Carnivores and the Fall

[Assyrian]

God is omnipresent and omniscient, He is an eye-witness to EVERY event in history. I'll trust Him to tell me what happened way back when.

Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

 

[vossler]

I like the fact that vossler used passages that clearly refer exclusively to non-believers who completely reject the gospel, in searching for Biblical comparisons to evolutionists.

That's interesting since both Romans and Corinthians were written to believers. How one could then surmize that the passages I quoted were somehow exclusively written for non-believers is quite fascinating. I think this is another example of taking the text and applying, or should I say twisting, it so that it fits your personal worldview.

 

[Mallon]

That's interesting since both Romans and Corinthians were written to believers. How one could then surmize that the passages I quoted were somehow exclusively written for non-believers is quite fascinating.

He didn't say the text was written for non-believers. He said the text was referring to non-believers, not Christians like you supposed in your proof text.

 

[The Barbarian]

To believe in philosophical materialism one must also believe in the hypothesis of billions of years.

Barbarian observes:
To believe in philosophical materialism, one must also believe that electrons exist. This is not a reason to deny that electrons exist.



​

Did you know that an appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument?

It seems ridiculous to you, because your personal interpretation of scripture is not threatened by electrons, but it is threatened by the way He created the diversity of life. Otherwise, it's the same statement you made.

Barbarian observes:
Since I've put my trust in God, instead of creationism, (which is man's invention), I don't think so. He's right. Creationists are wrong.

If you insist that creationism is man's invention (which a disagree with),

YE creationism was invented in the last century by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has never been the orthodox Christian understanding.

Barbarian regarding the notion that relative ages of the rocks was the work of philosophical naturalists:

No. The ages of rocks were first worked out by geologists over 150 years ago, all of whom were creationists.
​

This is an appeal fallacy.

? Actually, it's a refutation of your assertion. Would you like some evidence for that?

Barbarian continues:

They observed a sequence always found in undisturbed rock, first noted by Persian geologist Ibn Sina, and later formulated by Nicholas Steno in the 1600s. Only later, did people like Hutton and Lyell notice that there were certain fossils only found in specific layers. So the understanding of relative age was founded first by the simple realization that the lowest undisturbed rock was olded, and only secondarily by the realization that some fossils were only found at certain points in the column.
​

Did you know that the fallacy of the single cause is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when it is assumed that there is one cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

That's precisely what you have done, to wit:

Two words: global flood.

If you think so, you'll have to explain how a desert, a forest, and then an estuary had time to appear, fossilize, and then be covered by flood sediments in less than a year's time.

Tell us about it.

The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.

Barbarian reminds, Jig:
No, you've been misled about that, too. The use of fossils as indexes to relative age has nothing to do with evolution.
​

Again we are on the topic of the supposed "age" of the planet. My intention had nothing to do with disproving evolution.

If you don't want to talk about it, why do you keep bringing it up?

Evolution happens all the time. We observe it. We can study it. Natural selection happens all the time. We observe it. We can study it. What we observe, however, can be labeled as micro-evolution, since the chnages we study and observe occur within the same kinds. We do not observe a kind of creature change into a different kind of creature

The first documented macroevolutionary event was about 1904. Macroevolution, as you might know, means the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words. We have quite a number of directly observed ones.

that would be macro-evolution, and that is a theory based on the philosophy of uniformitiarianism

All sciences are based on uniformitarianism. I suspect that you don't know what the word means. What do you think it means?


​

 

[vossler]

He didn't say the text was written for non-believers. He said the text was referring to non-believers, not Christians like you supposed in your proof text.

To be 100% accurate he said the text was referring exclusively to non-believers. I see nothing in the text that makes that distinction. If you do I'd like to hear how.

 

[Jig]

It seems ridiculous to you, because your personal interpretation of scripture is not threatened by electrons, but it is threatened by the way He created the diversity of life. Otherwise, it's the same statement you made.

That is not true. We know for a fact electrons exist, we even have machines that can count them. As for the idea of billions of years, that is based not on observable science, but philosophical assumption.

YE creationism was invented in the last century by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has never been the orthodox Christian understanding.

I am forced to call myself a YE creationist, for the lack of a better title. However, I don't call the Earth either old or young. I call it as it is, mature. I adhere to a literal six day creation scheme, which most of the early church also adhered too. This means I believe the Earth is less than 12,000 years old allowing for telescoping effects on the genealogies.

? Actually, it's a refutation of your assertion. Would you like some evidence for that?

Do you have any idea what I was commenting on?
Your fallacy was this statement: "all of whom were creationists." This has nothing to do with the argument, yet you toss it out as if it has significance when it truely doesn't. This is simular to the fallacy of appealing to authority.

That's precisely what you have done, to wit:

Wrong. I do not adhere to only one cause. True, I do believe that a global flood caused great catastrophe to our planet, but I also understand that since the flood uniform progression and catastropic events have been observed to be occuring, such as earthquakes and the formation of yearly ice layers (though not all ice layers seem to be based on summer/winter, but any warm/cool cycle). Natural science today seems to be hung up on the philosophical idea that uniform progression has happened since the beginning. This is unobservable and untestable. They exclude the notion that a supernatural being did anything supernatural. I believe in the flood because God said it happened.

If you think so, you'll have to explain how a desert, a forest, and then an estuary had time to appear, fossilize, and then be covered by flood sediments in less than a year's time.

How do you know the desert, forest, and estuary were fossils when they got covered by sediment? Also, fossilization can be done very rapidly given the proper enviroment.

If you don't want to talk about it, why do you keep bringing it up?

Who said I didn't want to talk about it? I was focused on another topic at the time.

The first documented macroevolutionary event was about 1904. Macroevolution, as you might know, means the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words. We have quite a number of directly observed ones.

List source so I can properly give a rebuttal. Thanks.

All sciences are based on uniformitarianism. I suspect that you don't know what the word means. What do you think it means?

I agree with what wikipedia has for is definition. And it's been the definition I have been using.

The principle [or philosophical idea] that the same scientific laws and processes are constant throughout space and time. It applies specifically to sciences that require a long timescale such as geology, astronomy, and paleontology.

It assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
​

 

[Jig]

How? I don't see the connection.

Is it because of sin we die? Yes or no.

 

[Assyrian]

To be 100% accurate he said the text was referring exclusively to non-believers. I see nothing in the text that makes that distinction. If you do I'd like to hear how.

You may not be openly advocating compromise, but most certainly in the end that's what you get. Creationists don't accept anything that claims to be 'science' that directly refutes the Word of God and is based on conjecture and speculation; all Christians should do likewise. As far as roadblocks are concerned, well Scripture deals with that.

Romans 1:18-25 sums this up quite well:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
​

....26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
​

Romans 11:7-10 goes on to say:

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,

"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." And David says,

"Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever."
​

I like Isaiah 5:21 in helping us to remember how little it is we know:

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
​

Finally I think this really puts an exclamation point on it, it specifically deals with your post 118 and the theme of many of your posts. 1 Corinthians 1:18-29 states:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
​

That's the problem, evolutionists love to mix up how the Bible is read in order to fit their paradigm. That's why there's little consistency to their doctrine.
Of course not, especially if it conflicts with our own ideas.

Let's see, we have wicked idol worshipping homosexuals who hate God and worship birds animal and creeping things. We have Jews who did not obey the gospel (Rom 10:16), who are enemies of God as regards the gospel (11:28), whose hearts were hardened and were not God's elect. And we have those who are perishing rather than being saved, Jews for whom the cross is a stumbling block and Gentiles to whom it is foolishness.

And you really think Paul might be talking about Christians? And you think we mix up how the bible is read?

 

[Assyrian]

Is it because of sin we die? Yes or no.

Yes, just like Paul. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It seems ridiculous to you, because your personal interpretation of scripture is not threatened by electrons, but it is threatened by the way He created the diversity of life. Otherwise, it's the same statement you made.
​

That is not true.

Yep. If it wasn't for your unorthodox reading of scripture, you'd have no more anxiety about long ages than you would about electrons.

We know for a fact electrons exist, we even have machines that can count them.

You've never seen an electron, nor has anyone else. You have only indirect evidence for their existence, just as we do for long ages. In fact, we have machines that count long ages.

As for the idea of billions of years, that is based not on observable science, but philosophical assumption.

As you just learned, the same "philosophical" (actually scientific) inferences support electrons as support long ages.

Barbarian observes:
YE creationism was invented in the last century by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has never been the orthodox Christian understanding.

I am forced to call myself a YE creationist, for the lack of a better title. However, I don't call the Earth either old or young. I call it as it is, mature. I adhere to a literal six day creation scheme, which most of the early church also adhered too.

No. St. Augustine, the most respected theologian among Christians, pointed out that it could not be six literal days. The "Life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.

This means I believe the Earth is less than 12,000 years old allowing for telescoping effects on the genealogies.

? Actually, it's a refutation of your assertion. Would you like some evidence for that?
​

Do you have any idea what I was commenting on?
Your fallacy was this statement: "all of whom were creationists." This has nothing to do with the argument, yet you toss it out as if it has significance when it truely doesn't. This is simular to the fallacy of appealing to authority.

You're a bit confused here. You were asserting that it was based on evolutionary assumptions.



Barbarian observes:
That's precisely what you have done, to wit:

Two words: global flood.

I do not adhere to only one cause. True, I do believe that a global flood caused great catastrophe to our planet,

That's not what you wrote. Have you changed your mind, now?

Natural science today seems to be hung up on the philosophical idea that uniform progression has happened since the beginning.

No. If you believe that, you know nothing of science.

They exclude the notion that a supernatural being did anything supernatural.

No. Science can't even comment on the supernatural, much less deny it.

I believe in the flood because God said it happened.

Christians don't deny a flood happened. You just tried to make it a lot bigger than Scripture says it is.

Barbarian observes:
If you think so, you'll have to explain how a desert, a forest, and then an estuary had time to appear, fossilize, and then be covered by flood sediments in less than a year's time.

How do you know the desert, forest, and estuary were fossils when they got covered by sediment?

If not, the sands of dunes would have been reworked by the flood waters. Dunes of that angle don't exist underwater. So they had to be cemented together before the "flood."

And how do you get a forest springing up, followed by a desert in less than one year's time?

The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.

Barbarian reminds, Jig:
No, you've been misled about that, too. The use of fossils as indexes to relative age has nothing to do with evolution.

Again we are on the topic of the supposed "age" of the planet. My intention had nothing to do with disproving evolution.

If you don't want to talk about it, why do you keep bringing it up?

Barbarian observes:
The first documented macroevolutionary event was about 1904. Macroevolution, as you might know, means the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words. We have quite a number of directly observed ones.
​

Oenothera gigas, a mutant from O. lamarkiana, exists as a new species, no longer interfertile with the parent population.

Barbarian observes:
All sciences are based on uniformitarianism. I suspect that you don't know what the word means. What do you think it means?
​

I agree with what wikipedia has for is definition. And it's been the definition I have been using.

The principle [or philosophical idea] that the same scientific laws and processes are constant throughout space and time. It applies specifically to sciences that require a long timescale such as geology, astronomy, and paleontology.

It assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.

So it doesn't say things proceed uniformly at all, does it? Why did you use it that way, then?

 

[Mallon]

Is it because of sin we die? Yes or no.

Yes, we die in sin. Physical death was around well before the Fall, though (the Tree of Life has no explanation otherwise).
So what does this have to do with the creation of the earth???

 

[vossler]

And you really think Paul might be talking about Christians? And you think we mix up how the bible is read?

There's a lot that could be said here but I'd like to focus on the fact that TEs believe that the verses I cited have no application for the Christian and are directed exclusively toward the unbeliever. Is it any wonder we disagree so often?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, just like Paul. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Hey, Assyrian. I admire you that you can quote the Scripture so quickly and so properly. Another person who usually do this is AV. I have a long way to go. But thanks for the encouragement. I will try:

[BIBLE]Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, ...[/BIBLE]

 

[Jig]

Yes, we die in sin.

Death is the result of sin. “For the wages of sin is death,” Romans 6:23. The whole world is subject to death, because all have sinned. “By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).
God makes it very clear in the Bible that sin requires death as the punishment: For every living soul belongs to me,the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Physical death was around well before the Fall

Would Adam have died if he never ate from the fruit?

the Tree of Life has no explanation otherwise

Explain.

So what does this have to do with the creation of the earth???

Your philosophy requires death NOT be the result of sin. This is in direct conflict with Scripture.

 

[Mallon]

Death is the result of sin. “For the wages of sin is death,” Romans 6:23. The whole world is subject to death, because all have sinned. “By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).
God makes it very clear in the Bible that sin requires death as the punishment: For every living soul belongs to me,the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. (Ezekiel 18:4)



Would Adam have died if he never ate from the fruit?



Explain.



Your philosophy requires death NOT be the result of sin. This is in direct conflict with Scripture.

Genesis 2:9 tells us that before the Fall, God planted a Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden.
After the Fall, Genesis 3:22 records God saying, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
If the Tree of Life granted eternal life, as the Bible clearly and plainly says, have you ever asked yourself what the Tree of Life was doing in the Garden if Adam was created to live forever to begin with? What was the purpose of the Tree of Life if Adam was already created immortal?
Have you ever asked yourself what was outside the Garden of Eden?
Have you ever wondered why Adam was commanded to eat if he was made immortal?
I don't think your case is as black-and-white as you make it. I'm also waiting for your response as to what any of this has to do with what we were talking about.

 

[Jig]

You've never seen an electron, nor has anyone else. You have only indirect evidence for their existence, just as we do for long ages. In fact, we have machines that count long ages.

Are you serious? Can you not tell the difference and why this parallel does not fit? We will never be able to see electrons because of how small they are, but we know they physically exist, not based on philosophy, but because we can physically count them and cause them to physically react. We can observe what the electrons do in the present. As for long ages, those are already past. We see all evidence in the present. We can not physically count the years or time that has past. The hypothesis of billions of years is purely philosophical and the science that supposedly supports it is based on the assumption that the very philosophy is true.

YE creationism was invented in the last century by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has never been the orthodox Christian understanding.

Pure fallacy. Even if what your saying is true, that fact cannot make YEC wrong or false. Just because something is new or from the SDA does not make it wrong or false. Every idea was new at some point in time. Please stop making fallacious statements.

No. St. Augustine, the most respected theologian among Christians, pointed out that it could not be six literal days. The "Life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.

Augustine argued that it could have happen in an instant. And just because he had this view does not make my statement false. And I dare you to prove it wrong. The majority of the early church saw the 6 days of creation, just as that, 6 actual days.

You're a bit confused here. You were asserting that it was based on evolutionary assumptions.

I am not confused here, you are. You added a fallacious comment into your statement. I was just pointing that out.

That's not what you wrote. Have you changed your mind, now?

I did not change my position. I only stated what I felt was missing from the equation.

No. If you believe that, you know nothing of science.[/quote]

So then it is not assumed within the scientific communtiy that uniform progression has happened since the supposed beginning steming from the cosmic Big Bang?

No. Science can't even comment on the supernatural, much less deny it.

Which is why it fails in understanding our origins and how the universe was created/developed. It can not include the hypothesis that a supernatural being divinely called into existence fully formed and mature objects.

Christians don't deny a flood happened. You just tried to make it a lot bigger than Scripture says it is.

If it was a local flood, why did God have Noah spend 100 years building an ark and fill it with animals to re-populate the world? God should have told them to move? Plus, the waters are said to have risen above the mountain tops. Some local flood.

​

Oenothera gigas, a mutant from O. lamarkiana, exists as a new species, no longer interfertile with the parent population.

Wow! A flower that is still a flower! Amazing.

 

[Assyrian]

Hey, Assyrian. I admire you that you can quote the Scripture so quickly and so properly. Another person who usually do this is AV. I have a long way to go. But thanks for the encouragement. I will try:

[bible]Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, ...[/bible]

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You've never seen an electron, nor has anyone else. You have only indirect evidence for their existence, just as we do for long ages. In fact, we have machines that count long ages.
​

We will never be able to see electrons because of how small they are, but we know they physically exist, not based on philosophy, but because we can physically count them and cause them to physically react.

Likewise, we can never experience millions of years, because of how long they are, but we know they existed, not based on philosophy, but because we can physically measure them, and observe their effects.

As I said, we can never directly experience either of these. You accept indirect evidence for electrons, because you don't think they threaten your personal religious beliefs.

We can observe what the electrons do in the present. As for long ages, those are already past. We see all evidence in the present. We can not physically count the years or time that has past. The hypothesis of billions of years is purely philosophical and the science that supposedly supports it is based on the assumption that the very philosophy is true.

We can also observe what long ages do in the present. We can see all of that evidence, and we can indeed count the years of time past, in many different ways. Your philosophy won't let you accept the evidence for it, but it's still true.

YE creationism was invented in the last century by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has never been the orthodox Christian understanding.

Pure fallacy. Even if what your saying is true, that fact cannot make YEC wrong or false.

It's quite true. As recently as the Scopes trial, creationism was of the OE variety, acknowledging billions of years. It wasn't until the adventists sold their doctrines to some evangelicals that it became widespread.

Just because something is new or from the SDA does not make it wrong or false.

But it does clearly rule it out as the Christian belief. Such a view was never orthodoxy. If you want to believe it, that's fine. Just keep in mind that it's a new doctrine, neither Biblical nor part of Christian tradition.

Barbarian observes:
No. St. Augustine, the most respected theologian among Christians, pointed out that it could not be six literal days. The "Life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.

Augustine argued that it could have happen in an instant.

Yep. He denied the "creation week" interpretation, pointing out that it was not logically possible if you accepted all of Genesis.

And just because he had this view does not make my statement false.

Just unorthodox.

And I dare you to prove it wrong. The majority of the early church saw the 6 days of creation, just as that, 6 actual days.

Nope. As you know, Augustine is regarded by the majority of Christians in the world as a Doctor of the Church, and he was perhaps even more prominent in his own time. Most accepted his theology on this. But if you think you have checkable evidence for your belief, I'd be pleased to see it.

Barbarian observes:
You're a bit confused here. You were asserting that it was based on evolutionary assumptions.

I am not confused here,

Nope. It's you. You brought up the "evolution" issue. Would you like to see it again?

I did not change my position. I only stated what I felt was missing from the equation.

First you argued that uniformitarianism was about gradualism, and then you cited a source that said otherwise. Which do you believe now?

Natural science today seems to be hung up on the philosophical idea that uniform progression has happened since the beginning.

Barbarian observes:
No. If you believe that, you know nothing of science.

So then it is not assumed within the scientific communtiy that uniform progression has happened since the supposed beginning steming from the cosmic Big Bang?

No. Why would you think that?

Barbarian observes:
No. Science can't even comment on the supernatural, much less deny
it.

Which is why it fails in understanding our origins and how the universe was created/developed.

No. It can describe how the universe developed quite well. How it was created will always be out of reach.

It can not include the hypothesis that a supernatural being divinely called into existence fully formed and mature objects.

Yes, that can be refuted for most things, such as the Earth.

Barbarian observes:
Christians don't deny a flood happened. You just tried to make it a lot bigger than Scripture says it is.

If it was a local flood, why did God have Noah spend 100 years building an ark and fill it with animals to re-populate the world?

It doesn't say to re-populate the world. "Eretz" means "land", not world.

Barbarian observes:
Oenothera gigas, a mutant from O. lamarkiana, exists as a new species, no longer interfertile with the parent population.

Wow! A flower that is still a flower! Amazing.

Which is like saying for humans evolving from apes:

"Wow! A mammal evolving from a mammal. Amazing." Macroevolution for plants doesn't threaten your personal religious doctrines. So it doesn't bother you as much as the same thing in primates.

 

[Assyrian]

There's a lot that could be said here but I'd like to focus on the fact that TEs believe that the verses I cited have no application for the Christian and are directed exclusively toward the unbeliever. Is it any wonder we disagree so often?

Sure all scripture is inspired and profitable. Reading back over your post I see you referred to these passages as describing the road blocks that come between people and the gospel, rather than describing TEs that way. I misunderstood you Sorry Vossler.

 

[vossler]

Sure all scripture is inspired and profitable.

Amen

Reading back over your post I see you referred to these passages as describing the road blocks that come between people and the gospel, rather than describing TEs that way. I misunderstood you Sorry Vossler.

Now that's refreshing!