Relentless

I am more concerned with the use of the world earth", because aparently when other scriptures say earth, they really mean "known populated geographic area".

Snow? Ideas? Theories? Scholalrly examples as to how I am wrong?

No miracles? Well please explain in a "scholarly way" this. A mother dies (ie is pulseless for 4 minutes) and they remove her baby via cesarian, who is also limp and lifeless. Then both suddenly come back to life. How did this happen? Her doctors don't know, medical experts are stumped, yet it happened. Also, it isn't a theory that the US is south of Canada. Even when considering Barrow Point Alaska (71'23'20 N) it is still further south than Alert, Nunavut (82'28 N). I guess the scholars didn't address that in their last few meetings... So you are saying that Jesus' promise to his disciples was a theoretical paradigm? Interesting. So when Jesus walked on water, and then held Peter's hand and he too walked on water, was it only theoretically happening? Or maybe it was a pattern or model? I guess when Jesus fed thousands with a few fishes and loaves of bread, the people were actually eating theories. Makes sense, in a scholarly sort of way. Also, if your example of a box canyon moving into a sea happened, I am fairly certain I would hear about it before fast and testimony meeting; it would probably be up on youtube, (of course, you scholars don't have need for youtube, do you).

I did, throwing off the natural man (and become an alien)

OMG(oodness) I actually agree with PAM on something sports related. There is only 1 team I hate more than the Chargers, and it's the PATS. of course, I am excited to see the Ravens decimate the Chargers, and I don't think the PATS could if they beat the Ravens...

So how long is a road? Can a tree grow next to a road, yet still be far away enough to be referred to as off in the distance? I might not be up on my Jewish settlement building in Roman areas, but it seems like a road would be long enough to connect different cities, thereby making it feasible that the fig tree was both BY the road and FAR OFF. So did the author of Matthew say it was by the road and at a conveinent distance? As for the timing of the event, in one story we have the disciples discussing it right away with Jesus, in the other it is not discussed until the next day. This hardly seems to show that the withering of the tree was immedeate or not, because Mark only states that the next day the apostles saw it. No where in Mark does it say it took a whole night (or as you inferred, a day). As for the author of Mark, how do you know that he was 3 or 4 times removed from Jesus? I know you say that it is accepted scholarly teachings, but that seems like saying "I don't know, but I am using this hypothesis as a fact" As for your statement "Matthew is RE-telling what he learned from reading Mark and changing the details", I hardly know where to begin. I guess that I will start with your supposition that the Author of Matthew is even further removed from Jesus than the Author of Mark (according to current scholarly HYPOTHESES). Why then would Matthew be reading Mark and retelling a story that he was there to witness? Or did you mean the Author of Matthew was retelling a story that he learned from reading Mark? If that is the case, why did you not state it as such? Of course your origional statement is also a mere theory, not an actual fact (not that this has ever stopped you from presenting theories as fact). We can not know if the Author of Matthew was simply re-telling and changing what he read in Mark, as we weren't there. But go ahead and try to prove that it is not a theory, and is indeed fact. I predict you can't and won't. Do I need to address this again? How do you know? There is no proof, and that is what is required to make a definative statement such as this. You are reading into it. By saying that it was not an immediate event in Mark, you are speaking for Mark. In Mark, Jesus curses the tree, and 7 verses later the following morning the disciples see it has withered. There is no mention of how long it took. So what are you arguing? You have taken your interpretation and are saying it is the correct one. Did I miss something? Has your opinion suddenly become more correct than anyone else's opinion? Or do you suppose your opinion is fact? As for those of us who read english, well, I admit there is a difference, but not a contradiction. So does that mean I can only halfway read english? Also, read down a little bit more, do you think that the disciples could actually LITERALLY move a mountain into the sea by commanding it to do so? If so, then doesn't that lend some sort of credability to the whole world flooding?

On a funny tangent; When I was 14, my scout troop went to a BSA summer camp, and some of the guys in my troop (myself included) formed our own Gadianton Robbers group. We took Colorado Rockies hats and converted the C into a G, then we would run all over the camp playing practical jokes, stealing guideons, engaging in pinecone wars. It was all in fun and games, and it wasn't until much later on in life that I realized just how bad the Gadianton Robbers were.

I miss his "I am right so my opinion is the only one that matters" way of arguing...

Snow? Vort? Buehler? I guess they don't want to debate the wording in the Book of Mormon.

Woo Hoo, another nickname! Sport, I kinda like it, makes me sound athletic and full of spunk. As to your predictions, well, let's address them; So when you said And I refuted it by saying that it makes no sense to asusme that a body of work now attributed to the collective oral storytelling of a people could have met the Savior, but someone who was in the same area around the same time as the Savior could have met Him, yet now it is a moot point not worthy of addressing? Well I am sorry, but I addressed it when you brought it up, but then again, I can't possibly comprehend what makes things "relevant" or irrelevant", now can I? Yes, this discussion is about if the whole world was flooded, or if it was only a localized flood. More recently it was about the authenticity of the lessons / stories in the Bible, because as some have stated So if it is just a bunch of writings from anonymous writers, then how could we EVER believe it? Isn't that your point? To which I brought up the book of Moses, something which you STILL haven't addressed, which leads us to why I brough up Joseph Smith. If you look at the title page of Moses, you will see that it is "An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830—February 1831", so seeing as how you were doubting the truthfullness of claims that the whole earth was flooded BECASUE I told you that Joseph Smith wrote (ie put ink on paper) Moses, and he most certainly HAD met the Savior. Which claim have I not supported? I notice you left that little bit out. Hm, seems like you need some cut and paste lessons. As you have already told me, I am good at it, so unlike you, I do have the time and inclination to teach you. So no need for you to go buy a book! I have done nothing to show you that I understand what a fallacy is? I am sorry, but simply because you do not agreee with me does not mean I lack the understanding. I suppose I could write a paper on the subject for you, but I am kinda busy trying to teach this guy how to cut and paste right now. Maybe you should be honest with yourself, you made a pretty definitive statement when you said .I simply challenged your conclusive assumption. So how am I misstating the claim? it seems pretty open and shut to me, you said NONE OF WHICH EVER MET THE SAVIOR and I said that you can't know that. So because something is a widespread scholarly understanding, it is true? Well thank you for enlightening me yet again. I guess that the Darwinists are indeed correct and evolution is proof that there is no God, because it is widespread SCHOLARLY UNDERSTANDING. Also, is there a form I have to fill out to get more of this "cyber ink"? You tend to use (some people might say waste) a lot, where do you get yours from? Is there a discount for buying in bulk, because I for one couldn't care less about how much "cyber ink" I use.

Don't you mean "Trek across New Zealand"?

Agency. Because we all have the ability to chose our own paths. There are very few instances where Heavenly Father will intervene and take away someone's agency. (Laban for instance) of course, just because we have agency does not mean we are not also accountable for our actions.

Cameron Plans 2 'Avatar' Sequels | The Wrap

Maybe I should have added that my OP was tongue in cheek...

Why is it an automatic turnoff? And seeing the natives with bows and arrows fight the private military that has guns and power armor, really cool.

Personal 30% Economic 90% You are a Conservative Well duh. I have to say, as a current member of the Armed Forces, I think service should be MANDATORY for every male. Serve 2 years, and get 4 years to college for free. You will learn discipline and self control, you learn how to work in a group.

I love those vegetarrian bumper stickers that say "If God didn't want us to eat humans, why are they made out of MEAT". I have always wanted to go up and bite one of the people who sport this bumper sticker, and then when they get mad, say "Hey, I'm only following God's will as you interpet it". On a more serrious note, if we start in 10 and read through 17, 10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man— 11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving. 12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; 13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. 14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; 15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger. 16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— 17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain. So we get wheat, cows get corn, oats go to horses and the birds and pigs get rye, but all useful animals get barley. I guess we have to stop having cornbread, corn on the cob, oatmeal, oatmeal cookies, reuben sandwiches, rye toast etc. So the people like my dad who have celiac sprue are REALLY screwwed, as they are allergic to wheat glutens. Hm, I wonder why rice wasn't mentioned...

I was reading my Book of Mormon today, and ran into an interesting scripture in Helaman, Hel 12:7-17 7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth. 8 For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God. 9 Yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake. 10 And by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley. 11 Yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake; 12 Yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center. 13 Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved. 14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done; 15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun. 16 And behold, also, if he say unto the waters of the great deep—Be thou dried up—it is done. 17 Behold, if he say unto this mountain—Be thou raised up, and come over and fall upon that city, that it be buried up—behold it is done. Now I have read this scripture several times before, but given my recent ENLIGHTENMENT regarding scriptural word context (thanks Snow and Vort), I got to wondering if Nephi had it wrong. Did he mean the whole American Continents would shake? That the whole American Continents would move to make the days longer? So if the Americas moved to lenghten out the days, then what would happen to the rest of the Earth? I mean, these are scriptures from 7BC, so they couldn't have possibly KNOWN about the whole Earth is Round thing, right? They were probablly refrencing a localized area, or their indigenious population that they were familular with, not the WHOLE GLOBAL EARTH as we think of it today. I mean, can we even trust that this is what Nephi said, wasn't the Book of Mormon abridged by Mormon? How do we KNOW that he didn't rewrite the verses and lose the original intent of the scriptures? All I can think of now is, how would the America's move and not the rest of the Earth?

I only realized it was down yesterday, and it made for a VERY LONG workday. But, now I am glad to be back and stirring up trouble...

Well, I don't MEAN to be contentious, it just sorta...happens. It's ok though, because you all HAVE to forgive me 70 times 7 and I think I have only used up 50 or so of those...

So it wasn't garbage? Interesting...

Hmm, i go away for a few days, and when I get back, I am still waiting. I guess I shouldn't be suprised, it must be hard to debate when you are the ONLY ONE smart enough to understand why everyone else is wrong...

And I can see that you are very adept at not answering questions. It's ok, I wouldn't want to address the Joseph Smith point either if my argument was laid to waste by it. Much better to pretend that the one I am debating has yet to fulfill their obligation. As for my understanding of what a fallacy is, I guess I can't prove it to you because you seem to think that only you are smart enough to understand big words. I guess I am just to uneducated, and as you always tell people, you don't have the inclination to educate us. I think the casual reader of this forum would be more inclined to see how stating that BEYOND ANY DOUBT THE ONES WHO PENNED MARK, MATTHEW, GENESIS etc, NEVER MET THE SAVIOR would be an argument based off of faulty logic. But it's ok that you stick to your guns and avoid further debate (quick, tell me that further debate isn't warranted because I "failed" to prove something to you). I hear that's what ALL of the intellectuals are doing these days.

You tell them you are not married to more than one man? Weird...

I have. Did you see the Bronco's record after many "experts" predicted them to have 3-5 wins?