this light and how did we get night and day without a planet's rotation around a star?

Then, we have water above the sky instead of space. This is just plain wrong as well.

Then, we have plants around producing seeds, which they do by absorbing energy from the sun, but this happens before there's a sun around for them to get energy from.

Finally, we have the sun coming along. This happens after we already have a fully formed Earth complete with plant life, as opposed to this happening billions of years previously. Also, all the other stars come along at this point as opposed to having been around for billions of years. This is just plain wrong and totally scientifically inaccurate.

Then flying creatures come along at the same time as creatures in the water and are there before land animals, which the flying creatures evolved from. Once they're all fully formed, then the land animals which developed into them finally arrive. This is scientifically inaccurate as well.

That's just the first chapter. Everything in it is a mistake scientifically.

Well, Tom. I don't know what to do. If I post a link to my own site to an article I wrote myself we could clear this up. That piss off the atheists. I could copy and paste the relevant portion. No, that would piss off the atheists. I could do both, but heh, that would really piss the atheists off. Lets do that.

Skeptic's Bible Genesis 1

[Genesis 1:1] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards. (The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - With Reverences: Appendix: 3C Hebrew Verbs Indicating Continuous or Progressive Action, page 1572. Revised 1984.)

[Genesis 1:2] The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

[Genesis 1:3] Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:

A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."

Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."

The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

[Genesis 1:4] Light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.

[Genesis 1:5] Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15)

The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)

[Genesis 1:6] The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T.” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, page 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.

[Genesis 1:7] In Genesis 1:6, 7 part of the water that covers the Earth is lifted to the heavens to form a water canopy surrounding the planet. This canopy was used to flood the earth during the days of Noah. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

[Genesis 1:11] The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don’t produce broccoli, squirrels don’t produce horses.

In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind.

[Genesis 1:14] The light in Genesis 1:14 is different from that in Genesis 1:3. In Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in Genesis 1:14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible. See [Genesis 1:3]

The sun, moon and stars are set as a sign of the seasons, days and years. A most accurate timepiece. The use of the term “sign” is often mistaken as a reference to astrology, which is incorrect.

[Genesis 1:16] The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in Genesis 1:16 is different than bara (create) in Genesis 1:1, 21, 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in Genesis 1:1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). Also see [Genesis 1:1]

[Genesis 1:20] The word soul, from the Hebrew nephesh, means "breather." The soul is in the blood, the life itself, of any breathing creature. At Genesis 9:3-4, for example, the Hebrew word nephesh can be translated as life or soul.

[Genesis 1:21] Sea monsters, from the Hebrew tanninim, great reptiles. The Hebrew term remes means to creep or move about; an aimless movement. It covers a variety of creatures and distinguishes these animals from domestic or wild birds, beasts and fish.

[Genesis 1:24] Cattle; domestic or tame animal (Hebrew behemah). The modern word cattle is defined as being exclusive to the bovine variety, whereas in the time of earlier translations the English term "cattle" applied to any livestock, such as sheep, etc.

[Genesis 1:25] There are two creation accounts. The first is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second is given according to topical relevance. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) They differ in order and are often wrongly thought to contradict one another.

[Genesis 1:26] God refers to his son, Christ Jesus in his heavenly pre-human existence. (Genesis 11:7 / Proverbs 8:30 / John 1:3 / Colossians 1:16) Being made in the likeness, image or semblance of God reflects mankind's potential for being like God, possessing his qualities of wisdom, power, righteousness and love.

[Genesis 1:27] Too often it is overlooked by selfish, dominating men that woman too were created in God’s image, and thus deserving respect.

[Genesis 1:31] God’s creation is good. There is no sickness, disease or slow progression to death. The small area they reside in is a paradise reflective of the potential, and in fact the purpose of growing throughout the entire planet. It isn’t God’s purpose for us to live in sin on Earth and then move on to heaven.

The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn’t say.

Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)

Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)

Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)

Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)

Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)

Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)

 

[DLH]

So, you believe in the Books. And the Books says not to use unwholesome, vulgar, filthy language. But your atheist upbringing means you don't think there are any unwholesome, vulgar, filthy words that shouldn't be used.
This explains your use of the words, but doesn't explain how you follow the Books while using the words.

Do you think the verses Col. 3:8, Eph. 4:29 are artifacts of fallible transcribers/translators, and not of divine authority, so you can ignore them?
Or do you think the verses are of divine origin but do not apply to English words like shit, piss, cunt, fuck, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits, because they're not really unwholesome, vulgar, filthy words? If these verses are applicable, what words do you think they apply to?

From a spiritual perspective it is actually somewhat complicated.

If, culturally speaking, there is a translation that says to avoid unwholesome (ie vulgar, filthy, obscene etc.) words, then that translation reflects what? What is culturally at that time obscene? What might be culturally obscene now? What was culturally obscene then? To whom? Paul? Jehovah? The translators or Me? Let's say that instead of shit I say feces, fecal matter, poop, dung, doo doo, number 2, excrement, poo, etc. Would I intellectually feel that substituting a word deemed, for whatever archaic reason, that it was obscene, for some silly childish or technically articulate terminology when they mean the same thing? I can post scriptural passages from old bibles where the words or terms son of a bitch, bastard, piss, are used. The Bible uses terms like prostitute (whore), dung, dungy (shit, shitty) The early Christians had a play on words that can be found extra-biblical that referred to Beelzebub as the lord of shit.

Similarly, Paul speaks of the Hebrew prohibition of eating meat that is devoted to false gods, in the new Christian era, concluding that if a person eats the meat unknowingly its no big deal, but that even so it may trip up some of the newly interested ones or potential converts. So, even though there was nothing wrong with it he might abstain from eating in a place that might devote it's food to false idols so as not to confuse and dissuade those who didn't know better. He also mentions altering his speech and habits depending upon whom he was speaking to for similar reasons.

When I'm talking to people who intellectually or religiously believe that certain words are obscene I refrain from using those terms out of a similar respect. Here I'm don't feel that is necessary so I talk as though I normally would.

 

[Kharakov]

My question is: What is up with Bible Pi?

The apologetics seem disingenuous.

You mean Pathway Machine's apologetics on the Science and The Bible's look at Pi? What about it seems disingenuous and why?

I looked at another website that had a slew of possible excuses/reasons. To tell you the truth, I can think of any number of excuses for saying something circular, with a radius of 5 units, was measured to have a circumference of 30 units, but I wouldn't use them to defend the statement (which is just wrong).

Maybe it was elliptical and they didn't have the word for it, although the shape on an ellipse with one radii of 5 units and a circumference of 30 units would be noticeably non-circular. In the case there was no word for it...

Maybe they were lazy, and just didn't care about the measurements. There is no way to pull a line around a circle with a radius of 5 units, and get less than 31 units. There is no way someone who cares about measurements is going to arrive at such a flubbed measurement, if they know how to make measurements. You quoted something similar on your page. In other words, someone who knew better, just through out the numbers, because it was good enough for those at the time. It's a lot like Jesus speaking in parabull-let's hide the truth because... well, kids can have Pi after the last supper.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If, culturally speaking, there is a translation that says to avoid unwholesome (ie vulgar, filthy, obscene etc.) words, then that translation reflects what?

That's what I was asking you.
You've got this horribly misunderstood The Books which you have the unique discernment to read for the real meaning and you appear to be dodging any responsibility for following the book through loopholes.
YOU were here to tell US what The Books means, because we slander it unmercifully.

Now you're telling me that there's a stricture in the scripture and you don't know what it's really prohibiting. You don't know who wrote it or what words they were prohibiting.
So we're back to a subjective interpretation, and there's no reason to think your subjective view is any better than anyone else's, is there?

When I'm talking to people who intellectually or religiously believe that certain words are obscene I refrain from using those terms out of a similar respect. Here I'm don't feel that is necessary so I talk as though I normally would.

So that's you rationalizing a decision for courtesy.

But you can't tell me whether or not saying 'fucker' is wrong according to The Books.

Or like seven out of eight apologists, God's okay with you doing what you were going to do anyway, no matter what scripture appears to say.
I see the same thing when Christains discuss tattoos.
The verse in The Books that says don't do it is sweeping and complete.
Or the verse actually refers to a specific pagan practice and not tattoos at all.
Or the verse only means not to put satanic tattoos on your skin. So bunnies are fine.
Or the verse only means that your tattoos should glorify god. So crosses and biblical verses are fine.
Amazingly enough, no one seems to have a tattoo that they regret. Their interpretation ALWAYS supports what they've already done or want to do. Or they searched the forums and apologists until they found one that said what they wanted to hear....

 

[DLH]

From Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E. to the present as 6, 040 years but how could you possibly expect to extrapolate a period prior to that from the latter period?

Adam's creation was the sixth day, right? You can count the age of the Earth on your fingers, then.

The term day is used three different ways in the creation account itself. 1, being the daylight hours, 2, being the 24 hour period, and 3, being all the six days combined in one day. The seventh day continued on in David's, day, then Paul's day and still in our own day. The seventh day is still going on. (Psalm 95:11 / Hebrews 3:16-4:10) The Hebrew term translated as day can be any amount of time from a few hours to time indefinite. Judgment day lasts a thousand years. The evening and morning in the creation account aren't literal days because 1, those periods only constitute a half a day and 2, there were no human witnesses on Earth those days would have applied to and 3, the only witness to mark them were in heaven where they wouldn't have literally applied either. The evening period was an unknown period of time in which the angels who anxiously watched the creation were unable to see what was going to happen and the morning was when the creative acts were revealed to the angels in stages.

Anyway, the first of those days, or creative periods, didn't begin until after Genesis 1:1 when the heavens and earth were already complete. The creative days were only progressive stages for making that completed planet habitable, so they in no way constitute the age of either the heavens or earth.

 

[DLH]

Matthew gave the method of attempted suicide while Luke gave the results.

Can you justify that this is true, and not just a rationalization?

Sorry, but I've been to Star Trek conventions. Some stuff, the actual answer is that two different writers wrote two different episodes and they did not have the same understanding of the fictional mechanics of a fictional piece of gear used by fictional characters in a fictional future. But damn, the Trekkers are really good at jimmying up a rationalization that protects both episodes as if the story were factual and not contradictory nonsense.

So, what tells you that this is true?

That is sort of the purpose of having more than one testimonial. There isn't much to go on otherwise, so, since the Bible never deceives me I have no reason to doubt it. Remember, this isn't science. Its more of a trial jury.