Mr Westwood Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Wards End at Hillsborough originally meant World End but it was not the end of the world and neither was the whole world flooded. Words change. . A street in Hillsborough and the Bible, the book you base your beliefs on, are two very different things. What did the word "whole" mean back then then? So are you saying that the bible has used all the wrong words and we shouldn't really believe what is written therein as words can and do change? How come you believe in what it says then if the words have changed and in some cases can be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 A street in Hillsborough and the Bible, the book you base your beliefs on are two very different things. What did the word "whole" mean back then then. So are you saying that the bible has used all the wrong words and we shouldn't really believe what is written therein as words can and do change? How come you believe in what it says then if the words have changed and in some cases can be wrong? You know words change their meaning but thankfully we can go back to the original text. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Westwood Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 You know words change their meaning but thankfully we can go back to the original text. . Have you gone back to the original text? Or is what you base your whole belief on the version where the words may have changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Have you gone back to the original text? Or is what you base your whole belief on the version where the words may have changed? From the writers perspective which was obviously limited the waters appeared to cover the whole earth. I take the view the flood waters extended a little further than a dove can fly and return. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 From the writers perspective which was obviously limited the waters appeared to cover the whole earth. I take the view the flood waters extended a little further than a dove can fly and return. . so why does the bible say it covered the tallest mountain then? Is the bible wrong or are you wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 so why does the bible say it covered the tallest mountain then? Is the bible wrong or are you wrong? The highest mountain in the area. http://www.arcimaging.org/GeisslerRex/Ararat200005.jpg . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I do not feel as though I was trapped and this is how it ended with Christianity coming out on top of atheism. Truth to tell I think God looks on the heart and knows and understands just as He knows the hearts and motives of those who deliberately set out to deceive [and trap] others. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5022935&postcount=2011 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 The highest mountain in the area. http://www.arcimaging.org/GeisslerRex/Ararat200005.jpg . Right and how do you suppose it covered that... without going around the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Westwood Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Right and how do you suppose it covered that... without going around the globe. Do you seriously expect Grahame to answer that? Though if he does I'm willing to put money on it that back then the earth was shaped like a bowl or the requirements for something to be classed as a mountain weren't as strict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Do you seriously expect Grahame to answer that? Though if he does I'm willing to put money on it that back then the earth was shaped like a bowl or the requirements for something to be classed as a mountain weren't as strict. Or that Mt Ararat is in a crater, and the water filler up the crater.. but then it would not be a mountain... this should be fun, especially since I just done the calculations to approximately work out how much water is needed to cover a mountain 3000m high, which isn't even anywhere near the current height of Mt Ararat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.