Episode #002 (Meet the TRUTH Group!)

http://www.creationguys.com/episode.php?number=2

In this episode, Jonathan Sampson sits down for a few minutes with Daniel Johnson (The TRUTH Group) to talk about his new DVD.

Subjects covered in this video include "What is the TRUTH Group?", "Where do Dinosaurs fit into The Creation", "Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?", and "Were dinosaurs meat-eaters?".

Post your video response from within the United States stating that you would "Like to 'Reach Understanding Through Him About The Dinosaurs'" and get a free DVD.

First 10 responses qualify. Only YouTube qualifies.

To Learn more about Dan and his Ministry, visit the following pages:

www.thetruthgroup.com
www.youtube.com/theTRUTHgroup
www.myspace.com/planet316

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Creation
• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• Sampson
• Hovind
• Controversy
• Science
• Biology
• Darwin
• ID
• Dinosaurs
• God
• Jesus

[thecreationguys]

Herbie,

I'm still waiting on you to show me where the contradiction is in the text. Please feel free to point it out anytime you find convenient.

Jonathan Sampson of

The Creation Guys

[kut77less]

Both are correct. Note first that the Book of Kings focused more on the kings of the northern kingdom of Israel (I) while the Book of Chronicles (2 Kings 8:23) focused more on the southern kingdom of Judah (J).

When his father king Jehoram (J) died at the age 40 (2 Kings 8:17), Ahaziah was made regent at the age of 22 (2 Kings 8:26), that is, under the supervision of his mother, Athaliah:

[thecreationguys]

We're not talking about History though. You claimed there's a contradiction in the text. I'm claiming there isn't.

Regarding "Of and For," what does the text say?

2 Chr 9:25 "four thousand stalls for horses and chariots"

1 Kng 4:26 "forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots"

The first verse refers to stalls FOR the horses and chariots together, whereas the second refers to the horses, reserved for chariots.

So again I ask you - if you have ten horses per chariot, what's the problem?

[herbiethebarber]

Again, just because you say that something is inaccurate or irrelevant DOES NOT make it so. Historically accuracy can offer CREDIBILITY, a word that I'm sure your not to familiar with. AGAIN! In one post you say "OF Horses" and "For Horses", this is your WHOLE ARGUMENT. Then you change what you said!!! Anyone can easily look at the history of this page, and see that you say this, and now you're changing the words and asking me?? AGAIN! Which usage?! OF AND FOR or FOR AND FOR?!

[thecreationguys]

Historical accuracy is irrelevant here, since we're trying to determine if there is a contradiction in the text or not. Once we determine if the text is contradictory, we can move on to another subject.

40,000 stalls FOR horses, and

4,000 stalls for Horses and Chariots.

10 horses with chariot per stall.

Where is the contradiction in the text? Or do you concede there isn't one?

Jonathan Sampson of

The Creation Guys

[herbiethebarber]

Ok if you simply look back in our THIS comment history. You yourself used OF and FOR. Now you are saying FOR AND FOR. anyone can plainly see that you obviously either got confused or are attempting to use 1 translation now. So before I answer you AGAIN, which is it, OF and FOR or FOR and FOR?

Also, why would there be 10 horses for each chariot? and AGAIN chariots ARE NOT kept in stalls. PERIOD. Show me an account of a 10 horse chariot, also a chariot in a horse stall. ridiculous.

[thecreationguys]

Appealing to other translations is not addressing the issue here. In the King James Bible - the one that I think is most accurate, is there a problem in the wording? No.

40,000 stalls FOR horses, and

4,000 stalls for Horses and Chariots.

10 horses/chariots per stall.

Where is the contradiction in the text? Can you please point it out?

Jonathan Sampson of

The Creation Guys

[herbiethebarber]

Ok first, you're taking OF and FOR from one VERY specific interpration. If you look up the 10 (and of course there are more) different translations, you will find that some have even intentionally changed the wording because it is incorrect. I can see that you will continue to twist this as much as possible. That's why I suggested Ahaziah's age, which you have failed to respond to. You can't twist it. I challenge you to try.

[thecreationguys]

I'm not twisting anything. Based upon what the text says, there's no contradiction. You can argue the historical accuracy of these statements, but the text alone contains no contradiction.

40,000 stalls FOR horses.

4,000 stalls for Horses AND Chariots.

Simple man - 10 horses per stall for chariots.

No contradiction. Please show me where I'm wrong.

Jonathan Sampson of

The Creation Guys

[herbiethebarber]

Ok if you insist. First they don't keep horses attached to chariots in "stalls". Stalls are for "horses" period. Secondly, can you show me an account of a chariot being drawn by 10! horses? Is each man Santa Claus? (lol sorry but it's such an obvious comparison). Again, it doesn't say that. The reason I changed topics is because you obviously will twist this one as much as possible. The other account I gave is NOT twistable. There is no "interpretation" in stating a man's age.