- 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 5/29/25 at 6:11 am to Jack Ruby
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:11 am to Jack Ruby
quote:Caananites would be descendants of Ham. The only way Cain’s line could’ve survived the flood is if a woman from his line married into Seth’s line.
Aren't they all descendents from Cain?
That's why the mention of Naamah in Cain’s list of descendants seems strange, and I believe there are theories that it’s mentioned because there is some type of link, perhaps she could have been Noah’s wife.
This post was edited on 5/29/25 at 6:21 am
0
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:41 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The fossil record actually seems consistent with the flood narrative.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:47 am to L.A.
quote:
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.
Is this what you really wanted to discuss, not the theory of elite replacement DNA in the Bronze Age?
I mean you've been utterly uninterested in genuine conversation about Greek Language, Italian cultural replacement, and Bronze age trading goods, not to mention Roman tax policy.
Would you like to skip all of that and skip right to creation?
This post was edited on 5/29/25 at 6:49 am
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:55 am to Narax
Are you the conversation police or something?
Maybe he doesn’t want to interact with you and the other twat since you’re both pompous know-it-alls who aren’t interested in actually discussing things, but rather more interested in justifying your religious beliefs.
Maybe he doesn’t want to interact with you and the other twat since you’re both pompous know-it-alls who aren’t interested in actually discussing things, but rather more interested in justifying your religious beliefs.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 7:00 am to Narax
quote:
Is this what you really wanted to discuss, not the theory of elite replacement DNA in the Bronze Age?
I mean you've been utterly uninterested in genuine conversation about Greek Language, Italian cultural replacement, and Bronze age trading goods, not to mention Roman tax policy.
Would you like to skip all of that and skip right to creation?
*I* brought up YEC as a quick identifier for certain people participating in the discussion.
LA was just responding to a response within that digression. He did not create the digression.
Also, nobody is melting about this other than you, even the other emotive types.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 7:05 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Maybe he doesn’t want to interact with you and the other twat since you’re both pompous know-it-alls who aren’t interested in actually discussing things, but rather more interested in justifying your religious beliefs.
Look you are an utter fool who's in many threads shows again and again nothing of any value.
I said before I had no faith that you were worth talking to at the beginning of this.
That was based on your inability to form anything useful over several conversations I saw you participate in.
That's fine, you do you, you attempt to police conversations be speaking of the behalf of others.
Just keep being the fool and downvoting everything that makes you angry, it's up to you how you act.
This post was edited on 5/29/25 at 7:07 am
Posted on 5/29/25 at 7:06 am to Narax
quote:
That was based on your inability to form anything useful over several conversations I saw you participate in.
quote:
Member since Jan 2023
How? MJ rarely even posts anymore
Posted on 5/29/25 at 7:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How? MJ rarely even posts anymore
That's not been true this month.
While I've been lurking this board since Fournette's recruitment during his junior year of HS, I don't remember him making any impression on me before this month.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 7:13 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
Yep. It's sad that this is how these discussions usually go
Everything you posted below this quote is pretty true.
I do know what I see though. I see many "righteous believers" acting very unrighteous in this thread. I would expect that from the others. Maybe some here are not near as true as they think they are.
A very famous man who is very respected in tUSA once said ""I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend".
This post was edited on 5/29/25 at 7:14 am
Posted on 5/29/25 at 7:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Also, nobody is melting about this other than you, even the other emotive types.
I absolutely am an emotive type lol.
While 6000 years is an important discussion, it seems to have been a repeated response in this conversation to shortcut any response other than well whatever you say is wrong anyway cause 6000 years quod erat demonstrandum!
Posted on 5/29/25 at 7:28 am to Narax
No. People are playing fast and loose and being cute to avoid saying that they're relying on the Bible instead of actual evidence. Me bringing up the 6,000 years, as I said, we're just a way to create a shortcut to identify that population, because we know what's at the heart of their argument whether or not they admit it or not.
So if you're in the YEC cohort, we know your stances already and rejection or lots of archeology (not just related to the specifics in OP).
Spinning this into some insult is as bereft of evidence as YEC. Foo stated his position the most honestly and was treated with respect. You responded to that respect imputing negatively that did not exist. You even accused that poster of creating the digression to have that argument when he didn't even do it and I created this digression.
So if you're in the YEC cohort, we know your stances already and rejection or lots of archeology (not just related to the specifics in OP).
Spinning this into some insult is as bereft of evidence as YEC. Foo stated his position the most honestly and was treated with respect. You responded to that respect imputing negatively that did not exist. You even accused that poster of creating the digression to have that argument when he didn't even do it and I created this digression.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 9:26 am to L.A.
quote:I actually share your concern there, as I don't believe the age of the earth is something that should determine membership in Christ's Church.
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.
Evolution, perhaps, is something to take more seriously, since, depending on the view, it could mean that people are not actually created in the image of God, weren't created unique with a special place in creation, and may not actually have the original sin of Adam that the Bible discusses and forms the basis for the need to being born again, but even so, a belief in evolution isn't necessarily a deal breaker for membership in the Church, either, as membership depends on a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins and trinitarian baptism. Our church doesn't ask any questions about a person's belief in the age of the earth (or evolution) when they are seeking to become members.
quote:Sure thing, and I appreciate your kind questions and responses
Anyway, thanks for the replies.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 9:29 am to L.A.
quote:
How do you square a 6,000 year old earth with the fossil record of dinosaurs?
Here we go.
This thread has morphed into a Young Earth vs Old Earth question?; The two religious beliefs -- Biblical accounts vs Scientism claims?
On whose authority and credibility are we relying for dating and "dinosaurs"? (WHAT THIS HAS REALLY BEEN ABOUT: God's scripture and documented history vs Man's "discoveries" and wishful thinking )
quote:
Do you believe that dinosaurs and humans were on the earth at the same time?
There are two theories, one backed by actual evidence.
1) Human footprints have been found along side "dinosaur" (or dragon) footprints in dried riverbeds.
2) As per Book of Enoch, the "Giants" (off-spring of Fallen Angels and Human women) it is suggested chimeras or corrupted the DNA of the animal kingdom was created. If any of those chimeras creatures were "Dinosaurs" or other genetic freaks, they would have been illicit creations NOT of God. Thus left behind and not preserved aboard the Ark.
quote:
Do you believe that Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark?
(NO. see above)
quote:
There were over 1,000 different species of dinosaurs
Not proven / provable. At all. "Dinosaurs" if they exist were merely dragons. Two obsessed rival "Scientists" from the Royal Society began their crusade of "discovering" dinosaurs in the mid 1850s, serving an anti-God / Bible / Creationist agenda. Their hoax "findings" became legend.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
People are playing fast and loose and being cute to avoid saying that they're relying on the Bible instead of actual evidence.
Bold move, Cotton.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 9:39 am to L.A.
quote:
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.
Good for him. My kind of strong, principled leader of the flock.
Christians cannot pick and choose which Scripture is acceptable or "true"; Either we believe the literal entire Word of God and Creation account, or we don't. As Christians we cannot and should not be compromised on the Word, lest the entire Bible be selectively believed/disbelieved and congregant confused and deceived.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Plenty of content on YouTube there’s a guy called Morgue who dives deep into Gnosticism their core belief was we are our own God or Gods
Posted on 5/29/25 at 9:59 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:No, because everything about the culture is monotheistic and the objection to that long held knowledge is based on a problematic and dated source critical method. It's a speculative theory that's not on solid footing, certainly not enough to overturn a few centuries' worth of knowledge on the subject.
For the Bible Tells Me So
quote:Yes. That's precisely what it was. If you disagree, then you would detail how the objections to the Smith's approach are capable of being rebutted with actual scholarship, not playground antics.
Refutations
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:01 am to Harry Boutte
quote:It's not really vague to anyone who wanted to look into the matter, particularly someone who is advancing a claim that has been refuted. I typically don't do people's work for them but I can see this discussion is headed that way because people are being obstinate about the claim
vague references to authorities.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:07 am to Harry Boutte
quote:I didn't make the claim, a shaky one at that. I provided a rebuttal. Be an adult and go back up the claim. Don't expect someone else to hold your hand. You want to wade into the academic pool? Then learn how scholarship works
He certainly does seem to demand more than he's willing to give.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 10:12 am to FooManChoo
quote:We have parted ways on this claim before. Saying someone might not be saved because they aren't YEC is absolutely not on solid theological footing. It undermines what the gospel is and we should be at most, agnostic on the matter of the age of the earth. The Bible absolutely does not state clearly what the age is and it's not the point of the creation account anyway. Saying someone like Billy Graham is not saved ought to be a red flag
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
Page 22 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News