Believe the Bible - bend the Bible - deny the Bible... pick one

[Extraneous]

Then prove it instead of making blanket accusations. You did use Wiki, because it is literally the only source that uses your numbers, based on a Pew survey that the Pew forum said was problematic.

Like it matters. The point is that there are 900 million protestants that dont submit to your make believe authority. Thats the point.

 

[sculleywr]

Like it matters. The point is that there are 900 million protestants that dont submit to your make believe authority. Thats the point.

Numbers that are inflated with both duplicate and even DEAD members.

 

[sculleywr]

Like it matters. The point is that there are 900 million protestants that dont submit to your make believe authority. Thats the point.

And it does not matter what you personally think, because NUMBERS DON'T DETERMINE TRUTH, especially when those numbers can't even agree with each other.

 

[Extraneous]

We don't have a Pope. So you're bringing up problems that aren't even problems for us because you don't actually understand what you're talking about.

1. Sunday was a holy day because a certain Christ decided that He was bored of being dead and destroyed death. The early Christians, and the Orthodox, where able, worshiped on EVERY day on the week.

2. Praying to saints is done in your life every time you make a prayer request. That is what praying to the saints is. It is no different.

And if the Church fell into Apostasy, then Christ is a liar and I have no reason to believe Him, because the gates of hell prevailed.

No pope? Are you now saying that your massive Orthodox numbers dont include RC? If so then surely you are in error concerning orthodox numbers. There are 900 million Protestants, over a billion Catholics, and if you claim there are more orthodox than Protestants, without counting RC, then that would mean there are at least 3 billion Christians in the world, but we know there are only 2 billion, so you are not using correct data, you are twisting the data, and i'll give you enough credit ti say that you are just ignorant rather than being dishonest.

Anyway, you can have the last word, im tired of talking to you. The arrogance and denial of your Church makes me ill. You assert false EO and RC authority, you also deny that Christ alone, using the words of the apostles (scripture) can teach people, and you just make me ill.

 

[sculleywr]

No pope? Are you now saying that your massive Orthodox numbers dont include RC? If so then surely you are in error concerning orthodox numbers. There are 900 million Protestants, over a billion Catholics, and if you claim there are more orthodox than Protestants, without counting RC, then that would mean there are at least 3 billion Christians in the world, but we know there are only 2 billion, so you are not using correct data, you are twisting the data, and i'll give you enough credit ti say that you are just ignorant rather than being dishonest.

Anyway, you can have the last word, im tired of talking to you. The arrogance and denial of your Church makes me ill. You assert false EO and RC authority, you also deny that Christ alone, using the words of the apostles (scripture) can teach people, and you just make me ill.

your obsession with numbers is hilarious. I guess you believe Islam is better than your personal denomination.

Now please, stop red herring.

 

[Extraneous]

By THE WAY @sculleywr

Here is a number you may want to remember-

Your numbers are totally bogus, you asserted that my figure of 200-300 million Orthodox worldwide, didnt even account for the total Orthodox in Russia? Here is the population of Russia: Russia only has 140 million citizens, so how could there be more than 200 or 300 million orthodox in Russia? there is only 140 million total citizens is Russia.

Are you serious?

 

[Extraneous]

your obsession with numbers is hilarious. I guess you believe Islam is better than your personal denomination.

Now please, stop red herring.

Your math skills are far more hilarious.

 

[BobRyan]

The unbiased observer sees you decide that your opinion is the most valid, despite the fact that you repeat old and refuted statements.

well .. "not in real life" -- in real life irrefutable statements (some of them in the OP and the 2nd post of this thread) do not "vanish" each time someone fails to refute them. So then an ad hominem post is supposed to "Substitute" for actual fact I suppose based on what you are saying.

I "differ" with that kind of "solution".

 

[sculleywr]

Your math skills are far more hilarious.

And far more irrelevant to this topic than the content of what it means to accept the Bible as it is given.

 

[sculleywr]

well .. "not in real life" -- in real life irrefutable statements (some of them in the OP and the 2nd post of this thread) do not "vanish" each time someone fails to refute them. So then an ad hominem post is supposed to "Substitute" for actual fact I suppose based on what you are saying.

I "differ" with that kind of "solution".

The existence of the statement does not make them irrefutable. It is not an ad hominem to say that you are accusing anyone who differs with your opinion, which account for the vast majority of Christians, as some here seem to fixate on, of twisting the Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Exhorting one another to be divided over politics, economics, patriotism, war and science. Thats what the Church exhorts nowadays. There is no more teaching that our citizenship is in heaven. They lead in these things by example are are too blind to see what is sound doctrine. No thanks, i'll follow Pauls example brother. Scripture will be my exhortation.

Well I am not arguing for politics - I am pointing out that the Bible tells us these NT apostles were having to deal with divisive doctrinal issues.

 

[BobRyan]

The existence of the statement does not make them irrefutable.

I never claim that by their "existence" they are irrefutable. I claim that such ad hominem retorts as you rely on - instead of addressing the substance of the thread in the OP and the 2nd post - is a great example of details in the actual subject that are so "irrefutable" that the only thing left is 'ad hominem' and complaining that the 'details exist'.

In your initial post - you offer no substantive fact to refute the details other than your personal preference that those details not be posted - not exist.

Very telling.

 

[BobRyan]

And far more irrelevant to this topic than the content of what it means to accept the Bible as it is given.

If you are saying that you are almost-ready to address the actual subject of the OP or the 2nd post that follows - then welcome.

 

[sculleywr]

I never claim that by their "existence" they are irrefutable. I claim that such ad hominem retorts as you rely on - instead of addressing the substance of the thread in the OP and the 2nd post - is a great example of details in the actual subject that are so "irrefutable" that the only thing left is 'ad hominem' and complaining that the 'details exist'.

In your initial post - you offer no substantive fact to refute the details other than your personal preference that those details not be posted - not exist.

Very telling.

And you have not successfully defended those statements in any way, nor have you made a real argument to me without copy and pasting your tired diatribe.

 

[sculleywr]

If you are saying that you are almost-ready to address the actual subject of the OP or the 2nd post that follows - then welcome.

Well, my first post here addressed the fact that many people decide they do not want to accept James at face value, but instead decide to denigrate his epistle by changing it.

 

[BobRyan]

No, thats a conclusion that you invented. Life comes from Life.

So then you think that observable science supports the idea that "a single celled animal (Amoeba) - will sure-enough turn into a horse over time, given a sufficiently talented amoeba - and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories""?? Is that your faith-based claim?

I have said celestial beings planted the primitive life forms in shallow briny seas .

Then is it also your "faith alone" claim that Genesis 1 says that or that Exodus 20:11 "legal code" says that??

Or do you simply make that up and declare that the Bible writers did not know what you know - but were trying to say whatever you claim as best they could?

* The Amoeba of today represent the lines that did not mutate into higher, more complex forms.

I already covered that in the " single celled animal " and also in the "given a sufficiently talented amoeba"

* The authors of Genesis didn't know any better.

Didn't know any better than to ?? contradict one of the stories you told?
Didn't know any better "than what"? than "do do what"??

They were writing a pseudo-biographical account for the common Israelite audience.

What was the intended meaning of the author and the intention of that author for his contemporary reader?

I.E. "What does the text say"??

Is it your claim that the text actually does contradict your stories?? (I believe that is your claim -- but I give you the floor so you can remove-all-doubt )

* In Mesopotamia there were many oral traditions that contained fragments of the Past.

True all over the world.

The existence of "stories" and your own ability to spin a story is not being doubted at all.

But when you claim to give the eye-witness reporter-on-the street account of the Bible being written --well that is more grandiose story-telling.

The story of Adam and Eve as it had survived was important, so the Hebrews tried to trace their blood lines

Sadly that is "another story" piled on top of "story" --- the question for you is whether you are claiming that the Bible is simply not true - or do you claim that the Bible is trying to tell one of your own stories and just not doing well at it?

* The authors of Genesis didn't know how old the earth was or how old man was, they assumed Adam was the first. They were religious men not historians or scientist.

If as you say - their source of 'information' was nothing more than their own tribal "assumptions" then the book is worthless except as an indicator of just how primative they were.

Is this your point??

Is this where blind faith in evolutionism has lead you?

Were you ever a Christian at one time??

At this point - I am curious to know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well, my first post here addressed the fact that many people decide they do not want to accept James at face value, but instead decide to denigrate his epistle by changing it.

I stand corrected. You had in fact 3 on-topic post prior to this one ---
Monday at 2:30 PM #41

But that one was the first I saw at the time.

None of those first three posts of yours -- attempt to refute any detail in the OP or the second post to it -- unless you want to complain about testing doctrine by the Bible.

 

[sculleywr]

I stand corrected. You had in fact 3 on-topic post prior to this one ---
Monday at 2:30 PM #41

But that one was the first I saw at the time.

None of those first three posts of yours -- attempt to refute any detail in the OP or the second post to it -- unless you want to complain about testing doctrine by the Bible.

Because the topic is whether other people twist the Bible. Your accusation is that people that do not hold your view will willingly admit to bending the Bible, despite the fact that absolutely nobody here will admit that.

 

[tickingclocker]

Then let's start by "Believing God" when He speaks about it. Particularly when it is in the form of "LEGAL CODE" where everyone on the planet agrees that such code is not intended by the author to be taken as parable, not myth, not fiction - but real.

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

SDA-speak: nice for them, but my automatic biting mechanism has been permanently dismantled. I've seen what happens to people in churches which have their own special code/language/definitions. Whether it was six days, six thousand years, or six eons, the knowledge could never lessen my awe for my Father in Heaven. If I haven't inserted my own beliefs into that mystery so far, please try to understand I see no need to with yours. Some people need to have answers. Liberty in Christ frightens them. I really do understand, and I don't judge you for it. God made us all different! So, thanks for your concern just the same, Bob, but I'm all set in waiting for heaven to find out if human language got God's timetable right. You go ahead and have a grand time with knowing what you know. Jesus is Lord. We both know that.

 

[BobRyan]

Only God knows the mysterious details of His creation perfectly.

Then let's start by "Believing God" when He speaks about it. Particularly when it is in the form of "LEGAL CODE" where everyone on the planet agrees that such code is not intended by the author to be taken as parable, not myth, not fiction - but real.

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

SDA-speak: nice for them, but my automatic biting mechanism has been permanently dismantled. I've seen what happens to people in churches which have their own special code/language/definitions. Whether it was six days, six thousand years, or six eons, the knowledge could never lessen my awe

The texts quote above were not about "lessening awe" - they are about objective fact. What does the text say?

The reason for pointing to "legal code" is that it is difficult to 'Bend legal code into fiction and mythology" - legal code is pretty much limited to "fact" so then "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made" - puts the creation week into a literal six day context -- irrefutably.

If I haven't inserted my own beliefs into that mystery so far, please try to understand I see no need to with yours.

Indeed - but I am not proposing to you that I wrote Exodus 20:11 or any part of the TEN Commandments. Rather I am asking about the "objective fact" - regarding what God said in Exodus 20:11 regarding the Genesis 1 time line.

There are a great many ways to avoid the details - I never challenge this existence of such preferences.

I am asking the question for those who care what the Bible actually says.