from the OXFORD:
i think that applies quite well though i understand why you left it out as you wanted to charge me with something i didn't do or am not doing.
i read those words and that doesn't mean he was a believer but just defended the Bible's morality stance. one can be orthodox and not christian.
i haven't checked all of the parables yet but some actually state: 'he told a parable to them...' with Genesis the writing is clear revelation, stating facts not a story.
it doesn't have to say this is not an allegory for then your logic would make the crucifixion and ressurrection as such.
nice of you to leave the author's name off the board. please provide the name as i have the church fathers at home and can verify the context before commenting.
and this is where you err. the earth may be natural to you but it was made supernaturally. natural 'evidence' and doing everything naturally isn't going to give you the answers.
it does but evolutionists interpretate things their way not with God's leading, so what answer do you expect? keeping in mind that the evil one works in the hearts deceiving, destroying and so on.
not worried about it, the words are there and it still isn't teaching the earth is flat. it is using a phrase commonly understood, i understand it and do not think the earth is flat so the problem lies with you.
or you just need an excuse to justify changing scriptures to allow foe a secular theory.
wrong again.
.condemn-- 1. to expressvery strong disproval of sb/sth usually for moral reasons
i think that applies quite well though i understand why you left it out as you wanted to charge me with something i didn't do or am not doing.
Okay. How about his online autobiography? Using his own words, even.
i read those words and that doesn't mean he was a believer but just defended the Bible's morality stance. one can be orthodox and not christian.
No. We would contradict it if it said "this is not an allegory". Which it doesn't
i haven't checked all of the parables yet but some actually state: 'he told a parable to them...' with Genesis the writing is clear revelation, stating facts not a story.
it doesn't have to say this is not an allegory for then your logic would make the crucifixion and ressurrection as such.
I wonder, then, how I do not understand this:
nice of you to leave the author's name off the board. please provide the name as i have the church fathers at home and can verify the context before commenting.
Only natural evidences. However, the earth is natural
and this is where you err. the earth may be natural to you but it was made supernaturally. natural 'evidence' and doing everything naturally isn't going to give you the answers.
and if it were 6000 years old it would reflect that it was only 6000 years old
it does but evolutionists interpretate things their way not with God's leading, so what answer do you expect? keeping in mind that the evil one works in the hearts deceiving, destroying and so on.
I put the rephrase in there to pre-empt the mention of "The Bible isn't scientific because science is secular" deal
not worried about it, the words are there and it still isn't teaching the earth is flat. it is using a phrase commonly understood, i understand it and do not think the earth is flat so the problem lies with you.
or you just need an excuse to justify changing scriptures to allow foe a secular theory.
Because a literally taken scientifically correct (or accurately detailing reality) Bible can only teach a flat earth.
wrong again.
Upvote
0