nathanael.ink

Claims:

1. The Egyptians kept very detailed records. The plagues, which would have wrecked their economy, are never mentioned.

• The lack of records would never prove within itself that something did or did not take place.
• Counter evidence through geology: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html
• Counter evidence from A History of Ancient Egypt Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1993. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php

2. The global flood; completely impossible.

• Scientists disagree on the impossibility of virtually anything. It is agreed that is it highly unlikely, but such was the case for many scientific discoveries.

• The Bible does not demand the understanding of “global flood.” http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-waters-of-the-flood
• Evidence harmonizes with the Biblical account through genetics: http://www.reasons.org/videos/does-human-genetic-evidence-support-noah-s-floodhttp://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
• Cambrian explosion fits into the Biblical account, though a lack of fossil records is not a firm foundation for any argument. One must not give negative evidence for a claim, but also positive support for their own claim.
• Secular acknowledgment of the lack of fossil records: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

3. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes.

• The original word “yom” in no way is restricted to meaning a twenty-four hour increment. There is a day-age model here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html
• Day-age model aligns with big bang expansion as listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
• Day-age model puts plant life sometime before 1 billions years ago. Which aligns with the secular model: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7348/full/nature09943.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life
• Genesis 1 is often interpreted as being in a psychological order rather than actual sequences, this is also how many interpret ancient “historical” documents. In an order of importance rather than sequences. This including the gospels of the new testament, though most believe Luke is in the appropriate sequence of events. Genesis 2 provides a more detailed creation story in which plants are not made before the sun.
• Lastly, and the weakest of all retorts: Genesis 1 does create light first and does not disclose what type of light it is. One simply cannot claim it could not support photosynthesis because we have no idea what sort of light it was.

4. The dragon’s tail smacks down to earth one third of the stars. To the author of Revelation, the stars are just little lights that can fall to the ground from the sky. (Shows complete lack of understanding of stars)

• I don’t understand Revelations, and this talk of the dragon tale would be the least of my worries.
• Much of Revelations is understood as symbolism, in this case many believe stars are angels and the tail is satans deception.
• You are one Google search away from seeing the numerous interpretations of Revelations. A book cannot be discarded or deemed false/irrelevant simply because of the literary devices used to convey it’s message.
• Recommended reading: Breaking the Code by Dr. Bruce Metzger

5. If you are sick and pray, god will heal you James 5 14-15

• James 1 discloses many reasons why a prayer might not be answers. The book is focused on prayer, which offers more evidence for the legitimacy of prayer rather than the illegitimacy.
• Evidence to support your claim cannot be plucked up from one part of the Bible and not take into account the entire Bible. This is unacceptable from the pulpit as well.

6. Paul claims in Romans that all of the earth had received the gospel message because of the apostles efforts [Rom 10:18]

• Not what it’s saying. This argument expressed a complete lack of both understanding and diligence to the claim.
• Paul encourages the spreading of the gospel; this would be nonsensical if the gospel was already spread.
• You cannot claim one verse as valid evidence and deny the validity of all others.

www.reasons.org is a fantastic place to start with when dealing with these sorts of questions.

The same voices that tell me I’m irrevocably valuable
tell me I’m a piece of shit.

And I believe them. Every word.

A: You know they say winky-faces in texting is the leading cause of male insecurity

B: Hahaha WHAAAT

If anything, I would assume the opposite to some degree. 

A: Haha 😉

a winky-face to me says: the context in which these words were said does not immediately reflect the way I meant them.

The ambiguity leaves the positive or negative element up to me. So it constantly conforms to my presupposed concept of myself, of how people “ought” to see me
Thusly its negative

B: Incorrect analysis, my friend. Winky faces are necessary to insinuate facetious jesting which could otherwise not be registered by the recipient.   

A: Exactly though. To be a facetious jest, it assumes it’s inappropriate. Thus not appropriate in the context it would otherwise be considered appropriate in. So I’m left wondering how to frame the jest, what to make of it. One could be meaning anything as subtle as slightly more light hearted then perhaps the words would be read OR as extreme as meaning the complete opposite of what was said. And there is no clarification of the winky-face. No rules for which it ought to be engaged it.
Know what I mean 😉

B: I think it is then up to the recipient to decipher, which I don’t think is as complicated or grueling as you seem to insinuate.  if I were to say “go jump of a cliff! 😉 ” I should certainly hope that you know I am in no way actually suggesting such a thing. If I say “it’s not too late! 😉 ” it is sincere, though playful.. Suggesting that you really could do such a thing, if you wanted.  Duh. 😉
Also, where do you come to the conclusion that jesting is inappropriate?! I don’t approve such nonsense.

A: fa·ce·tious /fəˈsēSHəs/

Adjective. Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

B: The Bible says “course” jesting, which then I would assume harsh/foul/inappropriate-ness.
NOT!! Where are you obtaining such ridiculousness ?
fa·ce·tious /fəˈsēSHəs/

Adjective. Amusing; humorous. Lacking serious intent.

Oh, the battle over words.

A: Hey giiirl. You said it. Not me.
Take it up with merrium webster

B: Merriam * 😛

A: Well played 😉

Make no mistake
I could love you better if we had no bodies at all

We, we are the ones who see
We the ones who wield words the most
We see the thing in which we mean to be crafting up a cage and carrying to you
..that not a single thing will fit in the largest or most elaborate cages we make..