• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Religion fears Science

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,071
7,506
North Carolina
✟343,267.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Did Jesus believe that the earth is flat and covered with a dome?

The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
Where is it stated that the earth is "flat?"

Domes aren't flat, they are curved.

The earth was covered with a "dome" (thick layer) of water, called the firmament, around "the circle (sphere) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22), which firmament came down on Noah.

I suspect he believed Isaiah 40:22.

You, nor anyone else, knows what knowledge the Father, with whom he was in constant communication (John 12:49-50, John 14:10, John 4:24, John 8:28), gave him about creation.

Chutzpah!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,071
7,506
North Carolina
✟343,267.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, it is. That is why I provided a link to the commentary on the Greek text of the Pastoral Epistles by Walter Lock. In his discussion on the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, he presented very numerous Scriptures that cast doubt on the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles; and he also presented very numerous Scriptures that support the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Simply asserting that 2 Timothy came from the pen of the Apostle Paul and therefore has canonical authority is the very antithesis of Walter Lock’s scholarship
So?. . .he's no different than any other commentator who puts his pants on one leg at a time, and who disagrees with him.

So this "author" of 2 Timothy, who in c. 66-67
1) claims to be Paul (1:1)--who was executed in 67 or 68,
2) like Paul who was in prison earlier, now under Nero languishes in a cold dungeon (4:13),
3) chained like a common criminal (1:16, 2:9),
4) his friends having a hard time finding out where he was kept (1:7),
5) who knew his work was done and his life was nearly at an end (4:6-8),
6) who uses the same themes and phrases of the other pastoral letters, Titus and 1 Timothy; i.e.,
God our Savior; soundness of doctrine, faith and speech; godliness; controversies; "here is a trustworthy saying" (a clause found nowhere else in the NT but in Paul's pastoral letters), and
7) who closes the letter with the standard Pauline greeting,

is not Paul?

You're trafficking with the wrong commentators.

Princeton has not served you well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟169,198.00
Faith
Baptist
Where is it stated that the earth is "flat?"


Domes aren't flat, they are curved.

Domes are not used to cover spheres—they are used to cover flat surfaces such as cake plates.

The earth was covered with a "dome" (thick layer) of water, called the firmament, around "the circle (sphere) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22), which firmament came down on Noah.

In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,

The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).​

Furthermore, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of the word רָקִיעַ in Gen. 1:7, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956). Moreover, John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).​

I suspect he believed Isaiah 40:22.

Are we to believe that Jesus was so stupid that He did not know the difference between a circle and a sphere? The Hebrew word חוּג is never used in ancient Hebrew literature to mean a “sphere,” but rather a circle, circuit, arch, vault, or horizon. On page 152 of Vol. 2 of his commentary on the Hebrew Text of Isaiah, Franz Delitzsch writes,

The prophet now proceeds to describe the God whom both His works and word proclaim. The participles which follow are predicates of the subject, which filled the consciousness of the prophet as well as that of every believer. “He who is enthroned above the vault of the earth, and its inhabitants resemble grasshoppers; who has spread out the heavens like gauze, and stretched them out like a tent-roof to dwell in.” He, the manifested and yet unknown, is He who has for His throne the circle of the heavens (chūg shâmayim, Job_22:14), which arches over the earth, and to whom from His inaccessible height men appear as diminutive as grasshoppers (Num_13:33); He who has spread out the blue sky like a thin transparent garment (dōq, a thin fabric, like daq, fine dust, in Isa_40:15), and stretched it out above the earth like a tent for dwelling in ('ōhel lâshebheth). The participle brings to view the actions and circumstances of all times. In the present instance, where it is continued in the historical sense, it is to be resolved into the perfect; in other cases, the preservation of the world is evidently thought of as a creatio continua (see Psychol. P. 111).​

Notice that he correctly translates the word חוּג as “vault.” The Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University, on page 295, gives the following meaning of the word, “vault, horizon; of the heavens and earth,” and cites Job 22:14, Prov. 18:27, and Isa. 40:20 as examples. In Isa. 44:13 we find the related word מְחוּגָה,

Isaiah 44:13. The craftsman stretches out his rule, he marks one out with chalk; he fashions it with a plane, he marks it out with the compass, and makes it like the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the house. (KJV)

You, nor anyone else, knows what knowledge the Father, with whom he was in constant communication (John 12:49-50, John 14:10, John 4:24, John 8:28), gave him about creation.

These verses do not support your assertion.

Chutzpah!

There is nothing more important to me than the truth. Therefore, I have never posted any of my interpretations of Scripture without first ascertaining that my interpretations are in full agreement with the Scriptures in the languages in which God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to give them to us. Furthermore, I have never posted any of my interpretations of Scripture without first ascertaining that my interpretations are in full agreement with the very finest biblical scholarship, and that my interpretations are nothing new, but have been taught throughout the entire history of church. Therefore, I have every reason to be confident in the accuracy of my posts.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,002
2,819
Australia
✟166,475.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did Jesus believe that the earth is flat and covered with a dome?

The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃
1:7 ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃
1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום שׁני׃

The Septuagint also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

Gen 1:6 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.
Gen 1:7 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος, ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος.
Gen 1:8 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα.

The Latin Vulgate also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

6. dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis
7. et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita
8. vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus

The Wycliffe Bible also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

6 And God seide, The firmament be maad in the myddis of watris, and departe watrisfro watris.
7And God made the firmament, and departide the watristhat weren vndurthe firmament fro these watris that weren on the firmament; and it was don so.
8 And God clepide the firmament, heuene. And the euentid and morwetid was maad, the secounde dai.

The best Roman Catholic translation in English (NAB) also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

6. Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened:
7. God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
8. God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed-the second day.

The best Protestant translation in English (NRSV) also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

6. And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

The KJV also correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya‛) as “firmament”, but most modern readers of the KJV are unaware of the meaning of the word and do not realize that it expresses the concept of the strong, solid dome that supported the water above the dome.

If Jesus knew that the earth is spherical, He also knew that the creation story in Genesis is NOT an accurate account of historic events. If Jesus did not know that the earth is spherical, He would have believed that the earth is flat and covered with a solid, supporting structure, that is, a dome!

No where in scripture is the earth described as flat, and certainly not Genesis 1:6-8.

Of course I am aware of what ra·ki·a' means as would be all creationists. To beat, stamp, beat out, spread out רָקִ֖יעַ
This does not define a shape, a balloon is spread out as it inflates, its circular.
The word dome is not in there, that is a mere English translation.

Jesus was both fully God as well as fully human. If you are claiming the words of Jesus are not to be trusted then you have to make that claim for every last one of them.
You don't get to pick and choose. Either his words are completely trustworthy or they are not, no in-between.

>>>If Jesus did not know that the earth is spherical, He would have believed that the earth is flat and covered with a solid, supporting structure, that is, a dome!
Jesus disagrees with you.
John 17:5

5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17:5&version=NIV
John 8:58
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17:5&version=NIV

Jesus knew and believed in the literal creation because that is how creation happened, over 6 literal days. He wasn't mistaken or preaching heresy like others I could mention.
He was man and he was God and every word he spoke is truth.
John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth, and the life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟169,198.00
Faith
Baptist
So?. . .he's no different than any other commentator who puts his pants on one leg at a time, and who disagrees with him.

So this "author" of 2 Timothy, who in c. 66-67
1) claims to be Paul (1:1)--who was executed in 67 or 68,
2) like Paul who was in prison earlier, now under Nero languishes in a cold dungeon (4:13),
3) chained like a common criminal (1:16, 2:9),
4) his friends having a hard time finding out where he was kept (1:7),
5) who knew his work was done and his life was nearly at an end (4:6-8),
6) who uses the same themes and phrases of the other pastoral letters, Titus and 1 Timothy; i.e.,
God our Savior; soundness of doctrine, faith and speech; godliness; controversies; "here is a trustworthy saying" (a clause found nowhere else in the NT but in Paul's pastoral letters), and
7) who closes the letter with the standard Pauline greeting,

is not Paul?

You're trafficking with the wrong commentators.

Princeton has not served you well.

I have here in my study more than 1,100 commentaries on the individual books of the Bible, and on the basis of just one of these commentaries, that you have not read, you are evaluating all 1,100 of them—not to mention my education! If that is not Chutzpah, what is? Or, perhaps there is a more accurate and substantially less complimentary expression for it (I have in mind here a “byproduct” of a certain male in the subfamily Bovinae).

By the way, Walter Lock is the foremost defender of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles!
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,002
2,819
Australia
✟166,475.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All men make mistakes. If Jesus never made a mistake, he was not human and his death on the cross for our sins was of no effect.

Jesus never sinned and never made mistakes about the kingdom of God or in teaching others about God and about the truth.
Did he fall over as a toddler? Of course, did he make a mistake as a boy learning how to be a carpenter? For sure. Completely different things.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,071
7,506
North Carolina
✟343,267.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
All men make mistakes. If Jesus never made a mistake, he was not human and
his death on the cross for our sins was of no effect.
His required perfection as an atoning sacrifice had nothing to do with the necessity of making mistakes.

That's some theological school you attended.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: coffee4u
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟169,198.00
Faith
Baptist
Jesus never sinned and never made mistakes about the kingdom of God or in teaching others about God and about the truth.
Did he fall over as a toddler? Of course, did he make a mistake as a boy learning how to be a carpenter? For sure. Completely different things.

Contrary to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the Bible makes no claim of inerrancy or infallibility in matters of history and science. Furthermore, Jesus himself made no claim of inerrancy or infallibility in matters of history and science. Nonetheless, beginning in the 1950’s, a small group of radicalized Christian Fundamentalists began holding Jesus and the Bible up to a standard that is not supported by easily observed facts. When it was proven that the Bible is not either inerrant or infallible in matters of history and science, these radicalized Christian Fundamentalists began to very aggressively defend their absurd teaching through outrageous lies and distortions of the truth, and the more that they were proven wrong, the more they dug in—publishing tracts, pamphlets, entire volumes of fictitious information, films and full length feature films that massive numbers of gullible people bought into. A most unfortunate result has been that tens of millions of young people believed the information but subsequently learned the truth and realized that they had been lied to. Consequently, they rejected as untrue the Bible itself!
 
Upvote 0

Sheila Davis

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2020
838
292
Houston
✟73,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Religion especially Christianity has always feared science in all of its forms. The reason for this, it proves many biblical belief false. Copernicus and Galileo with telescopes figured out the earth is not the center of the universe and the church fought furiously to prevent that information from being spread.





Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Archeology all have disproved many things in the bible and Christianity fears that and so does Islam.





The earth is not flat nor the center of the universe, Natural Disasters is nature acting up not punishment from god. Diseases are not caused by evil spirits but by germs. Geology, Archeology, and Astronomy have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth and universe are much older than religion likes to admit.






The bible is a book written over 2,000 yrs. ago by fisherman and goat herders, has been translated into and out of 100s of languages, by human beings, depending on the language one word can mean several things.

Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Archeology, science in all its forms threatens Christians more than most. It does not threaten me, it proves the existence of god to me. If you look at how complex the universe is you can see a designer behind it. I believe in Christ, I also know that the New Testament has been edited books have been removed. I believe the bible to be a book designed to show us how to have a relationship with god, I think much of it that many consider fact is just parable and myth.

I don't believe Christian fear
science they disagree with it concerning the origin of the universe and the theory of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟169,198.00
Faith
Baptist
I don't believe Christian fear
science they disagree with it concerning the origin of the universe and the theory of evolution.

Many individual Christians, especially those on the low end of the education spectrum, disagree with science concerning the origin of the universe and the theory of evolution, but such Christians are in the constantly shrinking minority. Do they fear science that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible? Very many of them do because it is normal for people to fear what they do not understand.
 
Upvote 0

Sheila Davis

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2020
838
292
Houston
✟73,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Many individual Christians, especially those on the low end of the education spectrum, disagree with science concerning the origin of the universe and the theory of evolution, but such Christians are in the constantly shrinking minority. Do they fear science that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible? Very many of them do because it is normal for people to fear what they do not understand.

Did you actually say low end of education? WOW.
Did you actually say they are the ones that fear science?
WOW
Did you actually say they are dwindling and it's normal for people to fear what they do not understand.
WOW
It is your right to continue to believe that only uneducated Christians fear science because of the reasons you gave.
And according to a survey taken 36 % of Christians have a postsecondary education of the 267 million here in the states.
Christians in U.S. Are Less Educated Than Religious Minorities, Report Says (Published 2016)

According to you 96,120,000 (more or less) Christians fear science.

And my first reply to you I gave you a list of links concerning what can be used as proof that Jesus existed, archaeological finds, scriptures in the Bible what the ancients thought of the shape and position of the Earth, who actually started Earth was the center of the universe and so forth. I said well he may not be an atheist or agnostic _ he may be telling the truth that he believes in God. So I deleted them - now I'm back to uncertainty.
Again it's your right to think that Christians fear science - more precise uneducated / less educated Christians.
Take care
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,002
2,819
Australia
✟166,475.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Contrary to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the Bible makes no claim of inerrancy or infallibility in matters of history and science. Furthermore, Jesus himself made no claim of inerrancy or infallibility in matters of history and science. Nonetheless, beginning in the 1950’s, a small group of radicalized Christian Fundamentalists began holding Jesus and the Bible up to a standard that is not supported by easily observed facts. When it was proven that the Bible is not either inerrant or infallible in matters of history and science, these radicalized Christian Fundamentalists began to very aggressively defend their absurd teaching through outrageous lies and distortions of the truth, and the more that they were proven wrong, the more they dug in—publishing tracts, pamphlets, entire volumes of fictitious information, films and full length feature films that massive numbers of gullible people bought into. A most unfortunate result has been that tens of millions of young people believed the information but subsequently learned the truth and realized that they had been lied to. Consequently, they rejected as untrue the Bible itself!

Again, your name dropping means nothing to me and I doubt to anyone else. Should we be impressed with the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"? whom I never even heard of.

I would pay them no more or no less mind than to any other preacher or book, I would see how they match up to scripture. If they do I would add them to a select few worth listening to. I am not after something to 'tickle my ears', but truth.
I don't care if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury - Who mind you actually said he doubts the existence of God. I would listen to him preach as much as I would a talking parrot.

Did you actually say low end of education? WOW.
Did you actually say they are the ones that fear science?
WOW
Did you actually say they are dwindling and it's normal for people to fear what they do not understand.
WOW
^
If I were you PrincetonGuy I would get yourself to an actual Bible college and not whatever that was that you attended. Whatever that place was is teaching liberal nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟169,198.00
Faith
Baptist
Again, your name dropping means nothing to me and I doubt to anyone else. Should we be impressed with the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"? whom I never even heard of.

I would pay them no more or no less mind than to any other preacher or book, I would see how they match up to scripture. If they do I would add them to a select few worth listening to. I am not after something to 'tickle my ears', but truth.
Did you not understand that I strongly disagree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?
I don't care if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury - Who mind you actually said he doubts the existence of God. I would listen to him preach as much as I would a talking parrot.
Please don’t worry. I am not the Archbishop of Canterbury and I pay no mind to people who doubt the existence of God. Indeed, I am a theologically conservative evangelical Christian—I just don’t keep my head in the sand 24 hours a day.
If I were you PrincetonGuy I would get yourself to an actual Bible college and not whatever that was that you attended. Whatever that place was is teaching liberal nonsense. I actually feel worried for you now.

James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
I have never sat under a man or woman who teaches liberal nonsense. If I were do to so, I would probably throw up all over the place! Oh, might I add that silly old women are not an accurate source of information about my education.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,002
2,819
Australia
✟166,475.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did you not understand that I strongly disagree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?

Please don’t worry. I am not the Archbishop of Canterbury and I pay no mind to people who doubt the existence of God. Indeed, I am a theologically conservative evangelical Christian—I just don’t keep my head in the sand 24 hours a day.

I have never sat under a man or woman who teaches liberal nonsense. If I were do to so, I would probably throw up all over the place! Oh, might I add that silly old women are not an accurate source of information about my education.

On one hand you doubt the words of Jesus and scripture as written -which I view as liberal nonsense- the whole "let it mean whatever you want it to mean" and "maybe Jesus doesn't know what hes saying because he's just a man." If that isn't liberal I don't know what would qualify.
Then on the other hand you say you are a conservative evangelical. Must be some kind of American breed of conservative evangelical because you sure don't think like we do here.
Baptist church here, Church of Christ church here, we preach 6 day creation, global flood and Jesus 100% correct.

Quit arguing with me then.
I had edited my post hours ago because I thought maybe I was being to harsh, obviously I was spot on.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,071
7,506
North Carolina
✟343,267.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So this "author" of 2 Timothy, who in c. 66-67
1) CLAIMS TO BE PAUL (1:1) was lying--Paul was executed in 67 or 68,
2) like Paul who was in prison earlier, now under Nero languishes in a cold dungeon (4:13),
3) chained like a common criminal (1:16, 2:9),
4) who knew his work was done and his life was nearly at an end (4:6-8)
5) his friends having a hard time finding out where he was kept (1:7),
6) who uses the same themes and phrases of the other pastoral letters, Titus and 1 Timothy; i.e.,
God our Savior; soundness of doctrine, faith and speech; godliness; controversies; "here is a trustworthy saying" (a clause found nowhere else in the NT but in Paul's pastoral letters), and
7) who closes the letter with the standard Pauline greeting,
is not Paul?

You're trafficking with the wrong commentators.

Princeton has not served you well.
I have here in my study more than 1,100 commentaries on the individual books of the Bible, and on the basis of just one of these commentaries, that you have not read, you are evaluating all 1,100 of them—not to mention my education! If that is not Chutzpah, what is?
Non-responsive to mine above.

No chutzpah needed. . ."Thy speech doth betray thee,"

I don't need to see any one of them. . .anything not in agreement with the word of God written is
without merit.
Or, perhaps there is a more accurate and substantially less complimentary expression for it (I have in mind here a “byproduct” of a certain male in the subfamily Bovinae).

By the way, Walter Lock is the foremost defender of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟169,198.00
Faith
Baptist
On one hand you doubt the words of Jesus and scripture as written -which I view as liberal nonsense- the whole "let it mean whatever you want it to mean" and "maybe Jesus doesn't know what hes saying because he's just a man." If that isn't liberal I don't know what would qualify.
Then on the other hand you say you are a conservative evangelical. Must be some kind of American breed of conservative evangelical because you sure don't think like we do here.
Baptist church here, Church of Christ church here, we preach 6 day creation, global flood and Jesus 100% correct.

Quit arguing with me then.
I had edited my post hours ago because I thought maybe I was being to harsh, obviously I was spot on.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke expressly betray Jesus’ lack of accurate knowledge of history and science, and there is nothing “liberal” in admitting the truth of that fact. Furthermore, Evangelical Christianity and young earth creationism are two mutually exclusive belief systems with the later being a major threat to the former.
 
Upvote 0

Laconia79

Active Member
Dec 5, 2021
201
97
46
Indianapolis
✟13,986.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I don't believe Christian fear
science they disagree with it concerning the origin of the universe and the theory of evolution.
The think the big bang and evolution can proven. Two biblical stories, the universe forming about 8000 years ago and the flood. First the creation, Geology, Archeology, Astronomy has debunked than 100%. The easiest way to show that is the the speed light travels, 2.5 million light years that is the distance that the andromeda galaxy is from us. That means what were seeing in the telescopes is from 2.5 million years ago, that is how long the light from that galaxy took to get to us traveling at the speed of light. 2.5 Million vs. 8000 years. The farthest galaxy we seen is roughly 13billion from us. It is math 2+2 will always equal no matter anyone says. As for the flood, you can use the bible get with in 100 years of when the flood happened. No less that 4000 years ago and not more 4400 years ago. Now understand at biblical time of the flood the pyramids existed, the Sumerians who were around 6000 years ago, there ruins and the shells of cities, 5000 years ago china was going strong. Now the bible says the water was 20 ft over the tallest mountain, even then Everest would still probably be the tallest, So the water raises roughly 4/5 miles over the over. Now first off there has not been significant stop in Chinese history in the last 5k years which a flood would have done. Finally if such a flood happened the flood would have flattened everything, the pyramids, there would be no ancient settlements. Now was there flood that is the basis for the flood story yeah there have been plenty of floods in history that to a ancient people would have seemed like the end of the world. I believe in god that is faith, but as for facts nothing in any religious book can be proven.
 
Upvote 0