Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Subduction Zone]

Just how how old was Mary, anyway?

The important point is that it was ridiculously mistranslated and then Luke had to make up the Nativity story. Second, Jews will argue, and quite convincingly that Jesus was not born in the right city.

Your "original verse" aside, we're taught that one passage can build upon another and clarify it.

Such as:

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Matthew 19:18b Thou shalt do no murder,

Actually according to certain Jews that I have heard from, and definitely from reading the actions of people in the Old Testament it meant "Thou shalt do no murder" in the original tool. There is all sorts of breaking of the "Thou shalt not kill" in the O.T. and it was sanctioned.

Jonah 1:17a Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.
Matthew 12:40a Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;

(Yes ... Linnaeus can take a hike.)

Fish or whale we know that is impossible. A man could not be swallowed let alone survive.

Isaiah Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a [young woman] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

And thank you for raising another point. He was not called Immanuel. You do know that prediction is worthless if you call him Immanuel after the fact. In other words, some people call Jesus "Immanuel" now because of the prophesy. He was not called Immanuel back then.

 

[AV1611VET]

The important point is that it was ridiculously mistranslated and then Luke had to make up the Nativity story.

Wow!

Shouldn't we be hearing the theme from Mission Impossible in the background about now?

[youtube]mWGeRgFa-hI[/youtube]

I'll bet at the end of your story, Luke escapes martyrdom at the last minute ... doesn't he?

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, some people call Jesus "Immanuel" now because of the prophesy. He was not called Immanuel back then.

Let me guess, He was called Emmanuel?

And Noah was called Noe, wasn't he?

And Isaiah was called Esaias, wasn't he?

And Elisja was called Elias, wasn't he?

Is that why, when Jesus cried out:

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

... they though He was saying:

Matthew 27: 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

Because they had the same mindset you do?

 

[Naturalism]

Actually according to certain Jews that I have heard from, and definitely from reading the actions of people in the Old Testament it meant "Thou shalt do no murder" in the original tool. There is all sorts of breaking of the "Thou shalt not kill" in the O.T. and it was sanctioned.

The OT laws were for those of the new covenant, it was not for those not under the new covenant. As such, such Mosaic laws applied to the Jews but not to non-Jews. As such Jews were perfectly allowed to own slaves and kill others (many times this occurs in the OT) so long as they were not Jews.

 

[46AND2]

Okay ... let me repeat myself with emphasis:

JOSEPH SMITH is a false prophet, according to the Bible.

What Mormons believe is not the point I wish to address.

(This is my fault for not paying attention to your Arab phone. You got me on that one.)

And according to the Old Testament Jesus is a false prophet too.

This is according to your standards, not mine.

Huh?

He's made his point here, AV. Just as you believe the Bible says that Joseph Smith is a false prophet, so too do Jews believe that the Bible says Jesus is a false messiah.

As always, it all depends on how you interpret the Bible. *sigh*

Not even all Christians believe there are no more prophets, but that God still gives out that spiritual gift.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Read the Old Testament, not the King James version. There are some incorrect interpretations of the original in there. In fact in almost every Christian Bible.

For example the original verse that predicts the Birth of the Messiah will be from a young woman, not a virgin.

But the Greek translation of that verse definitely cites a virgin, not a young woman. And this translation predates the birth of Christ by a couple of centuries, I believe . . .

 

[46AND2]

But the Greek translation of that verse definitely cites a virgin, not a young woman. And this translation predates the birth of Christ by a couple of centuries, I believe . . .

Not true. Parthenos, in the Greek, does not "definitely cite a virgin." There are very clear uses of the term referring to women who clearly are not virgins in other parts of the Bible, such as in Song of Solomon.

It's immaterial, anyway, as that verse is taken out of context, just like every other Jesus is the messiah fulfillment claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not even all Christians believe there are no more prophets, but that God still gives out that spiritual gift.

As do I.

An OT prophet is not the same as a NT prophet.

A NT prophet is one who preaches -- a preacher.

An OT prophet is one who gave a revelation in the name of God.

As we like to put it:

OT prophets fortold the future; NT prophets forth-tell the Gospel.

 

[46AND2]

As do I.

An OT prophet is not the same as a NT prophet.

A NT prophet is one who preaches -- a preacher.

An OT prophet is one who gave a revelation in the name of God.

As we like to put it:

OT prophets fortold the future; NT prophets forth-tell the Gospel.

Not the point. When I said many Christians believe there are prophets today, I meant they make the distinction between prophet and teacher/preacher--two separate gifts--the former being the revelation-producing type.

 

[EternalDragon]

He's made his point here, AV. Just as you believe the Bible says that Joseph Smith is a false prophet, so too do Jews believe that the Bible says Jesus is a false messiah.

As always, it all depends on how you interpret the Bible. *sigh*

Not even all Christians believe there are no more prophets, but that God still gives out that spiritual gift.

I was under the impression that you were a former Christian.....so I would assume you would know why the Jews made the mistake of rejecting Christ.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not true. Parthenos, in the Greek, does not "definitely cite a virgin." There are very clear uses of the term referring to women who clearly are not virgins in other parts of the Bible, such as in Song of Solomon.

It's immaterial, anyway, as that verse is taken out of context, just like every other Jesus is the messiah fulfillment claim.

Well, the verse context is of course a whole other debate. But my dictionaries all assert "Parthenos" refers to a virgin. The Song of Solomon, being a song of courtship, would certainly consider the prospective bride to be a virgin, so I'm not sure how your reference would apply there, either. You are, of course, referring to the Septuagint for the Song of Solomon, and not the Hebrew?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not the point. When I said many Christians believe there are prophets today, I meant they make the distinction between prophet and teacher/preacher--two separate gifts--the former being the revelation-producing type.

Then they're wrong.

After the Scriptures were completed in AD 96, there was no need for anymore prophets to add to Them.

Put another way, God finished writing His Diary in the first century AD.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then they're wrong.

After the Scriptures were completed in AD 96, there was no need for anymore prophets to add to Them.

Put another way, God finished writing His Diary in the first century AD.

Many people receive inspiration from God and share it with others, even today. However, we no longer even think about considering them for incorporation in our canon. The time for canonical works has past.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many people receive inspiration from God and share it with others, even today.

Inspiration is one thing.

Verbal plenary inspiration is quite another.

However, we no longer even think about considering them for incorporation in our canon.

Evidently Mohammad and Joseph Smith thought they could get away with it.

They only fooled the scientists though, not those who know their Bibles.

That's why scientists today can't understand why we don't embrace the Koran and Book of Mormon along with the Bible.

They can't separate the two.

The time for canonical works has past.

Yes -- in AD 96.

 

[bhsmte]

Then they're wrong.

After the Scriptures were completed in AD 96, there was no need for anymore prophets to add to Them.

Put another way, God finished writing His Diary in the first century AD.

Wrong AV. The gospels were added to, long after 96AD and this is only one example:

The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference – Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Inspiration is one thing.

Verbal plenary inspiration is quite another.

Evidently Mohammad and Joseph Smith thought they could get away with it.

They only fooled the scientists though, not those who know their Bibles.

That's why scientists today can't understand why we don't embrace the Koran and Book of Mormon along with the Bible.

They can't separate the two.

Yes -- in AD 96.

Strangely I have never hear of a scientist puzzling over people who reject the Koran and the Book of Mormon. Nor have I heard of any scientific arguments in favor of those works.

I think you just make stuff up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you learn what this means:

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

... you'd know.

But the word of god isn't quick, think about the time frame between the completion of the Old Testament and the New Testament. It would have been centuries after the Old Testament was essentially finished before writing even started on the New Testament

 

[AV1611VET]

But the word of god isn't quick, think about the time frame between the completion of the Old Testament and the New Testament. It would have been centuries after the Old Testament was essentially finished before writing even started on the New Testament

As God prophesied through Amos.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
Amos 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

We call that 400 year period from Malachi to Matthew the Intertestamental period.

 

[Brigid48]

Yep...I've heard them pitch that one before....because plants aren't capable of movement, they aren't really living things....

Yes.......really..........

And that somehow these plants all survived being buried under the miles of muck they claim were formed into rock (Grand Canyon, etc.) after being laid down by the fludde. You really can't make up some of the stuff you get to hear when debating a YEC

 

[EternalDragon]

And that somehow these plants all survived being buried under the miles of muck they claim were formed into rock (Grand Canyon, etc.) after being laid down by the fludde. You really can't make up some of the stuff you get to hear when debating a YEC

No, that's where oil and coal comes from.