[GodIsWinning]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

This 'Space Adventures' scam is run by an atheist Mexican. He took your friend's money to wobble you about and show you videos through your window. There is no trickery too low for scum like this.

Repent thy foolish mistake and declare the REAL TRUTH to one and all. Remember Proverbs 14:15

[True Disciple]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

Are you suggesting that the ocean is above the land, Brother, instead of below it?

No. That's what the round earth cosmology claims, which you defend.

The waters of space were dumped onto the Earth during the Flood.

There is no reason to suppose that all of the waters went onto the Earth then. Why don't you back statements like this up with Scripture?

Actually, it said the tree was "in the midst" of the Earth.

Why could the tree not have been at the center of the Earth, from which one could in fact (with Godly Vision vision) see every point on the surface?

Because the Verse also said that the sight only reached the end of the Earth after the tree "grew" and reached unto Heaven. Read the Passage again:

Daniel 4:10-11:
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Only when the tree reached Heaven, the sight thereof reached the ends of the Earth. That's what Scripture says, Reverend. Why are you ignoring this?

By which I assume you mean Daniel's dream. And there's no reason to suppose it was anything but a metaphor for God to convey a message, as in the other visions I have listed.

Reverend, now you're talking like a fluffy-bunny false christian. What happened to "always taking the Bible literally, except when other Verses imply or demand a metaphorical interpretation?"

That the vision of Daniel conveyed a Message, does not mean that, when it describes the Earth, then that Earth is some "other" Earth than the real Earth.

And if you were high enough, you could well see China and Rome, as I've already said. Assuming you had Godly vision.

I have disproved your point about Godly Vision already. Why are you repeating yourself? 1, Jesus didn't look Himself, but Satan showed Him the kingdoms of the earth, and 2, with Godly Vision, the whole going-up-to-the-mountain part makes no sense anymore.

If that's what you call "glorious", I guess we have different standards, Brother.

Satan showed Jesus all the Kingdoms, and their glory. Of course, if there was no glory, Satan wouldn't be able to show it, but He would have shown Jesus the kingdoms nevertheless. Again, that's what the Passage says.

Why are you, Brother? How glorious are maggot-eating Aborigines? Even Satan wouldn't try to tempt Jesus with that!

This is a very weak cop-out. I have proven with the Bible that even the feeblest of chieftains are considered to be kings. I said nothing about them being glorious in any way. Why do you respond to an argument that is founded in the Bible with ridicule?

And "Satan wouldn't tempt Jesus with that?" How comes you know Satan so well, Reverend?

The devil is, however, an angel. Angels have powers far beyond those of humans. They are immortal, they can change shape, and move from place to place in an instant. We do not know by what means Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms.

We do not know how Satan showed Jesus these kingdoms, and as there is no clue whatsoever in the Bible regarding Satan's method here, we stick by the most literal one, as we should always do: Satan made Jesus see them with His Eyes, which is the most literal meaning of "to show."

Why do you think God required Moses to come up a mountain to commune with Him? So Moses could see farther, with his mere-human eyes?

No. Because God was up that mountain, of course. If you want to know why anyone in the Bible goes up a mountain, the context is the place to look. In Moses' case, it was to receive the Law from God. In Satan's case, it was to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world.

A private place, away from all the humans, Brother.

Of course not. They would have gone into the desert if that was the motivation. The Bible doesn't say: "And Satan took Him up a mountain to enjoy a private moment with Him," and I'm somewhat bemused that you even suggest such a thing.

stretch it farther, Brother. If the "ends of the Earth" is metaphorical, then it's still metaphorical.

Yes, but it's not metaphorical. It seems you are deliberately avoiding my arguments, Reverend.

We've already established that up and down are relative.

No, we didn't. Because they aren't.

And God certainly could shake people off of the planet if He so desired. Why do you doubt His abilities?

I do not. Again, you misquote me. I said that the whole concept of presenting the ends of the Earth as handles in order to shake people out of the earth doesn't make sense if these "ends" are metaphorical. Are you suggesting that God would be so stupid as to be trying to look for handles on a round ball?

How exactly would He shake them off the Earth if there were a solid dome above it? They'd hit the dome, and then slide back to Earth. Like the flakes in a snow globe.

Where in the Bible does it say that it didn't happen that way?

Additionally, While there is a solid dome above the Earth, it is by no means established that the ends of the Earth are connected to this dome. After all, the sun has to go down, and has to pass in between them. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to turn the Earth on its head while keeping it within the dome.

Except there is a maximum you can go east until you are an equal distance west of your starting point. I'm sorry this is so complicated for you, Brother. Did you go to public school?

Reverend, are you serious? This is the point I've been making all along: In a round earth cosmology, the "furthest" point east is the same as the "furthest" point west (on both of these points, of course, you can still go further, because there would be no absolute east or west), which contradicts Psalm 103:12, which says that these points are not the same. Ergo, the round earth cosmology is wrong, and the Earth is flat. Did you even go to any school at all?

So what is it you believe the pillars rest upon, Brother, if not rock?

I have no idea, of course. God doesn't say that in the Bible. However, we know that the pillars aren't resting on the Earth, while stalactites are.

Then you are forced to believe that the Bible is contradictory, and that the Earth is both square, with corners, and circular . . . by definition, without corners.

I am disappointed in your lack of faith, Reverend. Surely, God can do anything, including creating a square circle? What "definition" could ever trump God's Power?

Why do you insist that the Bible is contradictory, Brother?

I don't. It is because of your own lack of faith that it may seem so, but the Bible is internally fully consistent.

And upon what do your pillars rest?

Again, I don't know, but not on the Earth.

If it is possible to turn the (flat) Earth over, which according to you is spread above water and supported on pillars, wouldn't that effectively flood the entire planet and drown the entire population . . . which God promised never to do again?

Are you calling God a liar, Brother? This is very disturbing.

Reverend, please don't lose your head. God might as well lift the Earth into the air above the waters. Isaiah 24:1 nowhere implies that God would have dropped the Earth into the waters.

Yet according to you, He would choose to describe it in His Word as being both square and circular. Why would that be? Again, are you calling God a liar?

No, Reverend, you are, with your consistent unbiblical claims of a round earth, and your open doubts about the capability of God to make square circles, solely because Satan apparently had a very easy job in deceiving you.

Insisting that you have proven yourself right when you have been refudiated is proof of nothing. Who are you, Obama?

This is beyond childish, Reverend. I have provided Scripturally Sound rebukes to your allegations, most of which you tried to shunt by changing the topic from the Verse in question into trifling details, repeating yourself over and over again without discussing what the Bible literally says, and ridiculing the things I (and the Bible) said.

If you went on the flight, you could make a video proving me wrong.

Unlike you, I believe in the Bible, and therefore, I need no video to convince me of anything.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

No. That's what the round earth cosmology claims, which you defend.

No, it does not suggest that the ocean is above the land. I'm sorry you cannot comprehend this. The ocean is clearly lower than the land. Water runs downhill.

There is no reason to suppose that all of the waters went onto the Earth then. Why don't you back statements like this up with Scripture?

There is no reason not to suppose it.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

I wouldn't think I would have to explain the Flood to you, Brother.

Because the Verse also said that the sight only reached the end of the Earth after the tree "grew" and reached unto Heaven. Read the Passage again:

Daniel 4:10-11:
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Only when the tree reached Heaven, the sight thereof reached the ends of the Earth. That's what Scripture says, Reverend. Why are you ignoring this?

Metaphorical tree. Did you bother to read the rest of Daniel 4? Daniel explains that the tree is Nebuchadnezzar himself:

22It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

Now, here we see the use of metaphor in the explanation. Or do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion extended to Heaven?

R

everend, now you're talking like a fluffy-bunny false christian. What happened to "always taking the Bible literally, except when other Verses imply or demand a metaphorical interpretation?"

As I just explained above, the verse you are quoting IS metaphorical, as Daniel explained.

Do you presume to know better than Daniel?

I have disproved your point about Godly Vision already. Why are you repeating yourself? 1, Jesus didn't look Himself, but Satan showed Him the kingdoms of the earth, and 2, with Godly Vision, the whole going-up-to-the-mountain part makes no sense anymore.

Moses up to the mountain to meet God. You ignored this.

Satan showed Jesus all the Kingdoms, and their glory. Of course, if there was no glory, Satan wouldn't be able to show it, but He would have shown Jesus the kingdoms nevertheless. Again, that's what the Passage says.

Godly and/or Angelic vision. Point?

This is a very weak cop-out. I have proven with the Bible that even the feeblest of chieftains are considered to be kings. I said nothing about them being glorious in any way. Why do you respond to an argument that is founded in the Bible with ridicule?

The kingdoms and the glory thereof.

And "Satan wouldn't tempt Jesus with that?" How comes you know Satan so well, Reverend?

Perhaps it would have been better phrased, "Jesus would not be tempted by that."

We do not know how Satan showed Jesus these kingdoms, and as there is no clue whatsoever in the Bible regarding Satan's method here, we stick by the most literal one, as we should always do: Satan made Jesus see them with His Eyes, which is the most literal meaning of "to show."

And according to you, Satan could not have seen these great distances, even though Jesus could. So, how could Satan have shown Jesus anything, if Satan could not see great distances?

No. Because God was up that mountain, of course. If you want to know why anyone in the Bible goes up a mountain, the context is the place to look. In Moses' case, it was to receive the Law from God. In Satan's case, it was to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world.

You insisted that Satan had to bring Jesus up to a tall mountain so He could see something. For what purpose would Moses have to go up a mountain, instead of into the desert?

I do not. Again, you misquote me. I said that the whole concept of presenting the ends of the Earth as handles in order to shake people out of the earth doesn't make sense if these "ends" are metaphorical. Are you suggesting that God would be so stupid as to be trying to look for handles on a round ball?

If the poles are the ends (which are frozen wastelands), He could easily grasp the poles without squashing anybody other than a few penguins.

Additionally, While there is a solid dome above the Earth, it is by no means established that the ends of the Earth are connected to this dome. After all, the sun has to go down, and has to pass in between them. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to turn the Earth on its head while keeping it within the dome.

Really? But the water is below the flat Earth, remember?

Reverend, are you serious? This is the point I've been making all along: In a round earth cosmology, the "furthest" point east is the same as the "furthest" point west (on both of these points, of course, you can still go further, because there would be no absolute east or west), which contradicts Psalm 103:12, which says that these points are not the same. Ergo, the round earth cosmology is wrong, and the Earth is flat. Did you even go to any school at all?

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is inadequate.

As I said, there is a point farthest east from a starting point before you are equally far west. As you go around a globe to the east, you can travel just short of halfway before you are farther east than you are west from your point of origination.

If you travel exactly 1/4 of the way east, and your friend travels exactly 1/4 of the way west, from the same point of origination, then your eastern location is the maximum possible distance from his western location.

I have no idea, of course. God doesn't say that in the Bible. However, we know that the pillars aren't resting on the Earth, while stalactites are.

How do you know that the rocks upon which the stalactites rest are part of the Earth?

I am disappointed in your lack of faith, Reverend. Surely, God can do anything, including creating a square circle? What "definition" could ever trump God's Power?

Yet you think He can't see all the kingdoms of the world if the world isn't flat?

I don't. It is because of your own lack of faith that it may seem so, but the Bible is internally fully consistent.

I agree that the Bible is fully consistent. You claim that the Bible describes the Earth as both a square and a circle. It cannot be both. Therefore, since you refuse to accept that the "corners" are as metaphorical as Nebuchadnezzar's dream tree, WHICH REPRESENTED NEBUCHADNEZZAR, you insist that the Bible is contradictory to itself.

Reverend, please don't lose your head. God might as well lift the Earth into the air above the waters. Isaiah 24:1 nowhere implies that God would have dropped the Earth into the waters.

And what, hold it there forever?

This is beyond childish, Reverend. I have provided Scripturally Sound rebukes to your allegations, most of which you tried to shunt by changing the topic from the Verse in question into trifling details, repeating yourself over and over again without discussing what the Bible literally says, and ridiculing the things I (and the Bible) said.

Are you certain you aren't Catholic, Brother? After all, you ignored the Scripture in Daniel 4, in which Daniel explained to Nebuchadnezzar that THE TREE WAS REPRESENTING NEBUCHADNEZZAR and thus not a real tree.

Know who else ignores Scripture, Brother? Catholics.

Unlike you, I believe in the Bible, and therefore, I need no video to convince me of anything.

Apparently, you do not believe in the Bible. You say it is contradictory.

[Mister E]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

I am glad to see that not only have you witnessed this firsthand, but that you have scripture to explain your findings.

I know this may be difficult for some to see the light of, but if we all go back and re-read the Bible from cover to cover, I think the answer may be found.

Ready, set, go!

[True Disciple]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

No, it does not suggest that the ocean is above the land. I'm sorry you cannot comprehend this. The ocean is clearly lower than the land. Water runs downhill.

And what, in your worldview, is below the ocean? Right, the seafloor. Which is a part of earth. So, the ocean is higher than the earth in your worldview. Which was my point all along.

There is no reason not to suppose it.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

I wouldn't think I would have to explain the Flood to you, Brother.

Nonsense. If the Bible doesn't say they were emptied, they weren't, unless another part of the Bible requires it. The Bible didn't say either that Jesus took part in horse racing. Should we therefore suppose that He did? Of course not.

Metaphorical tree. Did you bother to read the rest of Daniel 4? Daniel explains that the tree is Nebuchadnezzar himself:

As I explained, it doesn't matter that the tree is metaphorical, as long as it is presented as a thing that, when it grows to full height, is able to see to the ends of the Earth, which requires a flat Earth.
Again (and again and again), it is not the reality of the tree that is important here, but the reality of the Earth, and as there is no reason to suppose that the Earth in this vision was any other Earth than the real Earth, it is ridiculous to assume that it wasn't. Especially if the only reason to do so is to salvage your round-earth worldviews.

22It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

Now, here we see the use of metaphor in the explanation. Or do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion extended to Heaven?

Don't you? If the Bible says Nebuchadnezzar's greatness (not his dominion, again, read the Scripture you quote) reached into Heaven, who are you to dispute that?

And anyway, there is still no reason whatsoever that the Earth he saw in the dream as being flat was any other Earth than the real Earth.

As I just explained above, the verse you are quoting IS metaphorical, as Daniel explained.

Do you presume to know better than Daniel?

Are you still deliberately misunderstanding me? The Earth in Daniel's dream wasn't metaphorical, as there is no Verse in the entire chapter that implies that.

Moses up to the mountain to meet God. You ignored this.

I didn't. Now don't attempt to bear false witness against me, Reverend. I explained why Moses went up the mountain.

Godly and/or Angelic vision. Point?

Shown by Satan? Needlessly on top of a mountain?

Of course, the main point is that the Bible doesn't say anywhere that what Satan showed Jesus was an angelic vision of some kind. Again, a True Christian™ should always go with the literal meaning of the Text, unless the Bible Itself says otherwise. And the literal meaning of the verb "to show" is to make someone see something.
As the normal way of seeing is using your eyes, this is the most literal meaning of this Verse. The only reason you have to impose your definitely less literal meaning upon this Verse is to rescue your round-earth worldview. There is no Biblical argument whatsoever that supports your interpretation.

The kingdoms and the glory thereof.

Which is something entirely different than: "only the glorious kingdoms." All kingdoms, the Bible says, and all glory of those kingdoms.

Perhaps it would have been better phrased, "Jesus would not be tempted by that."

He wasn't tempted by this either, so this argument doesn't make much sense.

And according to you, Satan could not have seen these great distances, even though Jesus could. So, how could Satan have shown Jesus anything, if Satan could not see great distances?

You are, again, misunderstanding me. I said that there is no reason to suppose Satan could see those distances if the Earth was round. If the Earth is flat, however, Satan can, as you can look from one end to the other end of the Earth from a high mountain.

You insisted that Satan had to bring Jesus up to a tall mountain so He could see something. For what purpose would Moses have to go up a mountain, instead of into the desert?

God was up that mountain, why He was there? We can't really say. We only know that it was for that reason that Moses went up there. Possibly because His Cloud was better visible for the people then.

If the poles are the ends (which are frozen wastelands), He could easily grasp the poles without squashing anybody other than a few penguins.

Isn't the North Pole supposed to be a frozen sea? How can a topographical depression function as a handle?

Really? But the water is below the flat Earth, remember?

So? God lifts the Earth from its pillars and out of the water, and held it upside down. Where's the problem there?

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is inadequate.

As I said, there is a point farthest east from a starting point before you are equally far west. As you go around a globe to the east, you can travel just short of halfway before you are farther east than you are west from your point of origination.

If you travel exactly 1/4 of the way east, and your friend travels exactly 1/4 of the way west, from the same point of origination, then your eastern location is the maximum possible distance from his western location.

Yes, but those points are not the "far east" and "far west" as you could still go further east and west respectively. As soon as you would reach one of those points, you could still go further. You would then go round and round, because, again, there is no absolute furthest point. And Scripture speaks here of "the east" and "the west" as fixed points, Reverend.

Another Scripture Passage that illustrates this:

Mark 13:27:
And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Here, the Bible describes the four winds as equal locations. This is consistent with a Flat Earth worldview, which includes an absolute north, west, east and south. It is inconsistent, however, with a round-earth worldview, which only includes an absolute north and south.

How do you know that the rocks upon which the stalactites rest are part of the Earth?

The image you posted before shows an Earth that is Earth all down to its core:



So according to this image you posted before, stalactites rest on Earth.

Also, we can find stalactites near the surface of the Earth high in the mountains, supporting only a few meters of rocks. If the rocks those rested on weren't part of the Earth, then very few things are part of the Earth.

Yet you think He can't see all the kingdoms of the world if the world isn't flat?

I didn't say that, Reverend. Why do you keep distorting my words even after I corrected you on it?

Anyway, do you, or do you not, believe that God can create a flat circle?

I agree that the Bible is fully consistent. You claim that the Bible describes the Earth as both a square and a circle. It cannot be both.

Now you just repeat yourself. Again, why do you think creating a square circle would be too hard for God?

Therefore, since you refuse to accept that the "corners" are as metaphorical as Nebuchadnezzar's dream tree, WHICH REPRESENTED NEBUCHADNEZZAR, you insist that the Bible is contradictory to itself.

And what, hold it there forever?

Umm...maybe just putting it back again, after shaking wicked people out of it?

Are you certain you aren't Catholic, Brother? After all, you ignored the Scripture in Daniel 4, in which Daniel explained to Nebuchadnezzar that THE TREE WAS REPRESENTING NEBUCHADNEZZAR and thus not a real tree.

I didn't ignore that, Reverend, I explained multiple times now that the Earth in Nebuchadnezzar's dream wasn't metaphorical. And it's the Earth we are talking about now, not the tree.

Know who else ignores Scripture, Brother? Catholics.

I know that. That is why all catholics believe in a round earth, like you do.

Apparently, you do not believe in the Bible. You say it is contradictory.

Reverend, this is a little above name-calling at the schoolyard. I have explained how God can created a circular Earth that has corners. Stop ignoring this point, please.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

blah blah blah repeat repeat repeat

Saying the same ridiculous things over and over again, and repeating the same tiresome accusations, only demonstrates that you have nothing to say.

I think I can get a few more flight tickets. Unless, of course, you're afraid to visit "the fundament"!

[Cursed]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

How do you know what you saw wasn't a super high quality satan video? Especially since you wear glasses and can't see too good (Leviticus 21:20).

[True Disciple]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

Saying the same ridiculous things over and over again, and repeating the same tiresome accusations, only demonstrates that you have nothing to say.

In a sense, that is true, Reverend. I have nothing to say. I just let the Bible do the talking.

I think I can get a few more flight tickets. Unless, of course, you're afraid to visit "the fundament"!

You don't have to, Reverend. As a True Christian(tm), I can't let you waste the precious money of your congregation on another ride in a spacecraft simulator, as it could better be spent on worthier things like maintanance of church buildings and homes of Pastors. The only fundament I need is the Bible.

[Minollo]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

Dear Reverend Rodimer,
I feel close to you in this issue. I'm happy that you could see the real shape of the Earth. But let me say, I'm afraid that there is no point in trying to convince your friends, as it feels like talking to a wall.
We cannot gift a suborbital flight to each one of them, and if we could, they would surely say it's something fake we are trying to spread

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

I'm not afraid to go into a sub-orbital flight. My faith is strong. Even if I looked out the window and saw that the Earth was a polyhedron, I would still believe it was flat, because I believe in the Bible no matter what.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

Reports of the flight is true. Here are images of the preperations and take off:
So long, Rodimer!

...and the recovery:

[I-Hate-Juice]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

Why are those homers shooting dildos up in the air

YiC
Paavali

[Booger]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

Just one more proof that the bible contradicts itself

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

Just one more proof that the bible contradicts itself

Nonsense! There are no contradictions in the Bible. I dare you to give one (1) example of contradicting scripture. You will fail at that!

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

[Booger]

Re: Coming soon: Christian proof of the Earth's shape!

[QUOTE=Cranky Old Man;727318]Nonsense! There are no contradictions in the Bible. I dare you to give one (1) example of contradicting scripture. You will fail at that!

ok how about 10?

1
Can god be seen?
No: John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time.
Yes:Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....

2
Where does god dwell?
Zion:Psalm 9:11
The Lord, which dwelleth in Zion.
Heaven:Ecclesiastes 5:2
Let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth.

3
How many animals did Noah put on the ark?
Two:Genesis 6:19
Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark.
Seven:Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.

4
Can god tempt anyone?
No:James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Yes:Genesis 22:1
God did tempt Abraham.

5
How long was the ark afloat?
Seven months:Genesis 8:4
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
Ten months:Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

6
When was eve created?
Same time as adam:Genesis 1:27
God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
After adam and the animals:Genesis 2:20-22
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

7
Did god create evil?
Yes:2 Kings 6:33
Behold, this evil is of the Lord.
No:Psalm 5:4
For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

8
How did david kill goliath?
With a sling:1 Samuel 17:49-50
David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
With a sword:1 Samuel 17:51
David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him,and cut off his head therewith.

9
Who makes people deaf and blind?
God:John 9:1-3
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Foul Spirits:Mark 9:17, 25
And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit. Jesus ... rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

10
Who is to blame for original sin?
Eve:1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Adam:Romans 5:12
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.

11 (One more for goodluck )
How long does god's anger last?
Just a moment:Jeremiah 3:12
I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Forever:Jeremiah 17:4
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.


I could keep going on if you'd like.