Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

How is it an excuse? If this was an investigation, the scenario I offered would be a valid explanation.

 

How is it fabricated?

 

Complete and utter nonsense again!

All of the alleged "cases where people rose from the dead" are misdiagnoses usually made by poorly trained or unqualified people.

Furthermore there is no defined "common understanding of physics" that enables someone who is actually dead from "rising from the dead".

So yes, it is a contradiction because there has never been a documented case of someone who was actually CLINICALLY DEAD ever coming back to life because brain cells begin to die within 5 minutes of the cessation of blood flow.

 

We were talking about Bible passages that supposedly contradict each other. We (as in you and I) weren't talking about whether the Bible contradicts science. And I'll freely admit that rising from the dead defies all known physics and biology. However, I never claimed that miracles can be scientifically explained. Conversely we don't know everything. We used to think that regular physics is all there is until we discovered quantum physics. The God I believe in doesn't have to follow the laws of the universe to accomplish his goal.

 

In other words it is a contradiction that cannot be explained even by bible apologists.

Got it!

 

It's a contradiction outside of what we were talking about.

 

No, it is a contradiction because it contradicts factual reality since no one who is dead can come back to life.

 

You know they found an Egyptian brewery in Israel that is 3500 years old.. Don't you think that contradicts the Bible?

 

How so?

 

Well, Egypt controlled Sinai and Canaan thru the exodus years.

 

And your point?

 

Exodus is a teaching narrative not history.

 

Maccabee said: ↑
Maybe they were at war and in fear of of dying, he made his son co-regent. Or maybe he was in danger of assassination.

It's not a valid explanation. A whole bunch of maybes and a whole lot of nothing.
Personal opinions really don't explain anything except one's thought process.

Discrediting claims of contradictions requires more than a personal opinion.

 

"2. 2 Kings 24:8 says “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.” – 2 Chronicles 36:9 says “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem…”

Because nothing in those verses indicate anything you've tried to explain away. So any explanations, are merely fabrications.

 

Ok, remind me again how the Exodus account conflict with what you said.

 

Since we don't know what happened for sure, the benefit of the doubt goes to the script since it can't object to anything. I gave a plausible explanation as why would someone make someone co regent.

 

And this is where context comes into play.

 

Well, Egypt controlled Sinai and Canaan at the time of the Exodus and the Sinai couldn't support 2 million people and their herds.

 

The second part about the Sinai not able to support 2 million people and their herds can be explained by the fact that they weren't wondering in Sinai for 40 years. They crossed the Gulf of Aqaba and wondered through Arabia for 40 year.s The first part I still don't understand. How would Egypt having control over the Sinai have any bearing on the Exodus account even if the Children of Israel was wondering in Sinai?

 

LOLOL.. Arabia couldn't support 2 million Israelites and their herds either.

 

First of all, do you have evidence? Secondly, you're assuming Arabia was a desolate as it is today. BTW there are 32 million people living in the area today.

 

The population of the whole of KSA was about a million. The climate in KSA hasn't changed in 10,000 years.

32 million is about right .. but in the 1930s they didn't even have roads.

 

Keep in mind, God miraculously provided for them by raining manna and providing quail. So even if the dessert couldn't provide for them, the Bible never claimed the dessert did.

 

LOLOL.. They had their herds and could burn dried dung for fuel.. Why weren't these nitwits eating lamb?

 

I don't know if they were or not but my guess is they needed to save them for sacrifices and when they enter the land, have enough to start a living.