Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, but he can see that an indefinite period of time may have elapsed between those two verses, enabling him to dispute the figure of 6000 years without recourse to science. You can see that, can't you?

The title 'Primate' always makes me laugh.

But this line of Usscher and his 6000 years has nothing to do with weather the Earth is flat because the bible says it, or if it is flat of any other reason.

If some people stating that the universe is 10 000 of years, as KellyJay believes (yes he said so, believe it or not!), because the bible says so, then they would believe that the Earth is flat, because the bible says so.
If some (anti-)science methods are use to prove the Young Earth theories, then why aren't (anti-)science methods used to prove the Earth is flat?
Simple question, simple answer: Because it is not! And every sound thinking person of the world agrees with me!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you, Kelly, believe the Earth is flat, or do you deny the bible?

No, I do not believe the earth is flat, and no the Bible does not teach
that either, this like a lot of things you have your facts wrong about.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas

Simple question, simple answer: Because it is not! And every sound thinking person of the world agrees with me!

Why would anyone, sane or otherwise, say the Earth is flat because the Bible doesn't say so? I fear your thread is bordering on pointlessness.

Originally posted by Palynka
Only idiots and the narrow-minded believe the Bible is supposed to be read literally in its entirety.

Apparently, you're one of them.

You turn all of your debates into hate speach?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you, Kelly, believe the Earth is flat, or do you deny the bible?

I asked you a question about time, care to answer it? I'm not going
to pester you for pages upon pages like you did me, even though I
did answer your question else where.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But this line of Usscher and his 6000 years has nothing to do with weather the Earth is flat because the bible says it, or if it is flat of any other reason.

If some people stating that the universe is 10 000 of years, as KellyJay believes (yes he said so, believe it or not!), because the bible says so, then they would believe that the Earth is flat, b ...[text shortened]... simple answer: Because it is not! And every sound thinking person of the world agrees with me!

You believe any person who disagrees with you is not sound I take
it? I again as you to show me where the earth is taught in the Bible
in context saying that the earth is flat. So far all you have produced
is someone had a dream and in it, it was flat. If that is all you got,
you have nothing, but seem to base a lot of hate speech on it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I asked you a question about time, care to answer it? I'm not going
to pester you for pages upon pages like you did me, even though I
did answer your question else where.
Kelly

I don't think you ever will answer my question because then you have to admit that you don't believe in the bible, that you deny the bible. By denying the bible you have a weak case about the young earth belief.

How in hell can you believe that the Earth is flat? Are you completely crazy? Haven't you seen any picture from satellites? If the Earth is flat, how in gods name is not the sea water pouring out from the edges? Do you believe the Earth is flat only because the bible says it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas

How in hell can you believe that the Earth is flat? Are you completely crazy? Haven't you seen any picture from satellites? If the Earth is flat, how in gods name is not the sea water pouring out from the edges? Do you believe the Earth is flat only because the bible says it?

"No, I do not believe the earth is flat, and no the Bible does not teach
that either, this like a lot of things you have your facts wrong about.
Kelly"

🙄

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"No, I do not believe the earth is flat, and no the Bible does not teach
that either, this like a lot of things you have your facts wrong about.
Kelly"

🙄

Apparently, for Fabian, the Bible must not be read literally but Christians must either read it literally or admit that it is 'wrong'.

Originally posted by Palynka
Apparently, for Fabian, the Bible must not be read literally but Christians must either read it literally or admit that it is 'wrong'.

The bible should not, and cannot be read literally. Because it fyou do, then you easily get to the concluseion that the Earth is flat and the Universe is created in 6 days 6000 years ago. That is obviously not true, there are many observaitons that say otherwise.

But if you do (read it literally) then you have to read everything literally and not only certain parts that fits your opinion. Then homosexuals should be killed, pig meat not be eaten, slavery is okay, okay to sacrifice your son, and so on, i.e. not only the nice parts.

KJ reads the bible litterary and comes to the conclusion that young earth creationsim is the truth, but how come he doesn't believe in flat Earth?

KJ denies the bible saying that Earth is *not* flat.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"No, I do not believe the earth is flat, and no the Bible does not teach
that either, this like a lot of things you have your facts wrong about.
Kelly"

🙄

So he doesn't believe in the bible then?
Howcome he hasn't read the first posting of this thread?
Is denyal one important part of his beliefs?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Howcome he hasn't read the first posting of this thread?

He did. How comes you didn't read or respond to his reply to it?

You are using a man's dream as a factual statement in how the
Bible describes the earth? You have anything else?
Kelly

Originally posted by Nordlys
He did. How comes you didn't read or respond to his reply to it?

You are using a man's dream as a factual statement in how the
Bible describes the earth? You have anything else?
Kelly

Because I didn't understand the question.
What "man's dream"? What "man"?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But if you do (read it literally) then you have to read everything literally and not only certain parts that fits your opinion.

Not at all. Why should a literal interpretation of certain passages exclude the possibility of interpreting other passages metaphorically?

Accepting the possibility of metaphorical passages implies (to maintain consistence) that the literal interpretation is not by itself sufficient for a certain argument.* I think we can agree on that. But note that this is very different from allowing only a binary choice between a uniquely literal or uniquely metaphorical view of all passages.

*Also note that this is not saying that the literal interpretation is irrelevant. Just that it isn't sufficient.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Because I didn't understand the question.
What "man's dream"? What "man"?

Daniel 4:10-11 is a description of a dream.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%204:10-11;&version=9;