Are you okay with incest as long as there is no offspring with genetic defects? Does God approve?

8 people, even with a completely varied genome let alone a related group, wouldn't be enough to create a viable population. The story fails there too.

Minimum viable population (MVP)

To be absolutely clear, you're saying that reject at least one of the two statements below:

1) You started the conversation with the premise that ANY similarity between suggests that the beliefs were "copied" from another religion.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...3&postcount=14

2) The conversation is currently at a point where your premise is that ANY difference between religions suggests that the religion is the result of ignorance.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=53

You're welcome to challenge either statement, but you need to present an argument of some sort to explain why the shift from ANY similarity to ANY difference does not actually represent a change in the parameters of the discussion.

Mmmhmm

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter10.pdf


id say it was probably written after moses

"the earliest evidence we have of the story we have comes from as late as the seventh century BC. In contrast, the Book of Exodus was written between 1437 and 1397 BC"

the fact that you are even doubting makes me think you need to get right with the lord
especially in these end times theres no room for being like this (ya people been saying that forever i get it, the bible says there will be scoffers anyways)
stay away from catholicism for sure too

This thread should not turn into a debate on the evidence of these religions. Not in this way at least. Each religion was slowed devised over the years in such a way it cannot be 'defeated' with logic. Trying to do so, at least in a petty conflict type way, is just simple unintelligent and ignorant of this understanding.

In other words, these people believe moses parted the sea with his hands....why are you debating?

I was asking about an ice age 22k years ago? Im not sure I understand your number 3k? are you saying these are the same time frame for a flood?

The lore from around the Indus valley civilizations also talk of great flood and a sunken city as well.

Do we all accept there was a great flood? Seems to me its obvious and came from the ice age?

well theres evidence for that
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-...able-evidence/

not only that but we admit its called faith
not like most people are trying to use science to prove the bible to begin with

Why not ask Aaron W.

What im suggesting is now that you showed your 'evidence' you convinced no one. Inquire, understand, explore, rather than debate argue prove convince...

i can do all those things in my bible

Jesus didn't have a bible.

hes god so he knows everything
we get understanding from him

He did have "a" bible...

Jesus believed he was connected to the source and therefore didn't need anything such as a bible in between that connection. He didn't look for understanding in a book, or debate, he developed it through relationship.

Now you moved from misleading to wrong. But I'm relieved that I didn't read incorrectly into your first statement.

Jesus argued with and on basis of the mosaic tora. He enganged - from all we know - in halachic debate of which then parts - mostly in forms of parables and memorable remarks - were recorded. But to assume he wasn't engaging in theological debate or actively intellectually engaging his debaters is unfounded.

Here's a good overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxeKunPwmp4

lol where do you get this stuff

Hmm didn't realize that was wrong, so he looked to the Torah for his guidance in life and afterlife?

he kept the whole law perfectly
but hes god in the flesh so he already knew his own laws

for that reason im not sure how much time he would have been in the scriptures

Jesus turned to a book for guidance?

Luke 4:16-22
King James Version (KJV)
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the *******earted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

I agree with what fretoloo said as far as how Jesus engaged in theological arguments. Maybe a clear way to put it is that in terms of his own understanding, it was not dependent upon Scripture, but at the same time he made use of Scripture, treated it with respect and reverence, referred to it often, and said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.

But as far as the source of his teaching:

"The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law." -- Mark 1:22

Im not good at reading these kinds of things, I got: Jesus went into a temple, grabbed the book, went directly to a passage, read it, everyone was awed then he left?

they were awed because he was god

he was pointing to the scripture that talked about himself

but if you dont understand , the guy above you explained it good

thats a little of topic but sure.

Wheres the part where he looked to the book for his own understandings?

he is omniscient
and wrote the book through the holy spirit