A simple question

[gluadys]

The onus is on the author when the reader is unable to rightly divide the word.

I am sorry to hear that Paul's words mean nothing to you.

Neat evasion. Paul's words in the context of Paul's letter are meaningful. But you have pulled them out of Paul's letter and used them as a reply to my post.

What do they mean to you in the context of this conversation? What thought process made them seem relevant in THIS context? Why do you think this transplantation of this text from Paul's letter to this thread makes sense?

 

[depthdeception]

Do you seriously not see an implication here?

Some/many TE assertions:

• Genesis = myth
• Common descent = endless geneologies

Creationists assertions:

• Creation (six days as written in Genesis) = God's work
• God's work = known by faith

So let me get this straight. You are asserting that Paul was talking about the issues of Genesis interpretation and "common descent" when he wrote this passage??

 

[depthdeception]

Its time to stop thinking too highly of yourself by putting others down. And, stop wasting your time trying to correct them by only finding fault. Find truth! Let things that are to be, be as they are to be.

The only one you can change is yourself by allowing yourself to be changed by grace and truth. Not by fault finding in others.

And how, exactly, does this correlate to your presence on these boards and your often exclamatory responses to other's posts?

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is a process God provided for survival. It was not one for bringing creation into being.

That is correct.

I bet that answer surprises you.

Virtually all of your problems with evolution lie in the fact that when it comes to evolution you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

You said, are. Present tense. Why do they survive? Yet failed to evolve?

Case in point. If you understood evolution you would understand this question is ridiculous. Nothing has failed to evolve. Different species have evolved in different ways, that's all.

But why are they still with us, and thriving? Why did life evolve from them? Yet, they are still extant? And, we have many extinct complex creatures buried under our feet? Makes no sense to evolve if they are thriving, as is. Did they revert backwards when the stresses of survival lessened?

Life doesn't evolve from anything. Living things evolve. Big difference. And evolution is not an act of will or desire. It is an interaction of variation in species and variation in environment. In fact, species evolve when they are thriving just as they evolve when they are declining in numbers.

I am in the middle of The Beak of the Finch which describes just this very thing. A few years before there had been a severe drought in which many birds died. But the deaths were not random, taking the same percentage of all groups of birds. Some survived better than others. We all understand natural selection in this situation. But a few years later there was a flood year. Food was plentiful, population numbers soared. But evolution did not stop. Even in good years there are deaths, and the records showed again that the deaths were not random, not the same percentage from each group. Deaths were more common among some groups than others, just as during the drought. So natural selection doesn't turn itself off when times are good and populations are thriving. Evolution still keeps happening.

Oh, and yes, natural selection can reverse its effects, pushing species in one direction for awhile, then back in the other direction. The drought/flood sequence on the Galapagos is an example of that. So is industrial melanism in peppered moths.

Ahhh! Yes! The single valve heart! Yes!

And, may I ask?

What happened before that single valve mysteriously appeared on the scene?

Probably circulation occurred by peristaltic action. Or was stimulated by the muscular movement of the organism.

The point was, and is. One can not hear without a tympanic nerve.

One can, however, be sensitive to vibrations and to changes in water.air pressure. Just as the deaf "listen" to music through awareness of sound vibrations being carried in the floor.

Tell me? Is becoming born again in Christ? Evolution?

The Greek indicates that when we believe in Christ that we become something that never was before. "A new thing." In essence, believers in Christ become a new spiritual species. Evolution, perhaps?

No. These are not biological processes.

 

[GenemZ]

And since it is truth, the truth of scripture must agree with it.

The Scripture is silent on it.

In the first place, there is no higher or lower in evolution. Evolution is about change, not progression.

I guess someone decided to throw out the logical premise of "survival of the fittest" after too many inconsitencies were found? Eh?

Yes, that is the issue at hand. Humans 9000 years ago had parents, and their parents had parents, and those parents had parents, and there is a tiny bit of evolution in each generation, so when you get back about 200,000 years

There you go! Calling the Scripture a LIE.

there is a distinct difference between the human species of 200,000 years ago and the human species of 9,000 years ago.

Those are from two different and separate creations.

Isaiah 11:6-7 niv
" The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox."

That transformation will take place over night. After all, Christ is only to reign during the Millennium for just one thousand years.

You fail to see God's hand involved with instant transformations. Creating a new species at will. But, that's OK. After all, that's only my interpretation. Just like what you get from the fossil evidence is your interpretation. Right? But, only one big difference. You can not be wrong. Why? Because you have evolved more than I have in the ability to reason? Is that it?

Therefore you are misreading the passage. It does not have a global reference.

I see..... Then!

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

.... was not speaking of a global incident! Thanks! I never knew that!

" I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone." Jeremiah 4:23

ditto. The land is erets Yisrael. It is not the planet earth. Jeremiah is lamenting the desolation of the land after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchanezzer and the exportation of its citizens to Babylon.

Jeremiah was speaking of what was to become of Israel by pointing to a greater judgement of earth, to show God is not weak in judging them most severly. And, that God has no whims about taking life when he sees fit to. For Jeremiah makes a distinction between the judgement of the earth, and what is to become of Israel. He draws a distinction between the two acts of judgement by God.

"This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely." Jeremiah 4:27

That is where Jeremiah under the power of the Holy Spirit drew the line. The last judgement was complete. The earth was destroyed. In the one Israel was to receive, God will leave room for their return, which happened later on.

Furthermore, he is doing so poetically, so it is wise not to place too heavy a reliance on this being a literal description.

Wriggle room 101?

Actually it was a case of a fortiori.

"You rebellious Jews think you are going to escape judgement? If, the Lord is capable of destroying the entire planet? (using Genesis 1:2, as proof) Utterly destroying all life? Leaving no man behind?

But... (here was the contrast of the two judgements) I will not do the same, and destroy you completely!. I will preserve a remnant that I will not destroy."

That, is what that passage is saying!

Cassius Clay used to make up poetry to antagonize his opponents, who he was later to knock off their feet. Poetry is not always flowers and sunshine. Just because Jeremiah used a poetic form, does not mean it lacked a serious tone about stark reality.

God was about to judge Judah. God had Jeremiah speak of God's ability to judge and utterly destroy what ever he wishes destroyed. If Adonoy Elohenu could destroy the entire planet? And, wipe out all life? How much more easily will God destroy you, O Israel!? (that was the point!)

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You fail to see God's hand involved with instant transformations. Creating a new species at will.

science can't detect those transformations.
but if they occurred God made them look like evolution. see the GLO pseudogene for example. so science is investigating what God desires man to see, having hid the real work behind the supernatural instanteous transformations. again "creation with apparant age" type of argument, fine, then science is looking at the apparent age. makes no real difference.


....

 

[gluadys]

The Scripture is silent on it.

And silence means consent.

I guess someone decided to throw out the logical premise of "survival of the fittest" after too many inconsitencies were found? Eh?

No, in any situation of natural selection the fittest survive. But there is still no higher or lower in evolution. The fit among bacteria survive as do the fit among birds; the fit among worms survive as do the fit among whales.

There you go! Calling the Scripture a LIE.

Look. Not even all creationists agree with you that humanity was totally destroyed with no survivors at some time prior to the creation of Adam. Though, I expect you say they call scripture a lie too.

Sorry, but if your interpretation of scripture doesn't fit the facts, that doesn't change the facts. So, to continue interpreting scripture in a way that flies in the face of facts is, IMHO, wresting the scriptures to your own destruction. It is you who are wringing a lie out of the revelation of God's truth.

Those are from two different and separate creations.

A matter of opinion and hermeneutics. Asserting this is so does not make it so.

You fail to see God's hand involved with instant transformations.

What I fail to see is instant transformations. I would see God's hand in them if I saw them in the first place. OTOH I do see God's hand in evolution.

But, only one big difference. You can not be wrong. Why? Because you have evolved more than I have in the ability to reason? Is that it?

No that is not it. It has nothing to do with my poor powers of discernment. It has everything to do with the evidence nature has provided over the history of life on earth.

You are just so committed to your theology that you dare not look at the evidence, because then you will be confronted with the challenge: do you acknowledge the truth or do you cling to a theology which is patently not true?

I don't know about you, but I know what God expects of me.

I see..... Then!

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

.... was not speaking of a global incident! Thanks! I never knew that!

" I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone." Jeremiah 4:23

Hmmm! Interesting conundrum. Scholars are divided over whether Gen. 1 was written before or after Lamentations. Richard Friedman makes a case for before, but others say later.

But both writers use the identical phrase. This indicates a borrowing. But who borrowed from whom? Did Jeremiah borrow from P, appying P's description of the primeval earth to the land of Judah? Or did P borrow from Jeremiah, applying his description of the wasted land of Judah to the primeval earth?

Is Jeremiah comparing the waste of Jerusalem and its environs to the bleak emptiness of the earth before God began to give it order? Maybe. But it could just as well be that P is telling his readers that before God began to set the universe in order the earth was as desolate as the land of Judah after it was laid waste by the Babylonians.

Wriggle room 101?

That is the nature of poetry. It is called poetic licence.

Poetry is not always flowers and sunshine.

You bet its not. Ever read Lamentations? Or the Psalms of lament in which the psalmist bewails his situation? Poetry often expresses deep emotions of sadness, distress, anger, hatred, desire for revenge, etc. as well as of love, joy, delight, etc. The Psalms have it all.

God was about to judge Judah.

The reason the book is called Lamentations is because it is a lament. It was written after the fall of Jerusalem as a song of mourning. The judgment had already fallen.

It is traditionally attributed to Jeremiah, but the authorship is not certain.

 

[GenemZ]

science can't detect those transformations.

2 Corinthians 5:7 niv
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."

Science is only a source of some information that we need to know. You make it sound like it should have all the answers, perhaps?

but if they occurred God made them look like evolution.

No.... Because he raised up brilliant scholars who see in the original languages that there was a destruction of a past creation. In the Church we had that as early as the first century AD.

Just go here:
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

see the GLO pseudogene for example. so science is investigating what God desires man to see, having hid the real work behind the supernatural instanteous transformations. again "creation with apparant age" type of argument, fine, then science is looking at the apparent age. makes no real difference.

Sir? You are not talking to a YEC. God did not make it to look like something it is not. I believe that this planet is very old. It just so happens that the creation on the surface of this earth we now find ourselves living in, was a replacement for one that was destroyed. And! that one was much OLDER!

And, in the future God will continue with his same procedure of entering into another new age. This present creation will cease to exist then, and will be replaced with a new one.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."


The creation we now see will cease to exist. It will be replaced with a new one brought forth by God's Word. Not by evolution.

Isaiah 11:6-9 niv
" The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.


The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea."

There will be no transitional creatures for scientists to find. There will not be any.

Sorry, to ruin your fun. The Bible does contain logical reasons for the way things are. The days of TOE's having fun with the misleading statements of YEC's is over. It may just be the time when God starts stepping on some TOE's?




Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Critias]

But your creationist assertions are also TE assertions.

You don't take six day creation, which comes from Biblical teaching, by faith.

You take a billion year(s) creation by common descent, which comes from scientists' teaching, by faith.

 

[Critias]

Neat evasion. Paul's words in the context of Paul's letter are meaningful. But you have pulled them out of Paul's letter and used them as a reply to my post.

What do they mean to you in the context of this conversation? What thought process made them seem relevant in THIS context? Why do you think this transplantation of this text from Paul's letter to this thread makes sense?

I gave an explanation for it. No one is bending your arm to agree with me.

You have stated Genesis is a myth. You have gone on about geneologies (ancestors of ancestors) that seem to have no end.

Seriously, you cannot even see the connection? If not, I am greatly surprised and yet able to see why your beliefs are the way they are.

 

[Critias]

So let me get this straight. You are asserting that Paul was talking about the issues of Genesis interpretation and "common descent" when he wrote this passage??

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you undestand what 'implication' means when interpreting text?

Do you understand the difference between the author's intended meaning and the readers implication of the author's intended meaning?

I believe you are the one who said you are in seminary school? If so, this should have been one of the first things taught to you.

 

[Critias]

And silence means consent.

This statement is flawed in so many ways.

 

[gluadys]

This statement is flawed in so many ways.

It is actually a legal principle.

 

[depthdeception]

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you undestand what 'implication' means when interpreting text?

Do you understand the difference between the author's intended meaning and the readers implication of the author's intended meaning?

I believe you are the one who said you are in seminary school? If so, this should have been one of the first things taught to you.

Yes, I fully understand the concept. However, you are improperly categorizing alternate interpretations of Genesis and "common descent" as being applicable to Paul's writing about "myths" and "endless geneaologies." Given what Paul was talking about (and the possible implications of that in other areas), the example which you have offered is baseless.

 

[depthdeception]

This statement is flawed in so many ways.

]

I would be interested in you providing just one.

 

[GenemZ]

And silence means consent.

So, all things the Bible is silent on, means consent?

Look. Not even all creationists agree with you that humanity was totally destroyed with no survivors at some time prior to the creation of Adam. Though, I expect you say they call scripture a lie too.

The Bible makes it very plain how Adam was formed. He did not come from another creature that evolved into a homo sapien.

Genesis 2:7 niv
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground ( adamah it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20).

Even his name sounds like what he was formed out from! There is too much going in a direction that says you wish to say that passage is a lie. That God intentionally mislead future generations, even though he could have EASILY shown a way to describe evolutionary transformation. But, the Lord did not. So? That passage (according to you) is a LIE.

God's Word lies. It does not simply tell myths. It lies!


" So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life."
Genesis 3:14 niv

Like with what was done to the serpent, God could have easily conveyed a creature taking on a new form under God's power. So? Tell us? Why did God need to lie in regards to how Adam's body came into being? Did God have an overrun on apes? A surplus? He was bored and wanted to experiment?

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_apeman.asp

Sorry, but if your interpretation of scripture doesn't fit the facts, that doesn't change the facts. So, to continue interpreting scripture in a way that flies in the face of facts is, IMHO, wresting the scriptures to your own destruction. It is you who are wringing a lie out of the revelation of God's truth.

Ironic, how you sound just like a self righteous religious type who wishes to defend their cherished idols of traditional thought. They do not care what the Word really says. They only care about what they want to believe. Just goes to show you. Scientists are fallen humans, too. Just like the rest of us. Thank God for his grace!

A matter of opinion and hermeneutics. Asserting this is so does not make it so.

But, you asserting your opinion, is. How nice.

What I fail to see is instant transformations. I would see God's hand in them if I saw them in the first place. OTOH I do see God's hand in evolution.

How could you see what you were not privy to seeing with your eyes. It all comes down to thinking God's Word lies..... or, is truthful. You deny faith by what you declare as being counter to the truth.

2 Corinthians 5:7
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."

But, you? If you can not see it? It's not so until you do?

Tell me? Did God part the waters of the Red Sea? Did Jesus walk on water? You have no evidence by sight. God by the Holy Spirit gives faith. Its a gift from God. Certain sins cuts us off from the grace needed to have faith. But, let's not go there. For it can not be measured on a scope.

No that is not it. It has nothing to do with my poor powers of discernment. It has everything to do with the evidence nature has provided over the history of life on earth.

Science has corrected itself more than once. What used to be commonly accepted, was later found not to be true.

You are just so committed to your theology that you dare not look at the evidence, because then you will be confronted with the challenge: do you acknowledge the truth or do you cling to a theology which is patently not true?

OK... Then it is a lie to you.

Genesis 2:7 niv
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Hmmm! Interesting conundrum. Scholars are divided over whether Gen. 1 was written before or after Lamentations. Richard Friedman makes a case for before, but others say later.

Satan will always have his men to throw waste into the soup. That's their job, you know. Even Jesus was accused of being an imposter. Looks like you have to do your own thinking for once, and not get tossed back and forth everytime you see a disagreement.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 niv
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

But both writers use the identical phrase. This indicates a borrowing. But who borrowed from whom? Did Jeremiah borrow from P, appying P's description of the primeval earth to the land of Judah? Or did P borrow from Jeremiah, applying his description of the wasted land of Judah to the primeval earth?

Now I know why liberals lie so much. They know there is always someone who will believe what simply feels right to them. Same holds true to those who profess to be scholars, but are only out to confuse the issues. They have a job to do. To keep those who want to reject truth feeling justified for doing so. So, they write lies to show that those who wish to reject truth are free to do so. Its quite simple to see what's going on. That is, if you really knew what was going on.

Ephesians 6:12 niv
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Can you measure those powers that influence the minds of men who walk outside of grace, on a scientific measuring device? I guess, since you can not. That, that passage must be a lie, as well?

Is Jeremiah comparing the waste of Jerusalem and its environs to the bleak emptiness of the earth before God began to give it order?

It says that all life was destroyed! That life was on this planet. No more birds! No more people! The mountains were shaking! Tohu wa bohu, means wreak and havoc, and having an eerie sense of emptiness about it.

It would more appear like a dark scene after Godzilla just finished destroying Tokyo in the original black and white version. Or a scene from a movie that just showed NYC utterly demolished by an atomic blast. Dark! Eerie! A certain sense of emptiness that we find in the great classic horror films.

Jeremiah describes the whole earth as being in that state, and warns Israel that God is going to find it even easier to judge their small nation! But in their case, he will not destroy all, implying that in the first description, all were destroyed!

Jeremiah 4:23-27 niv
" I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.


I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.

I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger. This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely."

Maybe. But it could just as well be that P is telling his readers that before God began to set the universe in order the earth was as desolate as the land of Judah after it was laid waste by the Babylonians.

Funny, how you I see you finding excuses and wriggle, just like YEC's do when they are shown the evidence by scientists for how old this planet really is. It appears what they do to science, you do the same thing concerning theology. That is, when it reveals what you did not know, and do not want to accept. I find that quite amusing.


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Critias]

Yes, I fully understand the concept. However, you are improperly categorizing alternate interpretations of Genesis and "common descent" as being applicable to Paul's writing about "myths" and "endless geneaologies." Given what Paul was talking about (and the possible implications of that in other areas), the example which you have offered is baseless.

Really? I am finding that hard to believe since you are unable to grasp the implication of 1 Timothy 1:3-5.

It is the TE position that is the "alternate" interpretation of the Genesis, not a creationists position. A creationists position can be traced back to Jesus' time.

It is the TEs who assert Genesis is a myth. It is TEs who assert geneologies that go on and on as if they are endless. And it is a TE who cannot grasp Paul's words of myths and endless geneologies being applicable to this forum and thread.

It is baseless for you because you refuse to see its implications towards your view.

 

[depthdeception]

The Bible makes it very plain how Adam was formed. He did not come from another creature that evolved into a homo sapien.

You have an interesting defintion of "clear," considering the passage is far from specific on how Adam was formed. Being "formed" from the dust could mean one of an infinite number of things.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&verse=7&version=31&context=verse

Even his name sounds like what he was formed out from!

Hmmm... Sounds pretty evolutionary to me!

There is too much going in a direction that says you wish to say that passage is a lie. That God intentionally mislead future generations, even though he could have EASILY shown a way to describe evolutionary transformation. But, the Lord did not. So? That passage (according to you) is a LIE.

Who said it's a lie? That is your mischaracterization of people's ideas who disagree with you. Regardless of what God could have easily done (you're really keen on this "could-have" business, huh?), the point is that a human wrote the passages of Genesis. For the kind of "proof" you wish to provide in relation to your interpretation, your source text is quite lacking...

Like with what was done to the serpent, God could have easily conveyed a creature taking on a new form under God's power. So? Tell us? Why did God need to lie in regards to how Adam's body came into being? Did God have an overrun on apes? A surplus? He was bored and wanted to experiment?

Let's assume that the Genesis accounts are meant to be a scientific explanation of what occurred "in the beginning." What do you suppose the writer of the passages would have done if he had read about evolution, given his worldview and horribly limited understanding of the natural world? He would have smashed it against a rock and left it behind, for it would have been completely unintelligible. Yet you do not have a problem with forcing an unintelligible interpretation upon the text for our context. If the Scriptures are truly "inspired" and relevant for all generations, then it seems that we must interpret it in such a way that it can just that--relevant. If our observations and experiences of the physical universe blatantly contradict our interpretations of the Scriptures, our interpretations must be adjusted.

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_apeman.asp

How could you see what you were not privy to seeing with your eyes. It all comes down to thinking God's Word lies..... or, is truthful. You deny faith by what you declare as being truth.

Why is this so?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=5&verse=7&version=9&context=verse

Tell me? Did God part the waters of the Red Sea? Did Jesus walk on water? You have no evidence by sight. God by the Holy Spirit gives faith. Its a gift from God. Certain sins cuts us off from the grace needed to have faith. But, let's not go there. For it can not be measured on a scope.

Yet you wish to do exactly this by submitting Scriptures to the "scope."

Science has corrected itself more than once. What used to be commonly accepted, was later found not to be true.

Scientists have corrected themselves more than once. Science, as a methodology, is still sound and is actually the impetus for the scientist's corrections of their understanding.

Now I know why liberals lie so much. They know there is always someone who will believe what simply feels right to them. Same holds true to those who profess to be scholars. They have a job to do. To keep those who want to reject ruth feeling justified for doing so. So, they write lies to show that those who wish to reject truth are free to do so. Its quite simple to see what's going on. That is, if you really knew what was going on.

All I can say is thank goodness for those virtuous conservatives who would never do anything to appease certain groups of people, or to justify certain presuppositions and beliefs... Give me a breaK!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=6&verse=12&version=31&context=verse

Funny, how you I see you finding excuses and wriggle just like YEC's do when they are shown the evidence for how old this planet really is. You do the same thing concerning theology, when it reveals what you did not know. I find that quite amusing.

Thank goodness we have you around to keep us on the straight and narrow. It's nice to have someone who has infallible theological understanding around--makes me less nervous at night!

 

[Critias]

]

I would be interested in you providing just one.

I am amazed that you would think that if the Bible is silent then it agrees with anyone's assertions.

Example: Peter, the moment before he died, denied Jesus Christ as his Savior. The Bible is silent on this, therefore Peter did deny Jesus Christ the moment before he died upside down on the cross.

 

[depthdeception]

It is the TE position that is the "alternate" interpretation of the Genesis, not a creationists position. A creationists position can be traced back to Jesus' time.

The TE position is only "alternative" if it is wrong. However, if a creationist (whatever this is supposed to mean) is wrong, then that is the one that is "alternate."

It is the TEs who assert Genesis is a myth. It is TEs who assert geneologies that go on and on as if they are endless.

What do you suppose Paul's reason for saying this was? Was it to stop people from critically thinking about their place in the universe and the world in which they live? Or is there another reason? If the first suggestion is true, I will conceed the point. However, if the second is accurate, then my assertion remains that your equation of Paul's words and the TE position is foundationless.

And it is a TE who cannot grasp Paul's words of myths and endless geneologies being applicable to this forum and thread.

I do not have a difficulty grasping them. What I have a difficulty grasping is how you feel entitled to apply unrelated verses in order to attempt to substantiate your position.