Aliens

[The Gospel of Christ]

LOL....you're losing the debate.

You're reply basically is Noah couldn't take juvenile dinosaurs on the ark...because the bible doesn't say Noah took juvenile dino's on the ark.

I’m citing God’s infallible Word. You’re patching holes in a doctrine the text itself doesn't support with sentences God never spoke. Your interpretation survives only by inventing material Scripture never gave you and then smuggling it back into the Bible as though it belonged there.

And somehow you think the person refusing to invent details is the one losing. That's beyond mind-bending.

You don't have Scripture backing your claim. You have a hole where the evidence should be, and you're filling that hole with your own imagination.

Then comes the truly serious part; you take those invented details and attach God’s authority to them. You make God say what He never said, and you make Scripture teach what Scripture never taught.

That's not exegesis or “taking God at His Word.” That's putting your own words in God’s mouth and then demanding everyone else treat them as revelation.

Scripture itself warns against adding to God’s words. So when your doctrine can survive only by supplying the missing lines yourself, the problem is no longer merely that your argument is weak; the problem is that you've crossed the line from interpreting the text into rewriting it.

Calling your invention “biblical” doesn’t sanctify it; it dangerously puts God’s name on something you wrote yourself.


Repent.

 

[CrowCross]

I’m citing God’s infallible Word. You’re patching holes in a doctrine the text itself doesn't support with sentences God never spoke. Your interpretation survives only by inventing material Scripture never gave you and then smuggling it back into the Bible as though it belonged there.

And somehow you think the person refusing to invent details is the one losing. That's beyond mind-bending.

You don't have Scripture backing your claim. You have a hole where the evidence should be, and you're filling that hole with your own imagination.

Then comes the truly serious part; you take those invented details and attach God’s authority to them. You make God say what He never said, and you make Scripture teach what Scripture never taught.

That's not exegesis or “taking God at His Word.” That's putting your own words in God’s mouth and then demanding everyone else treat them as revelation.

Scripture itself warns against adding to God’s words. So when your doctrine can survive only by supplying the missing lines yourself, the problem is no longer merely that your argument is weak; the problem is that you've crossed the line from interpreting the text into rewriting it.

Calling your invention “biblical” doesn’t sanctify it; it dangerously puts God’s name on something you wrote yourself.


Repent.

LOL...come on GoC...you are having such a hissy fit because I suggested the dinosaurs were little. "IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE "...you scream..."YOU'RE ADDING TO THE BIBLE"

I gave you a very reasonable solution to the "Two 30-ton Brontosauruses on a wooden ark,".....and you rejected it.
I get your attitude...you lost the point. Sheeze, at least acknowledge the feasibility of it.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

LOL...come on GoC...you are having such a hissy fit because I suggested the dinosaurs were little. "IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE "...you scream..."YOU'RE ADDING TO THE BIBLE"

I gave you a very reasonable solution to the "Two 30-ton Brontosauruses on a wooden ark,".....and you rejected it.
I get your attitude...you lost the point. Sheeze, at least acknowledge the feasibility of it.

You seriously read “T. rex and the dragon from The Hobbit” as a literal concession? That's staggering.

That was sarcasm.

I was mocking the move from “Genesis says X” to “well, maybe this unstated thing happened.”

You’re still confusing physical possibility with textual support.

I don’t care whether juvenile dinosaurs were theoretically feasible; I care whether God’s Word says that’s what Noah did.

It doesn’t.

You keep answering a question I’m not asking because the one I am asking leaves you without a verse.

 

[CrowCross]

You seriously read “T. rex and the dragon from The Hobbit” as a literal concession? That's staggering.

That was sarcasm.

I was mocking the move from “Genesis says X” to “well, maybe this unstated thing happened.”

You’re still confusing physical possibility with textual support.

I don’t care whether juvenile dinosaurs were theoretically feasible; I care whether God’s Word says that’s what Noah did.

It doesn’t.

You keep answering a question I’m not asking because the one I am asking leaves you without a verse.

The bible says Noahs ark had 3 levels...how did Noah and his family move between the 3 levels? Did they use stairs...a ladder...or some sort of elevator....or, some other method?

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

The bible says Noahs ark had 3 levels...how did Noah and his family move between the 3 levels? Did they use stairs...a ladder...or some sort of elevator....or, some other method?

That actually illustrates the difference between us perfectly.

When Scripture is silent about whether Noah used stairs, ladders, ramps, or something else, I say, “We don’t know.”
I don’t invent a staircase, bolt it into the Ark, and then start defending it as though Genesis told me it was there.

When Scripture is silent, I say “we don’t know.” When Scripture is silent, you start writing.

That's exactly what happened with the juvenile dinosaurs.

The text never says it.
Your interpretation needs it.
So you supplied it.

I’m willing to leave the blank spaces blank.

You keep filling them in and then calling the result biblical.