Jerry Seinfield refuses to do college campuses

Clevfan4life · June 8, 2015

I love how when I make a point between the difference of wisdom and knowlege (I said nothing about the bible) you right away come back with slamming my faith then spout off like you have all the answers and what I say cannot matter because I believe in the truth of the bible.

Here is a logical argument for you on the existence of God:

1. Something exists.

2. Nothing does not produce something.

3. Something must have always existed.

4. The universe has not always existed

...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.

5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.

Hebrews 11:6 Through FAITH we understand that the universe was created by the word of God and THINGS SEEN were not made of things that appear. Translation: out of the supernatural spiritual realm came the physical realm

I can theoretically believe in all of those points because my gut tells me there's truth to it, how much or how little I have no clue. But what happened is that men came to those conclusions and said to themselves now how can we create something based on these premise's that can control other men and surreptitiously bend them to our will. And boom you have organized religion. You had your relationship with the "real" god cut off at the knees and you don't even realize it.

OldBrownsFan · June 8, 2015

I can respect that, but you aren't doing yourself any favors.

How so? I was making the point about wisdom and knowlege and how we gain wisdom through life experiences when you said this was coming from the guy who believed the bible to be true. Why does my being a believer make that statement any less true? It would be like me pointing out something you said (even if it was something which I believed to be true) but to say you need to take it with a grain of salt because you are an atheist.

OldBrownsFan · June 8, 2015

I can theoretically believe in all of those points because my gut tells me there's truth to it, how much or how little I have no clue. But what happened is that men came to those conclusions and said to themselves now how can we create something based on these premise's that can control other men and surreptitiously bend them to our will. And boom you have organized religion. You had your relationship with the "real" god cut off at the knees and you don't even realize it.

I encourage people to read the bible before even going to church. That way they won't necessarily believe everything a church teaches and will know for themselves if what is being taught is truth or not. When you speak of relationship that is what makes Christianity different than other religions because it is all about a personal relationship with God.

calfoxwc · June 8, 2015

But what happened is that men came to those conclusions and said to themselves now how can we create something based on these premise's that can control other men and surreptitiously bend them to our will. woodpecker

*************************************************

So, you should say to yourself here, woodpecker, your favorite kind of ignorant quip:

"haha, if you think that all believers in God in every religion only deviously created it to control other men, you are a moron"

But you don't get it. For all of your "requirements" of others, you don't apply any of them to your own birdbrain.

Mudfly · June 8, 2015

In my opinion, that is a very lazy argument. If I am so immature, naive, ignorant, etc, then it should be easy enough to rebut any point I make, and support your own. Taking the "well I'm older than you" route is just a lazy way out. If you think I am wrong, and your idea is right, prove it. Provide evidence. Provide data. It is very simple.

Not to mention, I can just find someone in their 60s, 70s, etc that disagrees with you. I mean, it is all about being "older and wiser" correct? Whoever can find the oldest person that agrees with them must be correct then...

... of course that is idiotic though. Instead, go by the merit of the point being made. Idk if that person is 13, 23, or 73. If there is a good point being made and it is being well supported, why does it matter the age of the person saying it?

I knew you wouldnt give an honest effort or answer the questions I asked....as usual, you offer a smart alleck reply and stupid exceptions....IE: I know dumb old people.....haha

Listen, I didnt say older people know more or that they are always right....nor did I say if they are older, they must be correct....thats YOU twisting the argument, while completely avoiding the questions I asked....

Please....just answer 2 simple questions...(will you answer this time????...cause you avoided the hell out of them last time).....are you smarter or more mature than the average 15 year old?....and will you gain experience, perspective, maturity and knowledge as your life continues????...or do people stop growing at 23????

So.....got an answer????

I dont care about school lunches or trading extreme left lies for extreme right lies or debating which sport or college is best....thats for you to do.

I just see you arguing with everybody on damn near every thread I open and wonder how it is that a 23 yr old knows so much and has all the knowledge to run aroud declaring everyone else wrong....thats all.....Just look back at your posts. 90% of what you post is simply argumentive crap.

Ever hear anyone say "choose your battles wisely".....cause if you did, you didn't listen.....you'll argue ANYTHING...( a tad bit self righteous?)

I tried to tell you that "Perspective" is gained with age....not intelligence.....perspective....and Im just trying to get you to open your mind to the idea that YOU dont know everything and rather than argue every-single-thing someone says to death.....why not accept that other people have different views???.....and that the perspective of a 23 yr old kid is different than that of someone older.....?????....why cant you just offer an opinion and move on, instead of trying to force everyone to accept it????

Ill use the NFL draft for a simple example......A players name comes up....any name.....and YOU go read one article and form an opinion on said player, then go on to declare he is great(or terrible)(doesnt natter), based upon that one article(or experience).....now TOM goes and reads 20 articles and forms a different opinion....and you 2 start to debate it(on and on and on).....Personally, I dont know who is right, but the guy who read 20 articles certainly has more info and a lot more perspective(s) than you do.....

Which is how life is.....you are still on your first article, while many here have read many many many more.......so, they have different perspectives, based upon many life experiences....

And Im not saying older is smarter, but I am saying it's REALLY arrogant to run around declaring yourself right at every turn.....

especially when you've barely even lived yet....

So....we all have opinions and should be able to post them....it only becomes a problem when one person forces others to constantly debate EVERYTHING or goes on non stop trying to prove themself right and everybody else wrong......

Funchess is the perfect example. You declared him great, because your perspective was that he was. When I said Smith would get drafted ahead of him, you declared me wrong.....and argued and argued and argued(even though you were wrong)......sinply because you were certain your perspective was right....rather than just accepting that others may have info you dont....then, when he shit his pants at the combine AND Smith goes before him, you're like whatever......

Which in no biggy....we are all wrong sometimes....it's just that most of us dont go on for 10 pages arguing points that we really arent correct on to begin with....see?......

So....Im sure you wont accept any of this.....and you probably wont answer the 2 simple questions Ive posed,,,,,and, instead, you'll just deflect and offer some childish retort....which(like your last post) will expose the lack of maturity and arrogance that I speak of....

OldBrownsFan · June 8, 2015

Something I read years ago from Henry Ford that stuck with me and I try to apply:

"If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own".

Henry Ford

Mudfly · June 8, 2015

Something I read years ago from Henry Ford that stuck with me and I try to apply:

"If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own".

Henry Ford

Yep...exactly.....and I definitely follow that type of thinking....

A couple others......"you cant learn ANYTHING when you're the one doing the talking"

The smartest people are the ones who ask questions.......

And, really.....when I read all this debate on here, it kind of establishes WHY nothing ever gets resolved anymore.....there is no longer discussion(and exchange of ideas), but only debate....which is just each side just re enforcing their own opinion....your wrong, no your wrong, no your wrong, no your wrong......what a GREAT discussion and an awesome way to learn....

Shocking how many hours are spent resolving nothing.....

Clevfan4life · June 8, 2015

I encourage people to read the bible before even going to church. That way they won't necessarily believe everything a church teaches and will know for themselves if what is being taught is truth or not. When you speak of relationship that is what makes Christianity different than other religions because it is all about a personal relationship with God.

I've read the bible. Not front to back but the important parts yes. Both OT and NT. The NT I don't have much issue with because it's about a guy I believe existed and was a great teacher, whether he was the right hand of god I don't know nor do I care at this point because everything written about him has been filtered through the filthy hands of corrupt humans. Only bits and pieces of the "truth" made it out.

The NT though I have "zero" understanding for and never will. That wasn't "my" god that was spoken of in that compendium of evil.

Clevfan4life · June 8, 2015

oh and boo ben konop. Boo

OldBrownsFan · June 9, 2015

I've read the bible. Not front to back but the important parts yes. Both OT and NT. The NT I don't have much issue with because it's about a guy I believe existed and was a great teacher, whether he was the right hand of god I don't know nor do I care at this point because everything written about him has been filtered through the filthy hands of corrupt humans. Only bits and pieces of the "truth" made it out.

The NT though I have "zero" understanding for and never will. That wasn't "my" god that was spoken of in that compendium of evil.

There is too much wrongness going on today with Christian churches. You don't have to look any farther than many of the television preachers today. Many are so shallow and phony most people see right through them while they prey on elderly people and shut ins and the gullible. More people need to read the bible and follow what Jesus says over what their church says or some television preacher. It is all about an individual relationship anyway. The best way to read the bible is to read it as a personal letter to you.

There are a couple doctrines churches follow on the bible. Some believe like you that only parts of the bible are accurate and the bible is not the word of God but contains the word of God while others believe the bible is the word of God in total from Genesis to Revelation. I fall on this side because how can you can decide what is accurate or not? Who decides this? The only way for me to have faith in the bible is to believe it in total. That by a miracle God has preserved his word. Isaiah 40:8

Although you didn't say I am sure you are talking about the violence in the Old Testament. How does that violence square with New Testament teachings? It is difficult. If I take God at His word the reason was if they did not kill everyone in the cities they were to live in and left any behind they would teach Israel their wicked ways. This is not far fetched as we have seen in history where one person can sway an entire nation, Hitler comes to mind. Another factor I see is when Moses led Israel out of Egypt he was not leading out a bunch of warriors but a bunch of slaves with slave attitudes and mentality. They were a constant irritant to both God and Moses with their complaining. They were in real danger of being wiped out by warrior people if God did not intervene and these were life and death situations. Here is a commentary that may explain some of this:

"Why did God condone such terrible violence in the Old Testament?"

The fact that God commanded the killing of entire nations in the Old Testament has been the subject of harsh criticism from opponents of Christianity for some time. That there was violence in the Old Testament is indisputable. The question is whether Old Testament violence is justifiable and condoned by God. In his bestselling book The God Delusion, atheist Richard Dawkins refers to the God of the Old Testament as “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.” Journalist Christopher Hitchens complains that the Old Testament contains a warrant for “indiscriminate massacre.” Other critics of Christianity have leveled similar charges, accusing Yahweh of “crimes against humanity.”

But are these criticisms valid? Is the God of the Old Testament a “moral monster” who arbitrarily commands genocide against innocent men, women, and children? Was His reaction to the sins of the Canaanites and the Amalekites a vicious form of “ethnic cleansing” no different from atrocities committed by the Nazis? Or is it possible that God could have had morally sufficient reasons for ordering the destruction of these nations?

A basic knowledge of Canaanite culture reveals its inherent moral wickedness. The Canaanites were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm. The Canaanites’ sin was so repellent that God said, “The land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). Even so, the destruction was directed more at the Canaanite religion (Deuteronomy 7:3–5,12:2-3) than at the Canaanite people per se. The judgment was not ethnically motivated. Individual Canaanites, like Rahab in Jericho, could still find that mercy follows repentance (Joshua 2). God's desire is that the wicked turn from their sin rather than die (Ezekiel 18:31-32, 33:11).

Besides dealing with national sins, God used the conquest of Canaan to create a religious/historical context in which He could eventually introduce the Messiah to the world. This Messiah would bring salvation not only to Israel, but also to Israel’s enemies, including Canaan (Psalm 87:4-6; Mark 7:25–30).

It must be remembered that God gave the Canaanite people more than sufficient time to repent of their evil ways—over 400 years (Genesis 15:13–16)! The book of Hebrews tells us that the Canaanites were “disobedient,” which implies moral culpability on their part (Hebrews 11:31). The Canaanites were aware of God's power (Joshua 2:10–11; 9:9) and could have sought repentance. Except in rare instances, they continued their rebellion against God until the bitter end.

LogicIsForSquares · June 9, 2015

Yeah those non-believers deserved it for sure.

Clevfan4life · June 9, 2015

Besides dealing with national sins, God used the conquest of Canaan to create a religious/historical context in which He could eventually introduce the Messiah to the world. This Messiah would bring salvation not only to Israel, but also to Israel’s enemies, including Canaan (Psalm 87:4-6; Mark 7:25–30).

It must be remembered that God gave the Canaanite people more than sufficient time to repent of their evil ways—over 400 years (Genesis 15:13–16)! The book of Hebrews tells us that the Canaanites were “disobedient,” which implies moral culpability on their part (Hebrews 11:31). The Canaanites were aware of God's power (Joshua 2:10–11; 9:9) and could have sought repentance. Except in rare instances, they continued their rebellion against God until the bitter end.

all archeological data pertaining to the canaanites say they were peaceful unwarlike people. It wasn't until the scum of the earth laid siege to their lands that they militarized. All of their towns had no fortifications or embattlements prior to the invasion. So the narrative of the being an evil unrepentant people is utter nonsense. It was simply written in the book of Hebrew that way to justify what they ended up doing to them and the fact that it took them 400 years to conquer them.

Look how you've been taught to wash over an intrinsic evil with phrases like creating a religious/historical context for the messiah. That just reeks of the darkside. For you to still believe "THE" god, whatever that thing or being may be.....needs to wipe out an entire civilization and enslave their women and children in order to bring forth his messiah.....shows how far gone people have become. We can't look at the world, and humans, rationally anymore.

OldBrownsFan · June 9, 2015

Since you bring up archeology time after time archeological data proves what the bible says. In the conquest of Canaan, Jericho was the first city to be taken by Israel. Again (like everytime) the archelogy proves the bible account:

Archaeologists have found that the walls of Jericho did indeed fall down, they date the destruction of the wall to the time of Joshua (c. 1400 BC).

- The first major excavation of Jericho was carried out by a German team between 1907 and 1909. They found piles of mud bricks at the base of the mound the city was built on.

- It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall, which had collapsed when the city was destroyed.

- The Bible says that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists have found evidence of a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible states. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report:

“The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt.”

What caused the walls of Jericho to collapse? The common secular explanation is an earthquake must have caused the collapse.

It must have been a very unusual earthquake because it struck in such a way as to allow a portion of the city wall on the north side of the site to remain standing, while everywhere else the wall fell.

Rahab’s house was evidently located on the north side of the city. The Bible states that her house was built against the city wall. Before returning to the Israelite camp, the spies told Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be spared. Rahab’s house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell. This is exactly what archaeologists have found. The preserved city wall on the north side of the city had houses built against it.

The timing of the earthquake and the manner in which it selectively took down the city wall suggests something other than a natural calamity…It was God at work.

Both Garstang and Kenyon found dozens of store jars full of grain from the Canaanite city of Jericho.

- The obvious conclusion is that these were from the city when it was burned, not looted, by Joshua.

- The archaeological record fits the biblical account precisely.

MLD Woody · June 10, 2015

How so? I was making the point about wisdom and knowlege and how we gain wisdom through life experiences when you said this was coming from the guy who believed the bible to be true. Why does my being a believer make that statement any less true? It would be like me pointing out something you said (even if it was something which I believed to be true) but to say you need to take it with a grain of salt because you are an atheist.

I don't think it is wise to shun any knowledge that disagrees with your old book. A book you believe to be true based on faith.

Also, I'm not really an atheist. But go ahead and say "take it with a grain of salt because you're an atheist". It wouldn't really make sense, but more power to you.

MLD Woody · June 10, 2015

But what happened is that men came to those conclusions and said to themselves now how can we create something based on these premise's that can control other men and surreptitiously bend them to our will. woodpecker

*************************************************

So, you should say to yourself here, woodpecker, your favorite kind of ignorant quip:

"haha, if you think that all believers in God in every religion only deviously created it to control other men, you are a moron"

But you don't get it. For all of your "requirements" of others, you don't apply any of them to your own birdbrain.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I think religion was created to explain what we couldn't at the time. Man then used instances of these religions to control the masses. "Don't do this or scaaarryyyy hell!". Stuff like that.

MLD Woody · June 10, 2015

I knew you wouldnt give an honest effort or answer the questions I asked....as usual, you offer a smart alleck reply and stupid exceptions....IE: I know dumb old people.....haha

Listen, I didnt say older people know more or that they are always right....nor did I say if they are older, they must be correct....thats YOU twisting the argument, while completely avoiding the questions I asked....

Please....just answer 2 simple questions...(will you answer this time????...cause you avoided the hell out of them last time).....are you smarter or more mature than the average 15 year old?....and will you gain experience, perspective, maturity and knowledge as your life continues????...or do people stop growing at 23????

So.....got an answer????

I dont care about school lunches or trading extreme left lies for extreme right lies or debating which sport or college is best....thats for you to do.

I just see you arguing with everybody on damn near every thread I open and wonder how it is that a 23 yr old knows so much and has all the knowledge to run aroud declaring everyone else wrong....thats all.....Just look back at your posts. 90% of what you post is simply argumentive crap.

Ever hear anyone say "choose your battles wisely".....cause if you did, you didn't listen.....you'll argue ANYTHING...( a tad bit self righteous?)

I tried to tell you that "Perspective" is gained with age....not intelligence.....perspective....and Im just trying to get you to open your mind to the idea that YOU dont know everything and rather than argue every-single-thing someone says to death.....why not accept that other people have different views???.....and that the perspective of a 23 yr old kid is different than that of someone older.....?????....why cant you just offer an opinion and move on, instead of trying to force everyone to accept it????

Ill use the NFL draft for a simple example......A players name comes up....any name.....and YOU go read one article and form an opinion on said player, then go on to declare he is great(or terrible)(doesnt natter), based upon that one article(or experience).....now TOM goes and reads 20 articles and forms a different opinion....and you 2 start to debate it(on and on and on).....Personally, I dont know who is right, but the guy who read 20 articles certainly has more info and a lot more perspective(s) than you do.....

Which is how life is.....you are still on your first article, while many here have read many many many more.......so, they have different perspectives, based upon many life experiences....

And Im not saying older is smarter, but I am saying it's REALLY arrogant to run around declaring yourself right at every turn.....

especially when you've barely even lived yet....

So....we all have opinions and should be able to post them....it only becomes a problem when one person forces others to constantly debate EVERYTHING or goes on non stop trying to prove themself right and everybody else wrong......

Funchess is the perfect example. You declared him great, because your perspective was that he was. When I said Smith would get drafted ahead of him, you declared me wrong.....and argued and argued and argued(even though you were wrong)......sinply because you were certain your perspective was right....rather than just accepting that others may have info you dont....then, when he shit his pants at the combine AND Smith goes before him, you're like whatever......

Which in no biggy....we are all wrong sometimes....it's just that most of us dont go on for 10 pages arguing points that we really arent correct on to begin with....see?......

So....Im sure you wont accept any of this.....and you probably wont answer the 2 simple questions Ive posed,,,,,and, instead, you'll just deflect and offer some childish retort....which(like your last post) will expose the lack of maturity and arrogance that I speak of....

Geez, you went on a little rant here. Where to start...

I did give an honest answer. Whether you read it or not I do not know.

I never said "dumb old people". Not once. I never took a shot at older people, though you have continued to take shots at younger people.

You used my age vs the age of some posters here in an analogy that makes me a 13 year old. Based on this, I didn't have to twist much of your post.

I didn't avoid your question this time. I gave a real answer. Apparently you didn't like it though. But the answer to your question, based on averages, is yes and yes. Of course, 13 vs 23 is a little different than 23 vs 33.

I trade extreme left lies with extreme right lies? What? How in the hell do you consider me the left version of our far right posters on here? That's just lazy analysis. Plus, I've only ever debated college rankings with Gipper on a completely different sub-board. Not on here. More people go out of their way to try to dis Michigan here than I actually reference it

It is a Political Discussion. I either agree with someone and get insults thrown at me for agreeing, or I disagree because I think they are wrong (and usually still get insults). I try to back up what I say though. If you don't want to disagree with people, you're on the wrong board.

I'm sorry for posting in this board? Idk what you want from me. I don't argue for the sake of arguing, and honestly I am doing it less frequently on here. I may disagree, in which case I'll post that and state why. Or, ya know, I'm defending myself from an inaccurate post, like I am doing here...

Again, like I said in my previous post, this is an open forum for open discussion. If you don't like what I am saying, disagree with it and post your evidence. Age is irrelevant. You should be judged by what you post and how you support it. I am not sure why you are so bent out of shape about my post, and I believe you are reading them through a tinted lens. I don't argue in every post. I don't try to force ideas down people's throats. I post in the same general way everyone else does here (for the most part). And again, I try to back up what I say. Again, I can't force anyone to do anything. But if I disagree, and their argument is pretty poor, I can point that out. If you don't like it, either don't read it or provide an adequate response.

I agree, the person that read twenty articles probably would. Of course, those 20 articles could be mostly lies, or hyperbolic, or something along those lines. Also, at the end of the day, if I think the player is great at route running, but the other guy doesn't, and the other guy read 20 articles saying he is a great route runner, there should be some hard evidence out there that helps prove his point. Maybe some game film. The number of articles you've read means nothing if the conclusion you're presenting has no evidence to support it.

It is simple. I am not wrong because I am young. Others are not right because they are old. You could be 50 years old, and tell me all of the stories you have about how the Earth is flat. How you've never seen it be round. Etc etc. All of your "articles" mean nothing if they can not be supported. It is that simple.

If I am so naive, so young, so ignorant... then it should be easy to prove to me I am wrong. I am totally open to being proved wrong. I won't shun any piece of info that disagrees with my currently held beliefs. I look forward to seeing these other perspectives, and how they stack up.

Really? Funchess and Smith? Is that where this is all coming from? I think you need to reread all of those posts holy shit. Not to mention Smith went all of 4 spots ahead of Funchess. Are you telling me your grand wisdom gained from being older than me told you which would go higher? We're talking about articles, you think I didn't read any? You think I was going in completely blind? Again, reread those posts. Let me know where these posts exists you seem to remember. I stated very clearly which WR that goes first will depend on what type of WR a team needs first. Smith and Funchess were very different WRs. But no, this is a great example of whatever point you are trying to make... 10 pages? Jesus christ. I think this whole post of yours is some giant troll comment in regards to Smith getting drafted 4 spots before Funchess....

I lack maturity and am ignorant? Read that rant you just posted and get back to me. YOU wanted to make this an age thing. Not me. You're the one that seems to want to base the value of posts on the age of the poster. Not me.

Like I have said many, many times. If what you're saying is true, it will be easy to prove me wrong on my posts. I am just a dumb 23 year old after all. Any hard evidence, data, etc I might post... nah, doesn't matter. The opinions and stories of those older matter way more.

I am being the fair one here. Find value in a post or an argument based on the evidence presented. Age plays no part in it. Why does this idea seem so awful to you?

(Of course, I shouldn't have responded to begin with. All I do is argue. Which is a solo act, obviously. I apologize for trying to make my point, when I am clearly only 23. My beliefs about basing the merit of a post on the evidence presented within the post... that was just a dumb, naive 23 year old talk)

MLD Woody · June 10, 2015

I've read the bible. Not front to back but the important parts yes. Both OT and NT. The NT I don't have much issue with because it's about a guy I believe existed and was a great teacher, whether he was the right hand of god I don't know nor do I care at this point because everything written about him has been filtered through the filthy hands of corrupt humans. Only bits and pieces of the "truth" made it out.

The NT though I have "zero" understanding for and never will. That wasn't "my" god that was spoken of in that compendium of evil.

MLD Woody · June 10, 2015

Since you bring up archeology time after time archeological data proves what the bible says. In the conquest of Canaan, Jericho was the first city to be taken by Israel. Again (like everytime) the archelogy proves the bible account:

What does archaeology say about a global flood?

OldBrownsFan · June 10, 2015

What does archaeology say about a global flood?

Two Evidences for Noah's Flood: Fossil Graveyards and Extrabiblical Accounts

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/2011/06/archaeological-evidence-for-flood.html

MLD Woody · June 10, 2015

Two Evidences for Noah's Flood: Fossil Graveyards and Extrabiblical Accounts

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/2011/06/archaeological-evidence-for-flood.html

Wait, so just to be clear here, you actually think the entire earth flooded?

OldBrownsFan · June 10, 2015

Wait, so just to be clear here, you actually think the entire earth flooded?

I don't believe it was a local flood but a global one.

Now on what I posted about the archelogy of Jericho which validates the bible story do you think it was an earthquake that brought those walls down or was it a miracle from God? The Israel spies told Rahab to go into her house to be spared which was connected to the wall and coincidently there was one wall that did not fall down which had houses connected to it. I'm betting she lived in one of those houses, how say you?

MLD Woody · June 10, 2015

I don't believe it was a local flood but a global one.

Now on what I posted about the archelogy of Jericho which validates the bible story do you think it was an earthquake that brought those walls down or was it a miracle from God? The Israel spies told Rahab to go into her house to be spared which was connected to the wall and coincidently there was one wall that did not fall down which had houses connected to it. I'm betting she lived in one of those houses, how say you?

Wow, a global flood. Did Noah really get two of every animal on to his ark as well?

I'll try to follow the Jericho thing, since I am not very familiar with the story. So basically, the bible has stories about this incident, then throws in the bit about god intervening. Your evidence is that we know an earthquake actually happened, correct?

calfoxwc · June 10, 2015

Woody, regarding your large post above. That is impressive, because usually, it's

nonsense smartass one liners that don't relate to the current subject at hand.

But you keep contradicting yourself. You don't make age a slur? Come on, read your

own posts. You have OFTEN quipped - "You old people" "won't be around"

"us young people/millenials" You have inferred "dumb old people" often.

You started the age bashing long ago. Yet you claim victimhood when others, including me, have

responded in kind. The older you get, the more time you have spent accruing experiences and understanding

life. That isn't bashing you, or youth. but it seems obvious.

Most of us have started threads, and all you do is chime in with some irrevelant one liner bitch sentence..

I'm not saying that's all you have to offer, but you do it way, way, way too much.

Here's another point - you asked about archeological evidence about the flood. OBF nailed it with his response.

so you divert/redirect and ask about if it was the entire earth that flooded. Why gloss over the answer to your

question? You didn't get your "gotcha" moment? When you do that, it comes off as just being

dishonest. Did you only challenge him as a "gotcha"? Or you don't understand how it proves

a global flood? Or you didn't read his response, because you didn't really care? ??????

I was hoping you would reflect on OBF's post that answered your question in part. The places in the world,

in the mountains, where they have found fossils of ocean life..what do you think about that?

If you genuinely wanted to know, you could look it up on your own? Or at least comment on the

response to your question? You are always talking "science", which is fine, but you ignored the

science in that post.

In mmgw conversations - I have posted about science that doesn't support mmgw claims. Like

CO2 is a "poison" that is directly causing mmgw.

I posted informtation about how CO2 is, indeed, climbing. But global temps were not. For years now.

And you don't/won't see it, or admit it Won't discuss it.... If you are about science, why ignore science that doesn't fit

your opinions?

Going back to the archeology - that is science. Pretty much flat out proves a huge, gigantic flood of

amazing proportions. But you simply challenge OBF about "entire earth" flooding instead. What is the point of that?

Still trying to "one-up" anybody that doesn't fit your mindset?

OldBrownsFan · June 10, 2015

Wow, a global flood. Did Noah really get two of every animal on to his ark as well?

I'll try to follow the Jericho thing, since I am not very familiar with the story. So basically, the bible has stories about this incident, then throws in the bit about god intervening. Your evidence is that we know an earthquake actually happened, correct?

The evidence is the bible account of what happened at Jericho and what archeology has discovered:

The battle of Jericho featured one of the most astounding miracles in the Bible, proving that God stood with the Israelites.

After the death of Moses, God chose Joshua, son of Nun, to be the leader of the Israelite people. They set about to conquer the land of Canaan, under the Lord's guidance. God said to Joshua, "Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go." (Joshua 1:9, NIV).

Spies from the Israelites sneaked into the walled city of Jericho and stayed at the house of Rahab, a prostitute. But Rahab had faith in God. She hid the spies from the king's soldiers, and when the time was right, she helped the spies escape out a window and down a rope, since her house was built into the city wall.

Rahab made the spies swear an oath. She promised not to give their plans away, and in return they swore to spare Rahab and her family when the battle of Jericho began. She was to tie a scarlet cord in her window as a sign of their protection.

Meanwhile, the Israelite people continued to move into Canaan. God commanded Joshua to have the priests carry the Ark of the Covenant into the center of the Jordan River, which was at flood stage. As soon as they stepped into the river, the water stopped flowing. It piled up in heaps upstream and downstream, so the people could cross on dry ground. God performed a miracle for Joshua, just as he had done for Moses, by parting the Red Sea.

God had a strange plan for the battle of Jericho. He told Joshua to have the armed men march around the city once each day, for six days. The priests were to carry the ark, blowing trumpets, but the soldiers were to keep silent.

On the seventh day, the assembly marched around the walls of Jericho seven times. Joshua told them that by God's order, every living thing in the city must be destroyed, except Rahab and her family. All articles of silver, gold, bronze and iron were to go into the Lord's treasury.

At Joshua's command, the men gave a great shout, and Jericho's walls fell down flat! The Israelite army rushed in and conquered the city. Only Rahab and her family were spared.

What archeology has shown: