Comments on O'Reilly 12/20/13

Place for comments, discussions, and debate on topics raised during Bernie's TV segments.

Re: Comments on O'Reilly 12/20/13

Unread postby lafaverp » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:40 pm

Your comments about Phil Robertson and the Bible demonstrated one thing quite clearly -- the same arrogant, elitist attitude that you accuse the left of against Conservatives, is the very same attitude you displayed when condemning as "ignorant" those who hold the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Your utter disdain for the Scriptures and those who believe them quite literally took my breath away. I have never watched an episode of Duck Dynasty but your comments provoked me to watch the 2010 message that Phil Robertson gave at the Berean Bible Church in Pennsylvania. The message was Bible centered, clearly articulated and extremely cogent. Be certain Mr. Goldberg, your pride will be your fall.
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:01 pm

Re: Comments on O'Reilly 12/20/13



Re: Comments on O'Reilly 12/20/13

Unread postby kjs27 » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:51 pm

Bernie...I am a Bible believer.....not sure how old the earth is but believe it is relatively younger than most secularist scientist believe. However for you to state as fact that the earth is billions of years old was shocking. The earths age is still a theory...not a proven fact. First time was taken back by you....

BTW Phil had every right to state his views.....A&E has every right to drop him......and Duck Dynasty has every right to get their show on the air somewhere else. Glaad has every right to protest....Christians/supporters every right to back him.....whats the issue?!
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Comments on O'Reilly 12/20/13

Unread postby usedtoenjoybernie » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:57 pm


You're eerily quiet...
Please defend yourself. You're making us think you're disengaged, disconnected, and don't care... oh wait...
Bernie.jpg (80.17 KiB) Viewed 1716 times
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:38 am

Re: Comments on O'Reilly 12/20/13

Unread postby ferret » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:04 pm

So I can't tell you how much I appreciate you being straight-forward with your own thoughts. Just good to keep in mind they
are yours and only yours. When on a national cable platform and to say you really don't care if its in the bible or not, and you started
to say 'look, there are alot of things in the bible...." then you shifted gears to another, Bernie, friend, you
had to know the emails were coming. :) hehe. Hopefully, this one surprises you a bit and here's why....

a) there have been many historians, archaeologists, 'scientists', and others who were 'certain' of biblical inaccuracies (Hittites,
census taking, etc etc etc) only to find they were silenced by the physical evidence...over time (which, immeasurable and unknown and past time, by the
way, is the only true friend those demand an old earth possess - explained later), and by such meaning known time is the biblical account's best
friend. KNOWN time has proven both the bible's internal and external validity...of course and math..math is the Bible's best friend, but, very
unfriendly to our old earth and macro-evolutionists friends.
b) I like 'weight of the evidence' thinking. While I like you, and many of your points, I don't trust you as much as I trust the
weight of evidence and history. The history of Judeo-Christian literary and community and evidentiary tenets weighs so much more heavily than you,
or the modern thinkers which you jump ship for re: "timelines".
c) Time...if macro-evolutionists (not micro) don't have a wild set of nebulous calculations and theories regarding time...they are limping to the table.
Without a truly knowable past beyond known recorded histories - it's a huge the most sincere of 'scientists'. Unfortunately, we have
let them convince us of things they call 'facts'. But the 'facts' don't play nearly as well as they would like. Makes for great stories, intriguing
books and movies, fanciful thinking...but simply doesn't work too well with math and what we KNOW thru observation without speculation.
d) if they can't have billions of years to work with, their model will not work. yet, for me, with a much younger work, I have no problems whatsoever
with math and known/observed history (so long as I don't give into theories).

Easy on to start with: Help me understand the math of human population based on known history and compare that against the old earth theory?

Let's just start there. Run some numbers and let me know. Without a catastrophic collapse but of a few humans in relatively modern history, the populations expansion numbers to date make no sense with an old earth. Hmmmm? That's an easy one. Let me know how you handle that one as a start. Thanks
And keep up the great work on TV with thought, I do love it.

Steve Faris
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:35 pm


Return to On TV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest