- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:57 pm to Narax
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:57 pm to Narax
quote:This is so huge among biblical critics. It is absolutely not in their power to accept the decades of scholarship on these issues and just accept that there are multiple options on the table that are reasonable and just leave it at that. No, any rebuttals that come from the Christian community are just cultish and biased. Nevermind that some of these people are the world's foremost experts in ancient Greek and Hebrew. Nevermind that good translation accepts the semantic scope of words. Nevermind that there isn't always a good 1:1 translation and we have to understand the culture in order to supplement the translation
Or claims about "requiring expertise" that they themselves don't have to judge a translation
Posted on 5/28/25 at 7:01 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:It turns out we have been around long enough to know that alchemy doesn't work. It remains to be seen if the same will be true of YEC.
You know who else did this? The alchemists
quote:They feel like they are following robust scientific practices and that critiques coming from more conventional avenues is overlooking some of the problematic presumptions in the secular field
I do respect the Scientific Method
Posted on 5/28/25 at 7:18 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Nevermind that there isn't always a good 1:1 translation and we have to understand the culture in order to supplement the translation
It's part of the reason the "prior to" interpretation by Brindle appeals to logic.
A logical date for data cutoff in Luke is <65 A.D. (Due to missing the deaths of Peter and Paul).
In that time period an "Old person" senectus was marked at 60 years old.(Luke himself made 84)
People older than that would have first hand remembrance of the census of Quirinius, but almost none would remember the previous one.
So it is logical that the author of Luke (Likely born between 1 AD and 16 AD) would have reminded those his age and older than him that he was speaking of that of the previous generation, that only those older than 78 would reliably remember if at all.
Words have meaning, and such a clarification was critical to pointing out which one.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 7:20 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
They are definitely different aspects of YWHW's character
But this, this, you claim with absolute certainty. You’re a joke.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 8:23 pm to L.A.
quote:
Canaanites
Aren't they all descendents from Cain?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 8:44 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:You know why, right?
But this, this, you claim with absolute certainty
quote:
You’re a joke
Posted on 5/28/25 at 8:49 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Let's be honest. You've really only posted one source for one of your various claims and you didn't show an understanding of that source enough to interact with the refutations of it. You might want to reevaluate who the "joke" is
Mo Jeaux
Posted on 5/28/25 at 9:08 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
You know why, right?
“For the Bible Tells Me So”.
And I’m not some fedora-wearing atheist either, but that’s your argument.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 9:08 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Let's be honest. You've really only posted one source for one of your various claims and you didn't show an understanding of that source enough to interact with the refutations of it.
Refutations.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 9:17 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
I'm describing the utility of the situation, not appealing to authority.
I was only referring to your vague mention of, "source criticism circles". Not much different than a vague reference to "most scholars".
Don't get me wrong, in the context if this board, I'm fine with vague references to authorities. If I'm interested, I'll pursue it. I'm just not going to point out the cinder in someone else's eye...
Posted on 5/28/25 at 11:18 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
But this, this, you claim with absolute certainty.
He certainly does seem to demand more than he's willing to give.
For all his fancy language, his position seems to be built on sand.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 12:03 am to L.A.
quote:Yes, I believe dinosaurs and humans were on the earth at the same time. Yes, I believe there was some sort of dinosaur representative on the ark. No, I don't believe every possible species of animal needed to be on the ark. The fossil record actually seems consistent with the flood narrative.
To take just one problem with that view, how do you square a 6,000 year old earth with the fossil record of dinosaurs? Do you believe that dinosaurs and humans were on the earth at the same time? Do you believe that Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark? There were over 1,000 different species of dinosaurs
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 8:17 am
Posted on 5/29/25 at 12:17 am to FooManChoo
And the basis for your belief in a young earth is the genealogies in the Bible?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 12:32 am to L.A.
quote:The Scriptures, which include the genealogies, yes.
And the basis for your belief in a young earth is the genealogies in the Bible?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 12:47 am to FooManChoo
If I remember correctly, the church where you are a member is PCA? Would you say this young earth view is common among your fellow church members, or would your view be in the minority? I ask merely out of curiosity. I'm not leading up to anything. Just trying to understand.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 12:53 am to L.A.
quote:It's my understanding that the young earth position is the majority position in my denomination, however I don't hold to it simply because of that. I believe it is the biblical position.
If I remember correctly, the church where you are a member is PCA? Would you say this young earth view is common among your fellow church members, or would your view be in the minority? I ask merely out of curiosity. I'm not leading up to anything. Just trying to understand.
The PCA, as well as other Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which takes a literalistic view of the Bible in regards to creation, saying that it occurred over the course of 6 days, with a literal Adam and Eve being created as part of creation.
There are theological consequences to a literal creation as described by the Bible and validated by Jesus, Himself, when He upheld marriage by harkening back to Genesis.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 1:06 am to FooManChoo
About 6 or 7 years ago the daughter of a friend of mine in Los Angeles asked me to write a letter of recommendation for her when she applied to Harvard. They are Chilean nationals who immigrated legally to the USA about 20 years ago. Very fine family, and the daughter is super smart and very solid character wise. Anyway, her dad is a pastor (Baptist) and after I wrote the letter he called to thank me and he invited me to view one of their services online. So I watched later that week and by chance his sermon was from Genesis 1 and he not only advocated for a literal 6 days of creation, but made it an article of faith for his congregation. You know, this is what we believe and this is what you need to believe if you are a member here. I found his sermon unconvincing, but more troubling for me was his insistence that one had to believe in a literal 6 days of creation in order to belong to that church. Seemed to me he was making a non-essential matter into an article of faith.
Anyway, thanks for the replies.

Anyway, thanks for the replies.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 1:12 am to L.A.
quote:pics?
the daughter of a friend of mine in Los Angeles asked me to write a letter of recommendation for her when she applied to Harvard.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 1:17 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The Scriptures, which include the genealogies, yes.
I respect your views, Foo. You and my father would get along very well and that is a good thing. Response not necessarily to you.
I have not read all 21+ pages of this but has anyone mentioned the Hindus? The worlds oldest religion.
I find it fascinating to say the least. Yes, I am a Christian but do not belong to any organized materialistic, money hungry religion.
My religion is between me and the Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.
The Hindu writings have fascinating stories that no doubt influenced all other middle eastern and world religions.
From thousands of years ago they have stories of flying machines called Vimana and wrote about battles in the skies from these vehicles.
And yet we are bickering about who are the rightful inhabitants of Israel?
I would say, who now holds power? As in ALL civilizations and tribes there are those who conquer and those who are conquered. That is humanity.
If Israel is supposed to belong to the Muslims only because they conquered it from the Christians Crusaders, who conquered it from the Muslims who conquered it from the Persians, Part II, who conquered it from the Byzantines who took over after the fall of Rome, who had conquered it from the Maccabees, who conquered it from the Greeks, who conquered it from the Persians Part I, who conquered it from the Babylonians, who had conquered the Assyrians, who initially conquered the original Abrahamic Israel.......who has the rights to the land we call Israel?
Maybe as PDJT said in his speech in Saudi Arabia, we let these countries take care of themselves and step away from a massive failure of Globalist Nation Building whether it be for political or religious reasons?
Posted on 5/29/25 at 2:02 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
the first five books of the bible were actually written by different groups
lol can this guy ever be more wrong?
Popular
Back to top


1







