Total posts: 5,875
-->
@Christen
What is your best example?My problem with the bible is that it is riddled with contradictions that go against logic and deductive reasoning.
Hopefully you will do better than Stephen who posts fake verses and refuses to defend his claims.
Well, if you call a reasonable explanation an excuse, it's no wonder you have a problem. Here is an example.Then, people try and defend/justify the various inconsistecies and contradictions with various excuses.
Contradiction claim:
The genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke are different, thus a contradiction.
Explanation:
The genealogies are supposed to be different. One goes through Joseph, and the other through Mary. Unless they were brother and sister, their genealogies cannot have the same people in them. Thus, there is no contradiction.
Questions:
*Do you still think this is a contradiction?
*Is the explanation an "excuse"?
*Is a genealogy that goes through Joseph supposed to have the same people as in a genealogy that goes through Mary?
*Do you think the people calling this a contradiction know that genealogies of non-siblings cannot be and should not be, identical?
Created:
How is this guy not banned.
Lol. Report me again for quoting you. Quoting you obviously should be a crime.
And true, if you get your hookers from behind truck stops. Eew.Ethang violated the rules. Not when he said I fucked a tranny, which is permissible.
He was triggered because I insulted jews...
And I should be banned because I was "triggered"? Lol. You're like the childish douche who spraypaints "nigger" on a black church and then claims he was trying to highlight racism.
...and then he is so low IQ that he just makes random transvestite and IQ insults he thinks is clever.
You said they were permissible. Is the sting changing your mind?
he is saying stuff that is absurd. Like that I have a low IQ, I can't even feel insulted because of the absurdity of his insults.
Still buttaching about "insults" you claim you can't even feel insulted about? This thread insults your IQ way more than any poster in it.
I missed it. How did you insult Jews? Are there Jews behind your seedy truck stop? Did you get an STD from a Jew? Did a transvestite Jew bite you when you refused to pay tax on the 10 bucks you agreed to pay him? Lol
BTW, is Speed's mom a mod? Because you attacked her. But if she's a mod, then never mind, it's permissible.
Oh, and if you're DDO elite, it's permissible too. You openly admit to calling me, Speed, and his mom, niggers, and openly admit to insulting Jews, in a thread directed to the mods, and you're still here flapping your gums! Goading the mods to "do their job".
And people doubt the clique exist.
Created:
Posted in:
His exact words were:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
And where in there is the word "dirt"? The crime you charge Trump with is in your imagination. The sad part is, you can't see the difference between what you assume and what is.
He explicitly asks him to look into biden and his son. That is asking for dirt.
How is asking for an investigation asking for dirt? You are only telling us your interpretation. Were the democrats looking for dirt when they launched an investigation on Trump?
Or there was just a pause in the convo. Either way, it isn't an invitation for you to insert your assumption.
No it's not. Vindman, who was on the call, testified that they were deleted phrases. That specific one he testified was something about trump saying there were tapes of Biden. But the transcript had that section deleted.
And Vindman is to be believed and Trump not? Trump is to be convicted just on what Vindman claims to have remembered?
The same congress that started talking about impeachment on is first day in office? The same FBI that had an insurance plan in case he won the presidency? Please.
This is in no way a defense.
Of course. Why would I need a "defense" when no crime was committed?
You are saying the the legal channels wouldn't work, so he decided to commit a crime. That does not excuse the crime.
That is what YOU'RE saying pinko. What Trump did is being called a crime by you, but that doesn't make it a crime anywhere except in your biased mind.
That's why you have to lie now and substitute your spin as "what I'm saying" and then pretend it is what I'm saying.
Plus, what you're calling the "legal channels" was rife with criminals who have since been found out and ejected from the FBI and DOJ.
Tell us, what do you think that "insurance policy" was the FBI had in case Trump got elected? Hmmm?
It's harder yet to frame someone for crimes that are jacked up by a dishonest partisan congress.
You clearly suffer from trump derangement syndrome. It doesn't matter that we now know for absolute certain he committed multiple crimes,
We who? I keep asking and you keep dodging. Who is "we"? It certainly isn't the American people
you just keep repeating lies over and over and over and pretend like reality doesn't exist
Stop being stupid. Your assumptions are not reality. No matter how strongly you believe fakery, it never becomes truth.
I have never seen anyone say any crime that Joe or Hunter could have committed.
Then you are sheltered and naive. And that is what investigations are for, to uncover crimes if any were committed.
Its good you know what TDS is, so you'll know what medication to take when Trump wins in 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Does Pee-Wee also admit that everything he says is a biased interpretation of questionable anecdotal information and confirmation bias? I knew you reminded of someone!
Read your post again slowly and you might get the irony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
And what race would I be against?
Your own latent racism makes you assume that "primitive morons" refers to a race, and you're triggered!
Just like when Biden let us know that "poor kids" in his mind meant black kids. Lol
Pull up your skirt buff, your racist nickers are showing.
Hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
But Usman Khan, alas, turned out to be a Muslim jihadi sleeper. And he had conned everyone.
He hadn't conned conservatives. We aren't stupid like that.
Watch what the liberals will do. They will make a ridiculous excuse for Khan, find some other loon to champion, and go right on being as stupid as ever. And innocents will keep dying as they ship more and more of these primitive morons into the country, and call conservatives who oppose them, massive hypocrites.
Just watch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Trump explicitly asks a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political rival, by name.
Lie. Trump said nothing about dirt. He mentioned Biden because Biden was the one who strong armed them into closing the investigation. Your baseless assumption will not be used to convict Trump.
They cut something out of the transcript there.
Or there was just a pause in the convo. Either way, it isn't an invitation for you to insert your assumption.
If he wanted an investigation he would have referred it to the FBI or to congress to look into.
The same congress that started talking about impeachment on is first day in office? The same FBI that had an insurance plan in case he won the presidency? Please.
Plus, we know Trump doesn't like formality. This was a getting to know you phone call with a new leader. There was nothing wrong in Trump asking for an investigation, even if it wasn't done the orthodox way.
That's why you dems have to lie and insert your assumptions and then pretend they are true.
So we already know he committed that crime.
We who? You and the loser dems? Trumps poll numbers have been going up. The only thing you "know" is that your fake charges are not convincing the American public.
It's hard to frame someone for crimes they are doing in public for all to see.
It's harder yet to frame someone for crimes that are jacked up by a dishonest partisan congress. And fewer people see it now than when the dems started this charade. Trumps approval numbers are moving up! Ouch!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
You just described your post exactly.
I guess I triggered you. Are you going to try to cancel me now?
Created:
Posted in:
Where do you people get your reality? Trump did not ask for dirt on Biden. That is how your interpret what he did, but your spin is different from reality.
Trump asked for an investigation. There is nothing wrong with that. An investigation could have cleared Biden.
Why are you all trying to frame Trump with your assumption?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
He is responsible for the deaths of those 2 kids. I denounced him for that.
Created:
-->
@Ruby
The same in Philly.
But he will not win the nomination. Watch and see.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Some STD's have the side effect of messing with your brain. Can we assume syphilis?
From your complexion, I knew it would be difficult for you to get white chicks. But you should be aware that there are better black chicks than truck stop transvestites.
And I don't know if transvestites qualify as "chicks". But to each his own right? Why you guys just don't admit you're gay?
Watch the troll undress and bend over in public, trading integrity for a few seconds of fame. How sad his life must be.
But hall of fame! Wheeeeee!
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
You claim that God exists. That’s a positive claim.
So is the claim that there will never be closure. The claim made first should be the first substantiated.
I’m asking you how you can prove that God exists, to which you still haven’t done so.
The question is not whether I can prove God exists, but whether God exists. And if it is true that God exists, whether I can prove it or not doesn't the fact that he exists.
My claim was that people arrive at closure all the time, thus the threads claim is incorrect. You seem to agree that there will never be closure, yet you've dodged my question on the topic and want to now focus on some subsequent claim. Why?
No. I want you to substantiate your claims. Simple as that.
And my substantiation will be decided by me, not you. You may reject it, but it will not bend to your demand that it be how you like.
In this sense, we will never have closure, for no one is willing to listen to the other side.
Interesting you can post this and still not be willing to listen to the other side. I answer every question so that my opponent knows I listened. When I dismiss a claim of yours, it isn't because I didn't listen, it's because the claim was illogical.
You are using "listen" the liberal way. Unless I agree with you, I'm not listening.
Reaching one's own "personal closure" isn't finding the "true answer". It's simply finding your own personal opinion on this issue. Opinions aren’t facts, and they certainly can’t be used to find the “truth” (whatever that might be).
Then I wish you'd shout this out to every liberal out there. But everyone has only his senses to go by. The thread did not say everyone would never find truth, it said there would never be closure. And it did not qualify "closure".
Just to burst your bubble:
I have no bubbles you can burst.
The actual numbers of Christians worldwide is rising, not falling. But His Royal Majesty, King Jesus told us 2,000 years ago that the number of Christians would one day fall to near zero.
So what? If the large number of people believing Christianity does not make it true, then people leaving doesn't make it false either.
And if you aren't attacking the truth of Christianity, what does it matter how many believe?
It isn't a fallacy when you do it right?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
From where?Evolution states that man (humans) came...
If you continued reading, you would have come upon this:
Check the date. Even scientists don't refer to Miller/Urey any more. Science moved on since you left high school biology......
Errr, you are out of high school right?
Your argument here looks like this:P: God is omnipotent.Q: Therefore, there is only one God.You need to prove P before you can get to Q.
No sir. That is where you want to jump to. You asked, "How do I know there is only one god?" My answer is that it is logically impossible for more than one God to exist.
You can't deal with that, so you want to jump to omniscience. I asked you a question. You claimed to be the kind of person who answers questions. So far, you haven't been.
I asked. "Do you think, given the definition of omnipotent, that its logical for more than one omnipotent being to exist?" If you keep dodging my questions, I will dismiss you as a fraud who only wants to ask questions while running away from having to defend his own positions.
Can you elaborate on this?
I can but I won't. It is not pertinent to my argument, and I will not be diverted into "elaboration" every time you bring up some silly tangent.
Ok, so you believe the quotes provided in the bible are true.
Of course. I also believe they are credible, which is what you asked about.
“Are the contents inside the bible credible enough to quote directly?”Is it yes or no?
I asked you to stop the silly word play. Anything can be quoted. There are no conditions on what can be quoted. So your "credible enough to be..." is tautological nonsense. Try it on a newbie.
That entails truth.
It does, but you didn't ask about truth, did you?
You still have yet to support these claims.
You have yet to challenge them. You so zeroed in on the billions giving it credibility, you completely forgot my main reasons.
The reason you stated the bible was credible was because many people believe it.
Untrue. I said that many people believing the bible to be credible lends the bible credibility. I said nothing about what or why I believe. Either way, you have ignored my main reasons I find the bible credible.
Since the bible describes, in truth, why things are the way they are (according to you), it would be a factual text.
You asked about credibility. I answered you. Are you dissatisfied with my answer? Is that why you have ignored the meat of it and focused on the witness testimonies?
None of these apply to the question of whether or not God exists.
But they do apply to whether the bible has credibility. And that was your question, not whether God exists.
Okay, then how is the bible true?
What do you mean? Why is the bible true? Why is 2+3=5 true? It conforms to reality.
Tell me what part of these responses is a substantiation:
As soon as you tell me where 3RU7AL's substantiation is for the claim he made first, the claim you defended.
Where was I wrong?
Credible does not necessarily mean true. 2 simultaneous omnipotent beings are illogical. Witnesses do lend credibility. Evolution says absolutely nothing about abiogenesis. There is no evidence for abiogenesis whatsoever. Miller/Urey is debunked bad science.
I’m simply asking you to substantiate the claims you made.
I have answered every question you've
asked. That you cannot attack my answers is not a fault of mine.
I can’t work with vague, generalized claims that you don’t substantiate.
That seems to be your problem. My answers were succinct. But I will not be drawn into the childish game of being challenged to support everything YOU ask about.
If you don’t provide me with any examples to back up your assertions (like how there are thousands of non-biblical instances of Jesus appearing in a certain location),
You asked if there were, I answered yes. That in no way obligates me to verify it for you. It isn't part of my argument and I couldn't care less whether you believe it or not.
Further, it was not appearances of Jesus, it was appearances of God. Precision is how we avoid confusion later.
If you were to ask me if butterflies are insects and I said yes, I am not instantly obligated to prove to you butterflies are insects. What do I care whether you believe it? You brought up butterflies, I didn't.
It is a tactic of poor thinkers to derail others down rabbit holes because they have weak arguments themselves.
then I can use Hitchens’ Razor to dismiss it entirely.
You will always be free to dismiss anything you want. What you lack is the power to make me jump through your hoops. I will choose my answers, you can accept or reject them, but they will be my answers, no approval needed from you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Your opinion is emotional not empirical.
So is every opinion on Earth, but it is still true. You see, even emotional opinions can happen to coincide with reality sometimes.
Are you a liberal?
Created:
Posted in:
@disgusting
Run away now.
I'm trying, but you keep stalking me and yapping multiple posts like a retarded poodle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think speakers with whom I disagree should be shouted down and banned.
I don't think politicians with whom I disagree should be harassed at dinner.
I don't think businesses having owners with whom I disagree politically should be boycotted.
I don't think people who produce wealth should have their earnings jacked and given to bums.
I don't agree with cancel culture.
I don't believe the government should be able to take my guns.
What is facism to you? Working hard, being smart, and getting rich?
You're far closer to the edge than any conservative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Doc insulted no one. Liberals are in fact stupid. When did the truth become ad-hom?
Consider the current case in London.
Liberals wanted that moron terrorist to immigrate.
Liberals wanted that moron terrorist released.
Liberals invited that moron terrorist to the conference
Liberals did not want that moron terrorist shot.
Not a single one of those things is true for conservatives. When you check our policies in real life cases, it shows over and over that liberals are stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though I'm sure you'd be an excellent teacher of fascism, I'll pass. I'm allergic to politically correct groupthink.
There may be a few antifa members who burn down buildings and attack those with different views who might be interested in what you have to offer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Still logically faulty, but don't worry, not everyone is able to grasp the logic.
No one can be expected to do more than what they are capable of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ad Homs do not counter Docs claim.
Hey Doc, I have a couple.
Liberal: Walls do not work!
Conservatives: How does the roof of your house stay up?
-----------------------------------------------
Liberal: Immigrants are not terrorists!
Conservative: And they will stay out till we can tell one from the other.
----------------------------------------------
Liberal: A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body!
Conservative: Can women abort only females, as the case is in India?
Liberal: No! That is femicide! That's bad! That should be stopped!
Ah, liberal logic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
We are dealing with principles, and poor thinkers cannot understand that.Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Some sightings of bigfoot could be hoaxes, not delusions. Some could be honest mistakes. Some sightings could be deliberate falsehoods following an agenda.
It is true that you cannot know all sightings of bigfoot, and thus cannot claim delusional those sightings you have no knowledge of.
You are operating on the juvenile dichotomy of all sightings of bigfoot being either true or delusional. But those aren't the only 2 possible options.
Logic is the enemy of bias.
Created:
@disgusting
Not understanding is not the same as not minding.
You said "never mind." I didn't.
easy to scan threads to see if I want to comment on anyone's posts.
Then what are you buttaching about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you have a problem with homosexuals?
I don't go around killing them, if that is what you mean.
Is your conservatism so extreme?
To a snowflake SJW like you, Nancy Pelisi would be an extreme conservative.
You display both homophobia and Islamophobia.
Of course. To liberals like you, everything not in full agreement with your liberal progressive groupthink is homophobia and Islamophobia. Soon you'll be adding racism to that cause those are your tri-refrains. Homophobia, islamophobia, and racism.
And your verbal attack on Sadiq Khan was particularly extreme and unnecessary.
If I was in charge he would be imprisoned and then deported. The only good thing about him being mayor is that the moron voters who elected him get to see how blindingly stupid their decision was.
You are a hairs breadth away from being exactly the same as what you think you so belligerently condemn.
And to you pinko lefties, I will always be. I don't really care about the opinions of people who are logically challenged anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
@ disgusting
I know there is no mention of you being hetero or having any hetero relationships.You know nothing about me, so that's not true at all.
Is that untrue?
Created:
Posted in:
@Disgusting
I only call you a liar. I would call you stupid too, but it seems you can't read.
Created:
Posted in:
@Disgusting
I only call you a liar. My God says birds fly in heaven. Can you not read?Your god says that your god lives in heaven, why do you call your god a liar?
Created:
Posted in:
Unemployment way down, jobs up, religious liberties upheld, immigrants out, military prioritized, police supported....
Trump is doing fine with the working class voters. And the polls support that. What country are you from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Completely untrue. This is the politically correct lie that Muslim history revisionists have be pushing.Islam has usually been much more tolerant of religious minorities than Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You have to spout your opinion as if it has any basis in truth, but we don't have to assume about Mohammad do we? He was a pedophile and a murderer.I think that Jesus was probably gay.
But according to the politically correct liberal, he's just as good as the gentle guy who said love one another, raised people back to life, and has no record of sin.
Do you know even the Koran agrees Jesus was sinless? I bet it was another moron liberal judge that released this loser back on the street.
Now 2 innocents are dead because these idiots cannot get past their dumb dogma and see reality.
The police officer who shot him dead as he wriggled on the ground with his fake suicide vest should be given a medal.
And charges should be brought up on that deranged mayor of London. They got what they voted for.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are a liar. You jump to another book where it says "...the next day" and then lie that the next day in John is referring to a day in another book, Mark.
Cite for us the day in John 1 that makes John 2 the next day. You cannot liar.
You even have to lie with brackets, "John 1:35 Again the next day after [the baptism]"
Where is "the day" in John that this day is next to? You can't show it because you are a liar.
John was being questioned, the next day, he sees Jesus and says, "that's the guy I was speaking about whom you don't know"
You are just a petty liar. And it pleases me immensely that you have to lie to claim a contradiction.
You'd better put out your pants liar.
Created:
Posted in:
This is what your god says
Gen 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
It's even written in the word of god.
But the atheist wants us to only look at words, not what they mean.
So, according to those brainiacs, birds fly in the home of god, because scripture says "heaven".
Lol. If you have to be a fool to claim a contradiction, I can live with that.
Created:
Posted in:
Gen 1:14 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Does the word “heaven” in this verse mean “home of god”?
Gen 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Does “heaven” in this verse mean “home of god”?
Yes says the militant atheist. Heaven has only one usage in the bible. Words cannot have multiple meanings in the bible.
Lol. This is the braintrust that is supposed to be pointing out contradictions in the bible?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
John 1:35 Again the next day after [the baptism]
You are lying. This is a different book! Jesus had not yet been baptized in John 1. Lol. Caught in a lie again.
The next day in John does not refer to the day mentioned in Mark. Try again Cletus.
John 1:43 The day following...
Following what? Not His baptism
because Jesus had not yet been baptized in John 1. If you have to lie, how good is your claim?
So then. Instead of carrying out his heavenly duties in the desert we find that instead our Lord and Savior is actually partying at a wedding
Only if we accept your lie of joining two different books as if the timeline between them is the same.
This kind of lie works with atheists who do not know the texts and are already biased. Which is why you run away from questions too.
So when John says, "the next day" don't lie and say that refers to Mark's day of baptism. It refers to John's day of the scribes questioning John.
Hey Stephen, your pants are on fire.
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God says so.
Lol. Yet another internet prophet with a special line to God.
The next time you talk to god, say hi for me.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Just the rules pal. You want to use the N-word, have a pass.
Who you trade STD's with is not my business.
Created:
Who would know better?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sure. There are hard atheists who, for them, the subject is closed.
Closure doesn't need to be correct. It's just based on each persons personal opinion.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I have a fond weakness for bullies and trolls.
And since I'm professionally trained to handle them, I take up the call.
I'm sure wylted finds many of his truck stop partners intellectual. Stick around, he may tell us more about them.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, there must have been something worth responding to,
Yes. It wasn't in your post though.
because you took the time to respond to something. Or perhaps you're just very polite.
It's one of my best qualities.
Thanks.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
No. The person finds closure.
Even some of those finding closure are atheists.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I told you, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as of now, that opinion doesn't need to be logical or make sense.
Though the fact that you left with your opinion intact was really not something you needed to tell us.
In the main time, people will continue becoming theists by the millions, finding enough closure to reach a decision.
As I said, closure happens to individuals, not groups.
You dodged my question again, but we know why. Carry on.
Created:
No, I don't mind being troll
Lol. Really? You sure made a long buttaching post though.
Like when I called you a nigger and virtuoso a like, those insults (if you can consider them that) have a basis in fact.
What fact would that be? I'm not black and I haven't a clue what race Virt is. Your basis is in trolling.
You also don't see me calling any of the mods low IQ.
No, I see you claiming you boinked a mods mom behind a truck stop, referring to her as a "nigger chick". Way to convince us you have class Jethro.
I can't get on the bus and not be called cracker 3 times
With your dark complexion? I would think on the short bus they would call you Oreo.
With that said, Ethang violated the rules. Not when he said I fucked a tranny, which is permissible. He violated the rules by making a personal attack on me.
How? I quoted what you said about yourself. Perhaps you shouldn't have told us how you spend your free time.
...he is against freedom of speech and feels like attacking when he hears the word nigger.
Are you sure you don't mind being trolled? Is really sounds like you're butthurt.
Ethan personally attacked me in his first post.
Like when I called you a nigger...
I don't need to go crying to the mods. I can beat you right here within the rules. I quoted you, but you just admitted to breaking the rules. But I don't want you banned, I want you here so I can toss you like I tossed the last moron racist before he got banned.
So while we're on the subject, tell us more about this truck stop you frequent for sex. What IQ are the three dollar "nigger chicks" you hook up with? Do they stimulate your high IQ?
Lol. If you're trolling W, you aren't doing it right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As your post says nothing but your uninformed opinion, and I agree everyone should have a right to an opinion, even it is ignorant and biased, there is nothing in your post to respond to.
But I do hope you're happy being a "man of science" who lives on the religion board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I notice you dodged the question bully. Here it is again.
How do you know it means God's home here?
I tried to place a bet that you'd dodge, no one would take it. Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
OH yes silly me, course it does. That is your typical reset and default to every anomaly and contradiction the bible throws up.
What anomaly? If I say the "heaven full of stars", is that an anomaly? Does the bible use the word "heaven" in only one way?
Just answer the simple question instead of yet another lame rant. Does the verse say Elijah went up into Heaven, God's home, or went up into heaven, where heavenly bodies are?
If you don't know say so.
You simply have to invent things in the hope that others will accept your abysmal reasoning and silly excuses for what are clear contradictions that simply cannot be explained by you inventing reasons and childish excuses.
What have I invented? I only asked you a question. You want the word "heaven" used in the verse to mean God's Home. I'm asking you why?
Can you justify your interpretation?
You can't even admit that the word heaven has more than one meaning. If it has multiple meanings, what makes your interpretation correct?
You can't answer, but you'll rant yet again about how terrible I am for simply challenging your spin. You will convince more people if you addressed the rebuttals to your claims.
It is a FACT that one says one thing and another categorically states the complete opposite. And try as you may , they will remain unexplained biblical contradicts.
You don't win logical points by insistence goomer. I can tell you why the word "heaven" in this verse does not mean "the home of God". Would you like me to?
Or you can rant again that you're right because .......uh....you're right.
Created: