The Bible

Nebuchadnezzar II King from605-662BC, accepted Jerusalem surrender the year 605 when he chased the fleeing Egyptian army, received news about his fathers death before he reached the border of Egypt same year, returned to secure the throne. Deported the jews from Jerusalem to Babylon in 586 BC

Originally posted by eleveninches
Religion is about faith, NOT truth!!!

If you want to have faith in something, then do so, but that is very different from proving that it is true.

But if you can prove something is true, it doesn't require faith to believe it.

You can't scientifically prove that God exists, that the Bible is His Holy Word, etc. That's why you have to have faith in believing that it is true.

Are you sure you and Jackie aren't the same person?

um, no 😕

Are you talking about Jackie Malfoy?

Originally posted by Elastigirl
Wrong, Nebuchadnezzar beseiged Jerusalem for the first time in [B]605 BC, not 597 BC, and not 606 BC. He was king in 605 BC.

605 BC was the 4th year of the reign of Jehoiakim in the Judah calendar. In the Babylonian calender, because of the "ascension year" rule, it only counted as Jehioakim's 3rd year of reign. Daniel used the Babylonian calendar. Therefore, 605 was when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem for the first time.

Jeremiah used the Judah calendar when he says it was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. (see Jeremiah 46:2)

There were 3 total beseiges/attacks by Babylon. 605, 597, and 587/86.

In the 597 B.C. deportation, Jehoiachin, Ezekiel and others were taken away; this deportation is described in 2 Kings 24:14-16. In the 587 B.C. invasion, the city of Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed (2 Kings 25:9-10).

By the way, there are also some Babylonian artifacts/writings that support the 605 seige.

http://www.prophecyupdate.com/daniel_chapter_1.htm [/B]

According to my encyclopedia, "Nebuchadnezzar met and defeated Pharoah at Carchemish in 605 BCE, thus becoming the undisputed master of Western Asia. The sudden death of his father caused Nebuchadnezzar to return home to safeguard his inheritance, permitting Necho to escape to Egypt with part of his army.Three years later (601 BCE), Necho defeated Nebuchadnezzar in battle. This event encouraged the Judaean revolt under Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim died shortly after the Judaean revolt began and was succeeded by his son, Jehoiachin. In March of 597 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar crushed the revolt and carried off the young Jehoiachin and many of his nobles to Babylon."

Are you talking about Jackie Malfoy?

I don't know if this has been said or not (Havnt read the thread)

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

Elastigirl>

Well, then… The Bible, you claim, is fact???
Hmmmm…
Tell me… WHERE was Jesus born?
Who ruled when he was born?
Did Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt or didn’t they?
WHEN was Jesus born – what day?
Did Jesus appear to ten, eleven or twelwe apostles after his ressurection?
Who tempted David to number Israel…
I mean – COME ON…
2 Sam 24:1 "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say,Go number Israel and Judah."
1 Chr 21:1 "And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel."

Which Creation account is correct?
Who was Amasa’s father?
In whose name is baptism to be performed?
Is it OK to curse people?
Is dancing a sin?
Do we have free will???
Dt. 30:19 says “yes” but Acts 13:48, Rom 8:29-30 and 9:11-22 says “no”

References please.

“The problem is in our interpretation.”
Wrong. It’s an easy way out. Maybe the Bible simply contradicts itself, because it is NOT 100 % fact. Is the Earth 6000 years old?

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. Not but it CERTAINLY is not evidence of ANYTHING either. Argumentum ad ignorantiam!

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, he is, as an attempt to insult you. Just ignore him.

Attempt?

😆

I will not dignify that with a response. Except this one. 😆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is impossible for the entire human race to descend from a breeding population of two people. Intergenerational inbreeding would result in haploid nucleotide chains that are too similar to form DNA molecules. After approximately three generations, all offspring would either be unable to reproduce with one another or completely sterile.

you do realize that dog trainers inbreed their dogs for well over 3 generations, don't you? And, couldn't humans have been meant to "inbreed" from the start, then slowly "evolve" as their numbers grew so that they would be quite different from one another?

Originally posted by Kontraz
you do realize that dog trainers inbreed their dogs for well over 3 generations, don't you? And, couldn't humans have been meant to "inbreed" from the start, then slowly "evolve" as their numbers grew so that they would be quite different from one another?

Yeah, and every generation of inbreed dog has more and more problems with genetic defects

to follow your logic we should all be one legged multi eye mutants with a total inability to concieve of the world around us. Also, only humans evolve?

Get real.

you do realize that dog trainers inbreed their dogs for well over 3 generations, don't you

Originally posted by Kontraz
you do realize that dog trainers inbreed their dogs for well over 3 generations, don't you? And, couldn't humans have been meant to "inbreed" from the start, then slowly "evolve" as their numbers grew so that they would be quite different from one another?

Dogs are breed or "caused to reproduce by controlled mating and selection of offspring for desirable traits."

This is not the same as inbreeding or "to breed by the continued mating of closely related individuals."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Dogs are [b]breed or "caused to reproduce by controlled mating and selection of offspring for desirable traits."

This is not the same as inbreeding or "to breed by the continued mating of closely related individuals." [/B]

Babe, you know I love you. But you are also aware of the fact that my aunt breeds beagles. Inbreeding absolutely does occur.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Babe, you know I love you. But you are also aware of the fact that my aunt breeds beagles. Inbreeding absolutely does occur.

This does not negate the fact that it is impossible for the entire breed to descend from a population of two beagles.

Babe, you know I love you. But you are also aware of the fact that my aunt breeds beagles

Yeah I don't know... is that possible? From Adam and Eve to 6 billion people in a few thousand years?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not negate the fact that it is impossible for the entire breed to descend from a population of two beagles.

So emotionless....true, it does not change the fact that dog do not equal people. Two people do not equal six billion. But I think that thats the point of my post...and yours before me....if all of mankind was descended from the same two people we would be genetic abororations.....

even the "evolution of the chosen species" is retarded! I mean, if we all came from the same two people, there would be genetic evidence. If you want to use god as your scapegoat, then any answer is possible