Another End of World Prophecy Comes to Pass...

[cupid dave]

I am willing to bet your a traitor and will be quick to turn your back on science when science supports the GAP creationism.

Yes, they will and are doing it right here when I explain it to them:


The seven "days" are the long durations science now calls the seven eras


THE CLOCK USED IN GENESIS ONE:

 

[AtheistVet]

Are you the messiah?

 

[cupid dave]

Are you the messiah?

When I post the ideas found in the Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation peole ask me that.

But I think the messiah is the church, the body of Christ.


1Cor. 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ,...

Eph. 1:22 ,23 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,... ...Which is his body,...

Eph. 5:29
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it,... even as... the Lord the church:

Eph. 5:30 For we are members of his body,...
... of his flesh, and of his bones.

Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church:

 

[AtheistVet]

Is that a no?

 

[Jazer]

Is that a no?

United together the Church is the Body of Christ. God is doing a work in us so that we can have the mind of Christ. Of course there is a counterfeit church and that may cause some confusion for you.

 

[AtheistVet]

So no?

 

[Huram Abi]

Is that a no?

Good luck getting a straight answer. I've read where he believes he is and that's what his "Theistic Evolution Bible" is all about: the writer thinks he has the authority to "open the book" from Revelation 5:5 and that is what he is trying to accomplish by adding more content to the bible.


Is David Judah Layb the coming messiah?

I've asked him make his belief as clear as possible by simply and plainly saying, "No, I am not the awaited king. Neither is it in my power to loose the 7 seals or to open the book. I am not the root of David, the lion of Judah; the same spoken of in Rev 5:5. I am not the messiah ben David" and he refuses to do so.

But he is also too embarrassed to confirm, either, but the evidence speaks for itself that he clearly does think he is the messiah.

 

[Huram Abi]

When I post the ideas found in the Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation peole ask me that.

No, sir.

No one wants to know if you think you are the messiah based on the grossly confused additions you have made.

It isn't until people search to confirm that you are the one behind the "Freudian" or "21st Century Darwinist" (whatever misnomer you want to give it) interpretation that you continue to source as "evidence" and they discover that you, kofh2u, have made messianic claims that we now want you to clarify.

People ask you because you've already claimed it and they are offering you the opportunity to retract your former statements and correct yourself.

 

[Jazer]

So no?

No to what? You need to use the quote button so we know what your talking about.

 

[AtheistVet]

He's not the messiah?

 

[Huram Abi]

He's not the messiah?

Well, no... Not unless the messiah is expected to commit fraud by false personation and copyright infringement while taking donations for a fake charity and church organization and at the same time not paying taxes on the profit side of his "business" ie: selling teacher's materials without so much as a verifiable associates degree.

If that is one of the prophetic requirements, then he just may be the messiah.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, they will and are doing it right here when I explain it to them:


The seven "days" are the long durations science now calls the seven eras


THE CLOCK USED IN GENESIS ONE:

Mhm. Talk about twisting Scripture to fit your preconceived notions... but I'll humour you: prove it. Prove that the all this fits together.

This is why I (begrudgingly) respect YECs: their views are demonstrably false, but they hold fast to their religious belief. They don't waiver, they don't hum and haw and wring their hand and twist their books - they stand firm to what they believe in. If nothing else, I admire their tenacity.

Still a big steaming load, though .

 

[AV1611VET]

Biblical Creationism, by definition, involves magic.

No, it doesn't. It involves miracles.

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

 

[TLK Valentine]

While C&E isn't the venue for such things... it did get me thinking.

Apparently, it's really really hard to figure out dates and time spans using biblical literature. It's interesting because so much of the creation belief stems from a time span derived from biblical literature.

Which causes issues when one takes literally a genre known for hyperbole.

I mean, evolution takes so much longer than the 6000 years creationists figure from biblical literature... it must be false right? It's so easy to ignore all the details when evolution is so far off on the age of the world. Most creationists would be fine to leave it alone. They will get what they deserve in the afterlife. But here they are teaching our kids this stuff. This has got to stop. It's just not right... I get it.

Makes me wonder who if anyone bothered to check Bishop Ussher's calculations.

[Quotw]What's the alternative really? In order to reconcile both and be able to hold on to established belief, a creationist would have to come up with reasons for all the contradictions. That would require painting God as a trickster or some really crazy theories supported by neither science or biblical literature. What a sad state that would be.[/quote]

A sad state it is, you mean...

Or maybe these texts were made for a different reason than to act as a science book. Maybe somewhere along the way the focus was lost and the message got distorted.

John's Gospel did everything short of hold up a "For God's sake, don't take it literally!" neon sign, and people still missed it.

When biblical texts were used as evidence of a geocentric universe it wasn't a small miscalculation. It's as big an error as the universe itself. Being wrong about the age of our planet, and how it came to be like it is today, is also huge. Maybe not as big as the geocentric model but I can understand the resistance to that big of a change. We've all seen it play out before.

In all fairness, the Church didn't make the error -- they just enshrined it into doctrine.

I just wonder how many generations it's going to take this time.

Unfortunately, it's not even about evolution anymore... if it ever was.
Actually, it's moral panic over the uncertainty of an ever-changing world...

Cheers to the lurkers. I wish you better luck.

We'll keep fighting the good fight... Proverbs 19:2, don't you know...

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The OP hasn't been here for 5 years and the thread died for all intensive purposes 10 1/2 years ago.

 

[Astrid]

The OP hasn't been here for 5 years and the thread died for all intensive purposes 10 1/2 years ago.

Another person missing, and missed for his
unique passion and contribution to society.
Tsang Tsou Choi - Wikipedia

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The OP hasn't been here for 5 years and the thread died for all intensive purposes 10 1/2 years ago.

I think the thread died for all relaxed purposes, too

 

[Astrophile]

When biblical texts were used as evidence of a geocentric universe it wasn't a small miscalculation. It's as big an error as the universe itself. Being wrong about the age of our planet, and how it came to be like it is today, is also huge. Maybe not as big as the geocentric model but I can understand the resistance to that big of a change. We've all seen it play out before.

I just wonder how many generations it's going to take this time.

From the publication of Copernicus's De revolutionibus in 1543 to the publication of Newton's Principia Mathematica in 1687 was 144 years. It is now 190 years since the publication of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830-1833) and 162½ years since the publication of The Origin of Species. This is not encouraging.

 

[Astrophile]

"Catching Fire How Cooking Made us Human". This is a very highly recommended book by people like: Discovery Magazine, Harvard Brain, NY Times, Washington Post and so on. So if the people here want to argue against them about evolution and what part fire and cooking is a part of evolution. Then I figure I have no business to get involved in the discussion because there is to much disagreement between evolutionists. They just do not get along among themselves. The Atheists discouraged me from learning and doing serious study on Evolution. I did not want to end up where they are at. Even though I otherwise find the subject interesting.

This is a book about human cultural evolution, which is only a very small part of a very large subject. Whether Wrangham's hypothesis is correct or not does not affect the validity of the main theory of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the thread died for all relaxed purposes, too

Perhaps the wrong terminology poisoned it?