A Question to the Creationists

[Willtor]

I did, when you abandon the Scriptures in favor of philosophical naturalism that's the essence of classic liberal theology. The real issue is the supernatural aspects of Scripture and they reject the miracles or ignore them.

You want that to be the real issue, but it isn't. I haven't seen any of the TE's on these forums argue that God does not act supernaturally in history. On the contrary, I, myself, have argued that very point to _you_! I can only hope that one of these days it sinks in. But you can see, now, why I say you have your head in the sand?

I did some pretty extensive expositions of the relevant texts, particularly Romans, he just simply contradicted me. That is in addition to the many substantive quotes he ignored as well. The New Testament teaches a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis and that has profound theological implications. Liberals uniformly deny this and while it would have been more fun refuting him on the scientific evidence his arguments went into circles early and spiraled into philosophical circles early and often.

Wow. This is... simply not so. Any of it. Did you mean to cite a different debate between you and Shernren?

There isn't a dimes worth of difference.

Okay. That's fine. But realize that you have your own private definition of "liberal." So don't be surprised when people get up in arms about it.

Not one of the points, the clear, distinct and intended meaning of the texts. We are not talking about one or two taken out of context but the uniform testimony of the New Testament authors. That in addition to the fact that the creation of Adam and Eve as it relates to the fall of man makes this nothing more then you contradicting the Scriptures in defense of a secular philosophy.

So you say. But every time you cite an NT passage referencing it, it is used by the author for its figurative value. That is, even if it is also literal, the author is drawing something figurative from it. That's enough to cause some of us to ask whether the intended meaning of these passages might be figurative.

Darwinism is unscientific for the same reason. shernren had no theological argument and as you said, ' he decoupled the infallibility of Scripture from the literal interpretation of Genesis.'. Which makes my point for me, infallibility is just another word for authority and reliability with regards to historical and doctrinal matters. Anything you guys don't want to accept is figurative leading to an aimless rationalization of the clear, consistent testimony of the Scriptures. You just gave it away too early.

But you know that there are many figurative-only passages in Scripture. You've decoupled the two, yourself, but you don't admit it. The question is not whether they are decoupled, but what passages are figurative-only? You are, here, presupposing your conclusion and complaining that I (and Shernren) haven't presupposed the same conclusion.

I tried that approach but the mark of Theistic Evolutionists is that they attack creationists, personally, forcefully and constantly. That kind of animosity is not an accident, it's the heart of the emphasis. It would be different if it were not at the heart of every post they make.

Again, this is projection. Not that it doesn't sometimes happen, but there's a fair bit of vitriol in your own posts.

Of course I did, it's not that hard. You just keep arguing in circle around the same fallacious assertions.

Such as?

 

[mark kennedy]

You want that to be the real issue, but it isn't. I haven't seen any of the TE's on these forums argue that God does not act supernaturally in history. On the contrary, I, myself, have argued that very point to _you_! I can only hope that one of these days it sinks in. But you can see, now, why I say you have your head in the sand?

You have argued nothing of the sort and I think you know that. You argue against the creation of man and for nothing else. They don't argue against miracles per se, they just ignore them the way Hegel, Tillich and Dewey outlined in their dialectical approach to Christianity. They simply redefine everything and ignore anything remotely miraculous.

Wow. This is... simply not so. Any of it. Did you mean to cite a different debate between you and Shernren?

Does your pretense know no shame?

created, 33 Gen:1:1, Gen:1:21, Gen:1:27 (3), Gen:2:3-4 (2), Gen:5:1-2 (3), Gen:6:7, Deu:4:32, Psa:89:12, Psa:102:18, Psa:104:30, Psa:148:5, Isa:40:26, Isa:41:20, Isa:42:5, Isa:43:1, Isa:45:7-8 (2), Isa:45:12, Isa:45:18 (2), Isa:48:7, Isa:54:16 (2), Jer:31:22, Eze:21:30, Eze:28:13, Eze:28:15, Mal:2:10 (Strong's)​

Finally, the theme of Genesis which is confirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament is Geneological:

Geneology: In Hebrew the term for genealogy or pedigree is "the book of the generations;" and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression often extended to the whole history, as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, where "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that Gospel. (Smith's Bible Dictionary)​

There is one unanswered exposition, here's another:

So Genesis 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," wherein his descendants are traced down to Noah; Genesis 6:9, "the generations of Noah," the history of Noah and his sons; Genesis 10:1, "the generations of the sons of Noah," Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the oldest and most precious existing ethnological record; Genesis 11:10-26 "the generations of Shem," Genesis 11:27 "the generations of Terah," Abram's father; Genesis 25:12 "the generations of Ishmael," Genesis 25:19 "the generations of Isaac"; Genesis 36:1, "the generations of Esau"; Genesis 37:2, "the generations of Jacob"; Genesis 35:22-26, "the sons of Jacob," etc., repeated Exodus 1:1-5; also Exodus 46:8, a genealogical census of Israel when Jacob came down to Egypt; repeated in Exodus 6:16, etc., probably transcribed from a document, for the first part concerning Reuben and Simeon is quoted though Levi is the only tribe in question. (Fausset's Bible Dictionary)​

You probably will ignore this one as well but it just represents Christian theism for the last 2,000 years, easily ignored by modernists.

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall all be made righteous.” Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. (Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)​

John Wesley must seem unimportant to you, he was just one of the key people in the Great Awakening along with Jonathan Edwards:

For all have sinned - In Adam, and in their own persons; by a sinful nature, sinful tempers, and sinful actions. And are fallen short of the glory of God - The supreme end of man; short of his image on earth, and the enjoyment of him in heaven. (John Wesley's Notes)​

Sin originated with Satan Isaiah 14:12-14, entered the world through Adam Romans 5:12, was, and is, universal, Christ alone excepted ; Romans 3:23; 1 Peter 2:22, incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death ; Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Romans 6:23 and has no remedy but in the sacrificial death of Christ ; Hebrews 9:26; Acts 4:12 availed of by faith Acts 13:38,39. Sin may be summarized as threefold: An act, the violation of, or want of obedience to the revealed will of God; a state, absence of righteousness; a nature, enmity toward God. (Scofield Commentary)​

I'm sure the Scofield commentary in easily ignored as well as any evangelical theology. Finally here is my exposition of Romans that your buddy ignored and you would be wise to avoid as well:

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.​

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Okay. That's fine. But realize that you have your own private definition of "liberal." So don't be surprised when people get up in arms about it.​

It's metaphysics, not Christian theology. It's not my private interpretation, evolutionists are forthright in their discussions of it if they understand the philosophical nature of their world-view.

"Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered." (Prof. Robert A. Weinberg, MIT Biology Lecture)​

So you say. But every time you cite an NT passage referencing it, it is used by the author for its figurative value. That is, even if it is also literal, the author is drawing something figurative from it. That's enough to cause some of us to ask whether the intended meaning of these passages might be figurative.

Nonsense; Peter, Paul, Luke and Jesus all speak of the creation as literal, Adam as literal. They are not figurative unless you take the clear, distinct and uniform testimony of the New Testimony of the writers as figurative without any regard to sound exposition of the texts. News flash for you, when the Scriptures speak figuratively there is almost always a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context as an antecedent to the subject.

But you know that there are many figurative-only passages in Scripture. You've decoupled the two, yourself, but you don't admit it. The question is not whether they are decoupled, but what passages are figurative-only? You are, here, presupposing your conclusion and complaining that I (and Shernren) haven't presupposed the same conclusion.

He did exactly that and I am following sound exegetical practice that was unchallenged until the advent of modernism 150 years ago. Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time not universal common decent but Darwinism has unnaturally blended the two. Darwinism has gotten into absolutely everything in our day and age, politics, legal theory, philosophy, science and most importantly this atheistic philosophy wants to be passed off as Christian. I for one refuse to regard the a priori assumption of a single common ancestor as anything other then atheistic materialism, even when the argument comes from a professing Christian.

More I'm rubber, your glue.

Again, this is projection. Not that it doesn't sometimes happen, but there's a fair bit of vitriol in your own posts.

I know what I'm dealing with and it's not Christian theology, it's philosophical naturalism

Such as?

Try actually reading my posts once and a while.

 

[shernren]

Finally, the theme of Genesis which is confirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament is Geneological:

I replied to that:

And does a concern with pedigree and lineage sound like Paul? Perhaps you could be excused of saying such a thing of the author of Hebrews; but Paul said, not once but twice, and to two separate apprentices:

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [1Ti 1:3-4 ESV]

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. [Tit 3:9 ESV]

Why, Paul wasn’t even concerned about his own lineage. Paul cites it twice: once in Romans 11, only to demonstrate that there were still ethnic Jews who worshipped Christ, and more revealingly in Phillippians where he says:

… If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ … [Php 3:4-8 ESV]

“Count them as rubbish”, the man says! If Paul counted his own lineage, the very best you could possibly display, as rubbish, why would spend the first third of his most doctrinal book poking his nose into the lineage of people he had never met and telling them that it had defined their relationship with God up to the point of salvation? This kind of preoccupation just does not seem like the Paul of the rest of the New Testament!​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7305187/#post50074891

But of course I don't expect you to reply, or even think that you need to. I know full well that no point is substantive to you unless it supports creationism, no theology is theology to you unless it agrees in whole with your preconditions, and no Bible quotation is Biblical to you unless it is interpreted according to your whims and fancies.

 

[Willtor]

You have argued nothing of the sort and I think you know that. You argue against the creation of man and for nothing else. They don't argue against miracles per se, they just ignore them the way Hegel, Tillich and Dewey outlined in their dialectical approach to Christianity. They simply redefine everything and ignore anything remotely miraculous.

I'm pretty sure I have done that. But I'm too lazy to search my old posts, so I'll allow that you are right and I'll do it now:

I posit that God acts and has acted supernaturally in history on many occasions. Not least of these were the Annunciation and the Resurrection.

Okay. I trust this issue is over and done with?

Does your pretense know no shame?

Apparently not.

created, 33 Gen:1:1, Gen:1:21, Gen:1:27 (3), Gen:2:3-4 (2), Gen:5:1-2 (3), Gen:6:7, Deu:4:32, Psa:89:12, Psa:102:18, Psa:104:30, Psa:148:5, Isa:40:26, Isa:41:20, Isa:42:5, Isa:43:1, Isa:45:7-8 (2), Isa:45:12, Isa:45:18 (2), Isa:48:7, Isa:54:16 (2), Jer:31:22, Eze:21:30, Eze:28:13, Eze:28:15, Mal:2:10 (Strong's)​

You misunderstand. I don't say that I don't believe any of these passages. Rather, I have interpreted some of them differently from you. And not even all of them!

I _do_ for example believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. The description in the Bible is figurative/mythological, but that doesn't make it any less true. And whatever the factual means, it was still Him Who created and formed the world.

Finally, the theme of Genesis which is confirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament is Geneological:

Geneology: In Hebrew the term for genealogy or pedigree is "the book of the generations;" and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression often extended to the whole history, as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, where "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that Gospel. (Smith's Bible Dictionary)​

I don't dispute that. I am uncertain as to whether the lineages prior to a certain point correspond to literal generations, but for the sake of argument, I will accede that they are (in order to limit the scope of the discussion). Let us discuss, then, the creation.

*snip*

*These were all references to genealogies and an historical Adam, not to the account of creation.*

Okay. That's fine. But realize that you have your own private definition of "liberal." So don't be surprised when people get up in arms about it.​

It's metaphysics, not Christian theology. It's not my private interpretation, evolutionists are forthright in their discussions of it if they understand the philosophical nature of their world-view.

"Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered." (Prof. Robert A. Weinberg, MIT Biology Lecture)​

Evolution has no bearing on my interpretation of Genesis. Why do you bring it up?

Nonsense; Peter, Paul, Luke and Jesus all speak of the creation as literal, Adam as literal. They are not figurative unless you take the clear, distinct and uniform testimony of the New Testimony of the writers as figurative without any regard to sound exposition of the texts. News flash for you, when the Scriptures speak figuratively there is almost always a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context as an antecedent to the subject.

Well... in the sense that creation is a literal thing, yes. As to whether the account of creation is literal...

There is not usually a "like" or "as" in the immediate context. Many of Jesus' own parables don't have such language. Are those ones literal? And what of the Psalms? Do you really believe what you are saying?

Or perhaps, more to the topic, "image" being a physical thing, God has a literal "image" in which we were made?

He did exactly that and I am following sound exegetical practice that was unchallenged until the advent of modernism 150 years ago. Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time not universal common decent but Darwinism has unnaturally blended the two. Darwinism has gotten into absolutely everything in our day and age, politics, legal theory, philosophy, science and most importantly this atheistic philosophy wants to be passed off as Christian. I for one refuse to regard the a priori assumption of a single common ancestor as anything other then atheistic materialism, even when the argument comes from a professing Christian.

I'm not arguing that he didn't do that (just as I did). I'm merely arguing that you did, too. And modernism and evolution don't enter into it.

More I'm rubber, your glue.

Ah! I see! I'm sorry, I totally didn't get that. The saying is actually not, "I'm rubber, your glue." (or "clue") It's, "I am rubber, you are (or you're) glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you." And see below: that is _not_ what I meant.

I know what I'm dealing with and it's not Christian theology, it's philosophical naturalism

Mark, as far as I can tell, all you want to talk about is evolution -- not theology. And on the off-occasion you _do_ want to talk theology, you want me to argue against something I don't want to argue against. If all you see is philosophical naturalism, it is because you, as you say in a previous post, have avoided theological talk with TE's.

Try actually reading my posts once and a while.

I read rather a lot of them. More importantly, I have read my own, and I know there are directions I would _like_ my conversations with you to go (topics I would like to discuss, ideas I would like to present), but they tend not to go in that way. On the contrary, you and I never seem to get past the basics. How would it help me to try to argue in circles?

I think you don't know what any of the TE's here really think. I also begin to think that you haven't read Tillich, Spinoza or some of these other people you criticize. You have heard that they are bad and you want to associate us with them, but you don't know what any of the above actually believe(d) and are in no position to judge whether all or some actually believe(d) the same things. If you _really_ wanted to compare my theology with someone recent, you would have identified Karl Barth or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I would be profoundly impressed if you started doing so. But I'm guessing you are going to continue with Schleiermacher and Hegel.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Again, this is projection. Not that it doesn't sometimes happen, but there's a fair bit of vitriol in your own posts.

Actually mark is right on this point. While there are a couple of creationists on the forums using vitriol, the most troll like I see right now is some guy who just joined named "Bob Jones Student" who could be a plant for all we know to mess with people.

Contrast this with the regular mocking and general resort to ad hominem amongst the TEs on this board, I'll go find quotes if you require them but I think I can objectively say that the TEs are the ones resorting to ad hominem and personal attacks in nearly every topic. Often to the applause of their comrades.

 

[Willtor]

Actually mark is right on this point. While there are a couple of creationists on the forums using vitriol, the most troll like I see right now is some guy who just joined named "Bob Jones Student" who could be a plant for all we know to mess with people.

Contrast this with the regular mocking and general resort to ad hominem amongst the TEs on this board, I'll go find quotes if you require them but I think I can objectively say that the TEs are the ones resorting to ad hominem and personal attacks in nearly every topic. Often to the applause of their comrades.

Well, I apologize to both you and Mark if I'm a source of this at any time. However, I didn't mean to attribute projection to all YEC's, but to Mark, specifically.

 

[mark kennedy]

I replied to that:

And does a concern with pedigree and lineage sound like Paul? Perhaps you could be excused of saying such a thing of the author of Hebrews; but Paul said, not once but twice, and to two separate apprentices​

You have my attention

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [1Ti 1:3-4 ESV]

That has nothing to do with the geneology of Jesus, you would seem to know no shame.

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. [Tit 3:9 ESV]

Like you ever did that, you do know that lineage is what the evolution/creation controversy is over right?

Why, Paul wasn’t even concerned about his own lineage. Paul cites it twice: once in Romans 11, only to demonstrate that there were still ethnic Jews who worshipped Christ, and more revealingly in Phillippians where he says:

… If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ … [Php 3:4-8 ESV]

Thats right, being Hebrew is only marginally important....your point.

“Count them as rubbish”, the man says! If Paul counted his own lineage, the very best you could possibly display, as rubbish, why would spend the first third of his most doctrinal book poking his nose into the lineage of people he had never met and telling them that it had defined their relationship with God up to the point of salvation? This kind of preoccupation just does not seem like the Paul of the rest of the New Testament!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7305187/#post50074891

Paul preached the cross, everything else was rubbish, dung, waste. What do you preach except Darwinism? Lineage was not a concern for him because he was Hebrew and if anyone had a right to boast he did. Paul considered Adam to be our first parent and while you do not consider that significant I realize that it is vital to Pauline doctrine.

But of course I don't expect you to reply, or even think that you need to. I know full well that no point is substantive to you unless it supports creationism, no theology is theology to you unless it agrees in whole with your preconditions, and no Bible quotation is Biblical to you unless it is interpreted according to your whims and fancies.

Nonsense! Of course I will reply in as much as I'm able. You have had it all your way and I don't blame you for that. Times up, it's time we talked. There are no preconditions to the clear, distinct and originally intended meaning of the texts involved. Paul considered Adam to be the first human and there is no Christian reason why you would conclude otherwise.

Frankly I am not impressed, me and you have a lot to talk about and there is no way I take this intrusion into the Creationism forum lightly.

I'll be seeing you....make no mistake about that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, I apologize to both you and Mark if I'm a source of this at any time. However, I didn't mean to attribute projection to all YEC's, but to Mark, specifically.

Anything you want to attribute to me can be taken up with me, no problem. Be advised, I'm back...

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually mark is right on this point. While there are a couple of creationists on the forums using vitriol, the most troll like I see right now is some guy who just joined named "Bob Jones Student" who could be a plant for all we know to mess with people.

Contrast this with the regular mocking and general resort to ad hominem amongst the TEs on this board, I'll go find quotes if you require them but I think I can objectively say that the TEs are the ones resorting to ad hominem and personal attacks in nearly every topic. Often to the applause of their comrades.

Sorry I replied to you last, you were the first person I wanted to talk to. You are right about the tactics of the TEs on this board but more importantly, you realize it. They delight in their personal attacks and they are well supported by the masses but remember, Christianity is about conviction not the opinions of the skeptics.

I am your comrade, rest assured, you are not alone.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Willtor]

Anything you want to attribute to me can be taken up with me, no problem. Be advised, I'm back...

Okay. For one thing, you consistently attribute views to people who don't hold them. Your arguments are littered with "guilt-by-association" type reasoning, even if the other (Shernren, or myself, or anyone) does not associate with the people you cite. Rather than calling me a liberal, why not simply argue your case? You say my arguments are fallacious, but "poisoning the well" is a rhetorical fallacy!

Further, you are combative and it clouds the issue. For example, you accuse me of locating evolution at the heart of my philosophy. But on many occasions, I have told you (and other TEs have told you, for themselves) that if evolution were debunked tomorrow, it wouldn't change my interpretation of Genesis -- because my interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay. For one thing, you consistently attribute views to people who don't hold them. Your arguments are littered with "guilt-by-association" type reasoning, even if the other (Shernren, or myself, or anyone) does not associate with the people you cite. Rather than calling me a liberal, why not simply argue your case? You say my arguments are fallacious, but "poisoning the well" is a rhetorical fallacy!

I poison nothing but the a priori assumption that we evolved from apes, it's not only indefensible but completely irreconcilable to the clear, consistent and originally intended meaning of Scripture. There is no other conclusion since you cannot blend what you believe with the New Testament, you are dancing to the beat of a different drummer. The name of that drummer is Darwinism.

Further, you are combative and it clouds the issue. For example, you accuse me of locating evolution at the heart of my philosophy. But on many occasions, I have told you (and other TEs have told you, for themselves) that if evolution were debunked tomorrow, it wouldn't change my interpretation of Genesis -- because my interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with evolution.

You say that but you don't follow up on it. Where are the chimpanzee ancestors? Why are the differences between the chimpanzees and humans ignored? Most importantly why do the Scriptures not get the merit they deserve as human history?

You have a nerve to come into the Creation sub forum and pretend that you are offended. You attack Creationism without cause, if anything you should apologize.

Have a nice day
Mark

P.S. Learn the Scriptures

 

[Willtor]

I poison nothing but the a priori assumption that we evolved from apes, it's not only indefensible but completely irreconcilable to the clear, consistent and originally intended meaning of Scripture. There is no other conclusion since you cannot blend what you believe with the New Testament, you are dancing to the beat of a different drummer. The name of that drummer is Darwinism.

Poisoning the Well is a technical term.

You say that but you don't follow up on it. Where are the chimpanzee ancestors? Why are the differences between the chimpanzees and humans ignored? Most importantly why do the Scriptures not get the merit they deserve as human history?

To the former, irrelevant. As I have said, I gave up the literal interpretation of the creation account while I was still a young-earth creationist. Chimpanzee ancestors are not the point, because even if you're right about them, you're still wrong about interpreting Scripture to exclude the possibility. To the latter, the Scriptures were not intended to teach history as we think of history. In fact, at some level, they resign the unfolding of events to contemporary myths in order to point out that whatever happened was done by God.

You have a nerve to come into the Creation sub forum and pretend that you are offended. You attack Creationism without cause, if anything you should apologize.

Have a nice day
Mark

P.S. Learn the Scriptures

I'm sorry if I was too blunt. But as for content, you did ask (in post #128). There's no point in feigning injury.

 

[mark kennedy]

Poisoning the Well is a technical term.

There is a logical fallacy at work here and it's begging the question of proof. I don't poison the well, I test the waters and they are teaming with logical fallacies, not the least of which are the ad hominem attacks by evolutionists.

To the former, irrelevant. As I have said, I gave up the literal interpretation of the creation account while I was still a young-earth creationist. Chimpanzee ancestors are not the point, because even if you're right about them, you're still wrong about interpreting Scripture to exclude the possibility. To the latter, the Scriptures were not intended to teach history as we think of history. In fact, at some level, they resign the unfolding of events to contemporary myths in order to point out that whatever happened was done by God.

You gave it up before considering the fact that Paul, Luke, Peter and Jesus himself were all creationists. They believed in the special creation of Adam and Eve and they are explicit in their statements about that. As far as Chimpanzee ancestors if I'm right then far too many Chimpanzee ancestors are being passed off as human which is exactly what I think is happening.

Finally, if you think for one minute that the Scriptures are not teaching history you have a fundamental misconception about the meaning of the Scriptures. The only myth we are dealing with here is the myth of Darwinism and I noticed that with the theological and doctrinal issue before you you ran to evolutionist rhetoric, which is the practice of evolutionists and TEs.

You are following the spirit of the age and you have abandoned the Scriptures. This tells me something about where you are coming from and it's not Biblical Christianity is secular, it's worldly and it's hostile to Christian theism.

I'm sorry if I was too blunt. But as for content, you did ask (in post #128). There's no point in feigning injury.

Trust me when I tell you, I feel anything but injured. Its not the damage that you do to me that makes me sad and angry but the damage that you are doing you yourself. You are undermining Christian theism not in my mind but your own and the thinking of serious Christians is being effected.

You should be ashamed of yourself

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay. For one thing, you consistently attribute views to people who don't hold them. Your arguments are littered with "guilt-by-association" type reasoning, even if the other (Shernren, or myself, or anyone) does not associate with the people you cite. Rather than calling me a liberal, why not simply argue your case? You say my arguments are fallacious, but "poisoning the well" is a rhetorical fallacy!

Don't you worry, I know what shernren believes and I will deal with him on those issues. Your arguments are littered with fallacies and you had ample opportunity to address the theological issues and you ignored them just like he does, just like all Liberal Theologians have, it not an isolated incident. Darwinism is based on an a priori assumption of universal common descent by naturalistic means, you fail to deal with that. The New Testament teaches a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, you simply set that aside ignoring it entirely. That is telling me that you are favoring a modernist, naturalistic and liberal mindset. Don't blame me when you are called on it, I call them like I see them

Further, you are combative and it clouds the issue. For example, you accuse me of locating evolution at the heart of my philosophy. But on many occasions, I have told you (and other TEs have told you, for themselves) that if evolution were debunked tomorrow, it wouldn't change my interpretation of Genesis -- because my interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with evolution.

No one is going to debunk evolution, that's absurd. What I have clearly and consistently shown you and every one I talk to is that we are talking about human lineage and human history. You won't change you interpretation of Genesis because of evolution, because you want to favor a naturalistic cause for human lineage, because it's the only acceptable explanation for the atheists and agnostics of our age.

You are not following sound rule and principle of interpretation of Genesis and subsequently you have failed to interpret the New Testament passages that speak expressly on the subject. It's not that you don't understand the passages in question, you don't believe them. The Old Testament is understood from the perspective of the New Testament and the early chapters of Genesis are confirmed to be literal in no uncertain terms.

Don't pretend you have a valid Biblical point to defend, the absence of one is all the proof I need to dismiss your rationalizations are fallacious.

 

[Willtor]

There is a logical fallacy at work here and it's begging the question of proof. I don't poison the well, I test the waters and they are teaming with logical fallacies, not the least of which are the ad hominem attacks by evolutionists.

I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is, Mark. I'm talking about writing off arguments by TEs because you perceive us to be liberal. This is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the Well." It's actually a type of Ad Hominem.

You gave it up before considering the fact that Paul, Luke, Peter and Jesus himself were all creationists. They believed in the special creation of Adam and Eve and they are explicit in their statements about that. As far as Chimpanzee ancestors if I'm right then far too many Chimpanzee ancestors are being passed off as human which is exactly what I think is happening.

Finally, if you think for one minute that the Scriptures are not teaching history you have a fundamental misconception about the meaning of the Scriptures. The only myth we are dealing with here is the myth of Darwinism and I noticed that with the theological and doctrinal issue before you you ran to evolutionist rhetoric, which is the practice of evolutionists and TEs.

I gave it up, actually, when I found a set of interpretations that were more directly related to the Incarnation of Christ. It wasn't until I started reading popular science books about evolution that I realized that it wasn't what Kent Hovind and Ken Ham had indicated, and that it had a substantial amount of evidence to back it up. Even then I became a proponent of Intelligent Design when I read "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe.

You are following the spirit of the age and you have abandoned the Scriptures. This tells me something about where you are coming from and it's not Biblical Christianity is secular, it's worldly and it's hostile to Christian theism.

On the contrary, I think you have manufactured an interpretation of Genesis that is designed to oppose evolution rather than remain faithful to the text, traditional interpretations, and/or the context into which the text was originally delivered.

Nevertheless, I am willing to discuss interpretation, itself, rather than use the above as a way to write you off.

Trust me when I tell you, I feel anything but injured. Its not the damage that you do to me that makes me sad and angry but the damage that you are doing you yourself. You are undermining Christian theism not in my mind but your own and the thinking of serious Christians is being effected.

You should be ashamed of yourself

Have a nice day
Mark

Mark, nothing you write smacks of sympathy. It's unbecoming to pretend. Why don't you just let it drop?

 

[Willtor]

Don't you worry, I know what shernren believes and I will deal with him on those issues. Your arguments are littered with fallacies and you had ample opportunity to address the theological issues and you ignored them just like he does, just like all Liberal Theologians have, it not an isolated incident. Darwinism is based on an a priori assumption of universal common descent by naturalistic means, you fail to deal with that. The New Testament teaches a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, you simply set that aside ignoring it entirely. That is telling me that you are favoring a modernist, naturalistic and liberal mindset. Don't blame me when you are called on it, I call them like I see them

I am highly doubtful that you know what Shernren believes, and as I say in the previous post, I don't think you know what rhetorical fallacies are. You certainly don't know what I believe, as evidenced below:

No one is going to debunk evolution, that's absurd. What I have clearly and consistently shown you and every one I talk to is that we are talking about human lineage and human history. You won't change you interpretation of Genesis because of evolution, because you want to favor a naturalistic cause for human lineage, because it's the only acceptable explanation for the atheists and agnostics of our age.

You are not following sound rule and principle of interpretation of Genesis and subsequently you have failed to interpret the New Testament passages that speak expressly on the subject. It's not that you don't understand the passages in question, you don't believe them. The Old Testament is understood from the perspective of the New Testament and the early chapters of Genesis are confirmed to be literal in no uncertain terms.

Don't pretend you have a valid Biblical point to defend, the absence of one is all the proof I need to dismiss your rationalizations are fallacious.

Pfff. If you really believed this you would not hold the modern literal interpretation of Genesis. You would hold something more akin to St. Basil's literal interpretation (as presented, e.g., in the Hexaemeron).

Really and truly, evolution has nothing to do with my interpretation of Genesis. I know you don't believe it, but that's okay. The point is, trying to turn the conversation back to evolution is a lost cause because it honestly doesn't matter to me (in the context of discussing the interpretation of Scripture).

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think you know what a logical fallacy is, Mark. I'm talking about writing off arguments by TEs because you perceive us to be liberal. This is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the Well." It's actually a type of Ad Hominem.

I know exactly what a logical fallacy is and you don't get to assume you know more then me simply because your an evolutionist. You are liberal, all the basic tenants of ignore or undermine the miracles of the Bible are evident and obvious. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the creationists that come on here refuse to engage you guys because the personal attacks come early and often. You attack the credibility of creationism without restraint and the attack is a fallacious one.

I gave it up, actually, when I found a set of interpretations that were more directly related to the Incarnation of Christ. It wasn't until I started reading popular science books about evolution that I realized that it wasn't what Kent Hovind and Ken Ham had indicated, and that it had a substantial amount of evidence to back it up. Even then I became a proponent of Intelligent Design when I read "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe.

Since you mentioned it there is an apologetic work from an early defender of the Incarnation. He opens his argument with a defense of the Biblical doctrine of the Creation and the Fall:

We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.​

Athanasius stood contra mundum ("against the world") in defense of the biblical doctrine of Christ

The fact is the the incarnation is inextricably linked to the creation, there is no getting around that.

On the contrary, I think you have manufactured an interpretation of Genesis that is designed to oppose evolution rather than remain faithful to the text, traditional interpretations, and/or the context into which the text was originally delivered.

Did Scofield, did Athanasius, did Wesley or Edwards. You are simply pulling that out of a long line of rationalizations that are collectively known as Liberal Theology. You have yet to come up with a criteria by which I can dismiss the first chapter of Genesis as figurative while affirming that from Genesis 12 on it's an historical and geneological frame of reference. Why should I dismiss the geneology of Christ in Luke or the clear statements of Paul in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15? You offer not one valid reason and yet attack me personally saying I just made it up. I defended my position theologically and doctrinally and you simply ignore it which is one of the tell tell signs of Liberal Theology.

Nevertheless, I am willing to discuss interpretation, itself, rather than use the above as a way to write you off.

You'll get your chance, don't you worry about that.

Mark, nothing you write smacks of sympathy. It's unbecoming to pretend. Why don't you just let it drop?

I have no sympathy for those who do nothing but attack Christians for their convictions. You claimed to have studied the Bible and to have theological reasons for your unrelenting attacks on Creationism, then when confronted with the doctrinal issues you went right back to the ad hominem attacks.

The fact is that shernren believes in a Paul Tillich type of abstraction of God and if you don't believe me ask him yourself. I offered shernen what I believed a reasonable proposition of reconciliation and he simply rejected it. You guys always do and while I think there are a number of Christians who are actually TEs, theistic evolution is no different then Darwinism. That is, it is just one long argument against creationism and as such contentious and divisive by it's very nature.

You want an olive branch or do you want a debate because I can do either one. I don't turn these discussion into debates, I just respond to the posters who insist on invading a forum that was set aside for creationists to be able to talk without being attacked constantly.

I am highly doubtful that you know what Shernren believes, and as I say in the previous post, I don't think you know what rhetorical fallacies are. You certainly don't know what I believe, as evidenced below:

I know what shernren doesn't believe and what you don't believe and it's inextricably linked to the Incarnation. I know what a fallacious argument is and why it is without merit because you are making one now. 'You don't know', that's your argument, that is an ad hominem in no uncertain terms, one that abandons the testimony of Scripture and the evidence of science in favor of an attack on personal credulity. It's standard TE rhetoric and a fallacious abandonment of substantive discussion.

Pfff. If you really believed this you would not hold the modern literal interpretation of Genesis. You would hold something more akin to St. Basil's literal interpretation (as presented, e.g., in the Hexaemeron).

You wouldn't know if I did, you make personal judgements not insightful criticisms.

Really and truly, evolution has nothing to do with my interpretation of Genesis. I know you don't believe it, but that's okay. The point is, trying to turn the conversation back to evolution is a lost cause because it honestly doesn't matter to me (in the context of discussing the interpretation of Scripture).

Evolution has everything to do with your interpretation of Genesis, it's the whole point at the heart of your argument. You have abandoned not only theology and doctrine but evidence and science. Now you are simply attacking me and chanting a slogan of Genesis being figurative. You will continue to chant this because it's your whole argument with nothing supporting it but your affirmation. The rules of hermeneutics are not subject to the caprices of unbelief and personal bias. Your presupposition is a naturalistic one and it limits the meaning and significance of Scripture to exclusively naturalistic explanations, this is neither scientific or Scriptural.

Since Scripture is God-breathed and true in all it's parts, the unity of its teaching must be sought and it's supernatural elements recognized and understood. Robertson McQuilkin​

The fact is that the New Testament writers that spoke to the issue were creationists, the church has been traditionally creationist, the only interpretation making the creation figurative comes from Darwinism. I know your cohorts in the secular world and on the board will never contradict you but I know where you are coming from and it's not Christian theism, it's Darwinism.



Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

I know exactly what a logical fallacy is and you don't get to assume you know more then me simply because your an evolutionist. You are liberal, all the basic tenants of ignore or undermine the miracles of the Bible are evident and obvious. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the creationists that come on here refuse to engage you guys because the personal attacks come early and often. You attack the credibility of creationism without restraint and the attack is a fallacious one.

If you knew from fallacies, you would know that this very statement that I've cited is an example of "poisoning the well." Liberal or conservative, TE or YEC, poisoning the well is a fallacy.

Since you mentioned it there is an apologetic work from an early defender of the Incarnation. He opens his argument with a defense of the Biblical doctrine of the Creation and the Fall:

We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.​

Athanasius stood contra mundum ("against the world") in defense of the biblical doctrine of Christ

The fact is the the incarnation is inextricably linked to the creation, there is no getting around that.

St. Athanasius was one of the expositors that caused me to abandon the literal interpretation of Genesis, because his interpretations were far more related to the Incarnation than those of contemporary literalists.

Did Scofield, did Athanasius, did Wesley or Edwards. You are simply pulling that out of a long line of rationalizations that are collectively known as Liberal Theology. You have yet to come up with a criteria by which I can dismiss the first chapter of Genesis as figurative while affirming that from Genesis 12 on it's an historical and geneological frame of reference. Why should I dismiss the geneology of Christ in Luke or the clear statements of Paul in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15? You offer not one valid reason and yet attack me personally saying I just made it up. I defended my position theologically and doctrinally and you simply ignore it which is one of the tell tell signs of Liberal Theology.

Why would I try to persuade you to dismiss Genesis? I don't dismiss Genesis. Why should you?

You'll get your chance, don't you worry about that.

Okay. I question whether you'll be able to stay on topic any better than you are doing now...

I have no sympathy for those who do nothing but attack Christians for their convictions. You claimed to have studied the Bible and to have theological reasons for your unrelenting attacks on Creationism, then when confronted with the doctrinal issues you went right back to the ad hominem attacks.

Well, then why not have sympathy for me, who does not attack Christians for their convictions? If you think I'm mistaken in my interpretations, why can't we talk about the interpretations? Why all the bluster and smoke-screening about liberalism and persecution?

The fact is that shernren believes in a Paul Tillich type of abstraction of God and if you don't believe me ask him yourself. I offered shernen what I believed a reasonable proposition of reconciliation and he simply rejected it. You guys always do and while I think there are a number of Christians who are actually TEs, theistic evolution is no different then Darwinism. That is, it is just one long argument against creationism and as such contentious and divisive by it's very nature.

You want an olive branch or do you want a debate because I can do either one. I don't turn these discussion into debates, I just respond to the posters who insist on invading a forum that was set aside for creationists to be able to talk without being attacked constantly.

I'm not attacking you, Mark. And as for "invading" ask me to go and I'll go.

I know what shernren doesn't believe and what you don't believe and it's inextricably linked to the Incarnation. I know what a fallacious argument is and why it is without merit because you are making one now. 'You don't know', that's your argument, that is an ad hominem in no uncertain terms, one that abandons the testimony of Scripture and the evidence of science in favor of an attack on personal credulity. It's standard TE rhetoric and a fallacious abandonment of substantive discussion.

You say you know what I do and don't believe? Can you say it? Can you present it in a way that I accept accurately represents me? If so, I'll concede the point. But when you say that I am trying to persuade you to dismiss Genesis... it's pretty clear you have no idea what I think or don't think.

You wouldn't know if I did, you make personal judgements not insightful criticisms.

Do you? Again, I'd be surprised, but here's your opportunity to prove me wrong.

Evolution has everything to do with your interpretation of Genesis, it's the whole point at the heart of your argument. You have abandoned not only theology and doctrine but evidence and science. Now you are simply attacking me and chanting a slogan of Genesis being figurative. You will continue to chant this because it's your whole argument with nothing supporting it but your affirmation. The rules of hermeneutics are not subject to the caprices of unbelief and personal bias. Your presupposition is a naturalistic one and it limits the meaning and significance of Scripture to exclusively naturalistic explanations, this is neither scientific or Scriptural.

Lolz. Mark, you can't be serious. How could evolution be at the heart of my theology if my theology came before my acceptance of evolution?

Since Scripture is God-breathed and true in all it's parts, the unity of its teaching must be sought and it's supernatural elements recognized and understood. Robertson McQuilkin​

The fact is that the New Testament writers that spoke to the issue were creationists, the church has been traditionally creationist, the only interpretation making the creation figurative comes from Darwinism. I know your cohorts in the secular world and on the board will never contradict you but I know where you are coming from and it's not Christian theism, it's Darwinism.

Have a nice day
Mark

Creation, itself, is not figurative. The account of creation is figurative. But you already know that what you said has no relation to what I think (since you know what I do and do not think), so I say it for the sake of lurkers in case anybody accidentally thinks you were responding to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you knew from fallacies, you would know that this very statement that I've cited is an example of "poisoning the well." Liberal or conservative, TE or YEC, poisoning the well is a fallacy.

Darwinism is poison to Christian theology. You have cited no examples you have just made your assertions without any a substantive argument to back it up. Ad hominem attacks are fallacious and you are guilty of it in every post, in fact it is at the heart of your argument.

St. Athanasius was one of the expositors that caused me to abandon the literal interpretation of Genesis, because his interpretations were far more related to the Incarnation than those of contemporary literalists.

Nonsense:

From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word.​

That is intelligent design, Darwinism is distinct in that it denies that the universe and life was the result of an idea from the mind of God.

By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made Man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew. That is what Paul says, that true servant of Christ: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. Just as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,"​

Paul here has in mind the Fall as described in Genesis, there is no rational reason to conclude a figure of speech since that interpretation did not exist in Christian or Jewish thinking prior to Darwinism.

For example, which of the righteous men and holy prophets and patriarchs of whom the Divine Scriptures tell ever had his bodily birth from a virgin only? Was not Abel born of Adam, Enoch of Jared, Noah of Lamech, Abraham of Terah, Isaac of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac? Was not Judah begotten by Jacob and Moses and Aaron by Ameram? Was not Samuel the son of Elkanah, David of Jesse, Solomon of David, Hezekiah of Ahaz, Josiah of Amon, Isaiah of Amos, Jeremiah of Hilkiah and Ezekiel of Buzi? Had not each of these a father as author of his being?

Clearly this is an appeal the the geneologies as historical and beyond question. I have showed you this repeatedly and you simply ignore it.

Why would I try to persuade you to dismiss Genesis? I don't dismiss Genesis. Why should you?

You reject it's historical content and reduce it to figurative language that neither the author or the New Testament writers do. You have abandoned the Scriptures in favor of a worldly philosophy that does nothing but attack the veracity of Scripture.

Okay. I question whether you'll be able to stay on topic any better than you are doing now...

I have no question only the real proof as evidenced throughout the thread that you abandoned the Scriptures and Christian theism in favor or Darwinian evolution. You have no criteria for sound hermeneutics that would lead one to conclude figurative language in Genesis, Romans or I Corinthians. You do not so much as address these points but instead cling to you ad hominem attacks with both hands.

Well, then why not have sympathy for me, who does not attack Christians for their convictions? If you think I'm mistaken in my interpretations, why can't we talk about the interpretations? Why all the bluster and smoke-screening about liberalism and persecution?

I have talked about how to properly interpret the Scriptures and you simply ignore the reasoning. I do sympathize with unbelievers who struggle to find the evidential merit both of God's natural revelation and supernatural activities in redemptive history. What I don't have any sympathy for is the false doctrine of an a priori assumption with regards to human lineage. It's heretical and deeply divisive. What you are supporting and zealously arguing for is a philosophy put in flimsy theological terminology.

I'm not attacking you, Mark. And as for "invading" ask me to go and I'll go.

I think you should, I think all the TEs should and leave the debate to the common forum. Then perhaps we can have a more in depth discussion of the scientific and theological issues without running every curious creationist out of here which is what this kind of thing does. Talk about poisoning the well, you guys carpet bomb every thread that gets started in here and then pretend that I'm trying to poison the well for creationists. I would really like for them to have to opportunity to explore the scientific and theological issues without you barging in here with these endless ad hominem attacks.

You say you know what I do and don't believe? Can you say it? Can you present it in a way that I accept accurately represents me? If so, I'll concede the point. But when you say that I am trying to persuade you to dismiss Genesis... it's pretty clear you have no idea what I think or don't think.

You don't believe in creation or intelligent design, I know you don't because you never stop arguing against it. You have been challenged to come up with a defense for attacking a foundational belief in God as Creator and Designer and you ignored it. If Genesis 1-3 and the requisite geneology of Genesis 5 are fictional or figurative by what criteria do we affirm Genesis 12-49?

Do you? Again, I'd be surprised, but here's your opportunity to prove me wrong.

Yea right, you ask questions in circles as a matter of course. If this were something substantive then it would be different. You go after me personally in every post, in every paragraph. That's a fallacious line of reasoning that stands alone as your argument.

Lolz. Mark, you can't be serious. How could evolution be at the heart of my theology if my theology came before my acceptance of evolution?

What I said is that you have abandoned theology, the Scriptures and sound doctrine in favor of Darwinism. Get it right next time.

Creation, itself, is not figurative. The account of creation is figurative. But you already know that what you said has no relation to what I think (since you know what I do and do not think), so I say it for the sake of lurkers in case anybody accidentally thinks you were responding to me.

The book of Genesis is historical in it's character, content and the clear language of the text. No one was questioning this until Darwinism. The only real doctrinal issue is the Fall and that is inextricably linked to the need for justification. There is nothing remotely theological about your arguments, they are fallacious, divisive and contentious.

What is even worse you are twisting the clear meaning of the New Testament by forcing your presuppositions on Peter, Luke, Paul and Jesus. You deny this on a superficial level but at the heart of the argument you never stop doing it. The creation account is literal and written to be taken in that way, as was the Fall, the Deluge and the destruction of Bable. The rest of the Scriptures affirm this in no uncertain terms and the vain rationalizations of modernist revisionists will not change the clear, consistent and originally intended meaning.

Your false assumptions betray you at every turn and yet you never abandon them. You must be taking them on faith because you have produced nothing in the way or proof or evidence. The fact that you resort to these ad hominem attacks is all the proof I need that you have simply run out of real world arguments.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

*snip*

I think you should, I think all the TEs should and leave the debate to the common forum.

*snip*

Okay.