Adam and Eve were made perfect, which means they had perfect genes. Their genes would have allowed them to live extremely long lifespans. As the years past, their genes and the genes of their children would mutate, until such a time when human life spans were limited 120 years. Longevity is definitely genetic, if you look at the families of people who live very long lives, you will see that many, if not most family members live very long lives.

Adam and Eve were made perfect, which means they had perfect genes. Their genes would have allowed them to live extremely long lifespans. As the years past, their genes and the genes of their children would mutate, until such a time when human life spans were limited 120 years. Longevity is definitely genetic, if you look at the families of people who live very long lives, you will see that many, if not most family members live very long lives.

i don't know whether or not you realize it spider, but your statement limits gods ability to be omnipotent, if he wanted to limit mans days and he is all powerful he could do it whether their genes were perfect or not - correct?

To bring science into the bible on this point seems needless, if your trying to defend god.

No, I am not limiting God's omnipotence. God doesn't want to be undeniable, so God used genes to limit human life spans. God's power isn't limited by saying "God used this method". By your reasoning, any mention of how God limited human life spans would be a limitation of God's omnipotence short of God showing up himself to kill the person.

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

When did Baasha die?

1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa

2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa

With respect to the Rules:

1) He who asserts must prove.

I assert that the biblical story of God changes in the way that he handles man's disobedience of him. I hold that this is a contradiction to the idea that the biblical God is unchanging.

It is said that the biblical God is unchanging. I don't need to prove this part. If Christians are willing to conceded that their God does indeed change in his behavior then my assertion that he changes stands. Whether or not it is deemed to be a contradiction is irrelevant to me. A God who changes in his behavior cannot be trusted to remain the same and is therefore undependable. No need to prove any contradictions then.

So there's the assertion. I assert that the biblical stories depict a God that changes in the way he handles mankind's disobedience of him.

2) In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

My assertion is that God changes the way that he deals with mankind's disobedience.

The evidence is overwhelming and obvious in the mythology itself. In the Old Testament the biblical God handles disobedience by flooding out humanity. In the New Testament he handles disobedience by sending his son to come to earth and die in man's place.

That's inconsistent behavior with respect to dealing with the same problem; man's disobedience of God.

Therefore the mythology itself is proof of my assertion. I shouldn't need to post those stories, it should be assumed that intelligent people have some clue about this mythology to begin with. The flood was intended to destroy humanity, Jesus was intended to save humanity. Clearly two distinctly different and diametrically opposing methods of handling the same problem.

3) Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.

I think we can all assume that most educated people know the stories of Noah, and Jesus. One ends in the destruction of the bulk of humanity, the other ends in an act to save humanity from destruction. Both of these stories are quite popular and are definite in their conclusions.

There are no 'facts' to present other than the fact that both of these stories exist within the same mythology that's claims to be stories about an unchanging God. Yet these stories tell of this supposedly unchanging God changing the way he deals with the same problem. So the facts should be obvious in this case.

In short, to refute the assertion that God didn't change his tactics one would need to prove that either the story of Noah, or the story of Jesus, is false, or that one or both of them are mere allegories and not meant to be taken literally.

I submit than any arguments of why God changed his behavior are irrelevant because they automatically concede that God did indeed change his tactics and therefore they simply provide an excuse for why God changed, thus agreeing with my assertion that the biblical God changed.


Process:

1) My opponent will post an assertion according to the rules above.

Done.

2) I will attempt to refute said assertion.

Have at it.

3) The members of the forum will vote for the person who makes the most convincing case.

This will be like a pole to see how many Christian versus non-Christians are on the forums at the time of the voting.

Aside Note:

I have a good idea of the rebuttal that I think Spider will come up with. I hope I have a chance to refute that rebuttal as well. If he uses the argument that I think he's going to use, I believe I can show why it is flawed and cannot be applied to refute my assertion.

I await your rebuttal Sir.

I think it will be fun to watch the votes rolling in if it ever even gets to the voting stage. Not that they will mean much, but it will be fun just the same. And I mean that whole-heartedly. I don't care which sides 'wins' it's really just a pole to see who supports Christianity and who doesn't. But let's do it and see how it goes.

Let’s see if we can bring it to a vote just for fun. This will be interesting.

You dont see the contradiction?

Genesis 1:3-5 (King James Version)
King James Version

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Compared to:

Genesis 1:14-19 (King James Version)
King James Version



"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

I went ahead and actually put the complete Vs. there for member's to read. Aside from photons and your rationalizations for the discrepancy. Can you tell me was it the first day, or the 4th? That is the question. The sun was not created until the 4th day. What gives? Im holding with Abras feeling. It is OUT OF ORDER to some degree. Not to mention that would god (or the respective author(s) have been writing about photons at this time? Would that have been a consideration? Was he expecting these peoples to understand quantum physics so he thought he would just toss it in there? That doenst seem likley spider....

Spider, I dont care about that crap. This contest you came up with is silly. Besides I didnt win, Abra did and fairly so. I understand the argument you are attempting to make but its really not based in anything that would make sense in the context of the time period we are talking about here. Im sorry but thats the truth. It appeared to me at least that in those quotes, they are not really taking into account what one author said before another picked up the pen, if indeed that is what took place. It doesnt mean the rest of the bible is incorrect or unreliable but so far, that Genesis needs an assistant editor...

Do you want another contradiction? Im making a list here. Im getting headache though because the bible print is too dam small. I got one of those motel ones...

krimsa,

Here's an English translated Bible you might find helpful. It gives the verses in plain English. It also gives nice summaries in boxes describing the major points of each chapter in a given book.

http://www.easyenglish.info/booklist/frontend.htm

Then if you want to see the King James version of the same book you can crosscheck it here:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/

Christians love these debates because it gets eveyone reading the bibles.

That's their secret mission behind debates.

Spider, they were being fair and you lost the debate without question. You lose your temper all the time. You are just irritated because it was a contest of your own design so something that should have given you the advantage, did not work and Abra simply had greater debate skills than yourself. Not to mention, a superior argument. It doesn't matter if you made personal attacks this time, you will again as it is a noticeable weakness of yours by your own admition.

My only advice to you was don’t do that because it’s not an acceptable form of discussion. If you didn’t react that way this time, fair enough. You lost the debate because you couldn’t match Abra and for no other reason in that case.

what a nice response, gd'nite spider, hope you feel better real soon.

Ok ... here's two ... you can pick either one, and we will run, walk or just amble with it.

First one

Second one

The solution is that the number "thirty sixth" is probably due to a copyist error.
This error is explained by the fact that the numbers were probably written in numerical notation. In this type of notation, the difference between the letter representing the number 10 xx and the letter representing the number 30 xx was only two small strokes at the top of the letter. It is quite possible that a copyist misread the original and wrote the wrong letter for the number, possibly as the result of a smudged or damaged manuscript at his diposal.

I have taken a debate class in college spider and those rules were not anything close to the rigid guidelines we had to follow. I was on a debate team that had to argue the use of capital punishment in the US. We did so for three straight days. I’m no expert, just letting you know a little background here and why I drew the conclusion that I did. I have seen actual debate, participated in it live, and have also watched professors debate that do this for a living and instruct students.

You lose your temper and Abra had a better argument.

You lose your temper far too often. You would have been disqualified automatically. Look back at some of your past threads and how nasty you become. You would have been GONE. You also come across as insecure and crazy sometimes. Also grounds for dismissal in actual, live debate. The judges will not just allow you to slip by with these flaws not under control.