Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As I expected, a thoughtful, well-expressed and convincing argument dismissed as junk by AV! I'm no expert, but isn't pride a sin? I've never come across a sensible Christian response to The Age of Reason. I'm not going to get one (even of two paragraphs) here, am I?
It's because AV works under the a priori assumption that the AV1611 KJV is 100% inerrant. If reality disagrees with his Bible, then reality is wrong. In theory, if God disagrees with his Bible, then God is wrong.
It is an absurd and indefensible position, but alas one we cannot refute. Just relegate it to the realm of dad's split hypothesis, or Russel's teapot.
As I expected, a thoughtful, well-expressed and convincing argument dismissed as junk by AV! I'm no expert, but isn't pride a sin? I've never come across a sensible Christian response to The Age of Reason. I'm not going to get one (even of two paragraphs) here, am I?
LOL --- simply unbelievable --- un-stinking-believable.
I HATE SATAN!
Well, I wouldn't expect a pagan to fully understand, but this is one of the remarks that stood out to me as blasphemy:
I'm not too popular here for pointing out that the Bible exposes atheism as a form of worship
(Do you really hold that, if the original Greek or Hebrew text of the Bible contradicts the KJV, then the Greek in wrong and the KJV is right?)
I'm not too popular here for pointing out that the Bible exposes atheism as a form of worship, but a poster about a month ago posted something Einstein said that supports that fact, as does this post from Thomas Paine.
It doesn't always contradict. But in some cases it does because of the changes in language and culture.
Classic example (see many threads in Debates on Homosexuality) Corinthinans 6:9. The Greek word 'arsenokoites' has been translated in a number of ways- the original KJV puts it as 'effeminate' (as you are doubtless aware!) but later versions translate it as 'homosexual'.
But going back to more contempory sources it appears that the word, whilst certainly describing wrong-doing, has nothing to do with the modern idea of homosexuality. Rather, it referes to a more economic sin- possibly sexual, i.e. bribing people into having sex or using economic coersion, but not freely consentual relationships.
(http://clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html)
But many would say "No, the Bible says 'homosexual', so that's what it means!" without even considering the possibility that 2,000 years and several translations might have resulted in a bit of linguistic drift....
Oh, and 'witch' in the Old Testament. The original word refered to those who made and used potions. In King James' time witches were believed to do this as well. But there wasn't the spell aspect of it, so much, in the OT versions.
But now there are some who think that 'witch' in the OT refers to Wiccans.
Not just neo-pagans- specifically Wiccans.
It doesn't always contradict. But in some cases it does because of the changes in language and culture.
Classic example (see many threads in Debates on Homosexuality) Corinthinans 6:9. The Greek word 'arsenokoites' has been translated in a number of ways- the original KJV puts it as 'effeminate' (as you are doubtless aware!) but later versions translate it as 'homosexual'.
But going back to more contempory sources it appears that the word, whilst certainly describing wrong-doing, has nothing to do with the modern idea of homosexuality. Rather, it referes to a more economic sin- possibly sexual, i.e. bribing people into having sex or using economic coersion, but not freely consentual relationships.
(http://clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html)
But many would say "No, the Bible says 'homosexual', so that's what it means!" without even considering the possibility that 2,000 years and several translations might have resulted in a bit of linguistic drift....
Oh, and 'witch' in the Old Testament. The original word refered to those who made and used potions. In King James' time witches were believed to do this as well. But there wasn't the spell aspect of it, so much, in the OT versions.
But now there are some who think that 'witch' in the OT refers to Wiccans.
Not just neo-pagans- specifically Wiccans.
I have a little different take on it than most. To me it is saying that in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. Without indication of when this was nor how long it took.
It does say that he created the firmament and called it heaven, Should this be considered to be the heavens spoke of earlier or simply the sky above planet earth.?
It also says that he gathered together the waters into one place so that dry land appeared and he called that dry land earth, This should not be cofused as meaning the planet earth but earth as in soil instead.
Everything here seems to be written from the perspective of earth the land, the water, the sky[heaven] space [the heavens] the stars sun and moon. The evening and the morning and so on.
It doesn't make a lot of sense given what we now know about the earth, the solar system and life in general unless we look at it as written by a primative people who knew very little of these things.
Paine wasn't an atheist, as is perfectly clear from the quotation.
He doesn't describe worship of nature, but of the god he believes created it. He had the humility, and honesty, to say that he didn't know or understand the mind of the god he believed in.
I know it's pointless debating with AV, I've read enough threads. I just felt like joining in for a change. There is no reason to believe the Bible is divinely inspired. AV has certainly never provided one.
Debating with AV1 is an exercise in futility.
AV rocks. There is no evidence for evolution and God's Word cannot be contradicted.
Different suppositions carried to this discussion group cannot be reconciled. Those that do not believe in the literal Word of God (and have not committed their lives to serve HIM) decide to "interpert" it to their worldview (long age, uniformitarianism).
You don't believe it. AV1611VET doesn't believe it. Nobody - except for a handfull maybe - believes it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?