I gotta admit, I admire you two guy's willingness to repeatedly engage in such detail, turning over every rock. I wouldn't have that much patience myself. Cheers!
Clearly Peter was speaking about prophecy in verses 19-21. But that is not what I asked you. I asked you to show Peter's "cleverly devised myths" in verse 16 was talking about this prophecy rather than his eyewitness of the transfiguration.And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[origin] for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God [NU-Text reads but men spoke from God.] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)Clearly Peter is speaking of prophecy, not just his prophetic witness, when he says 'holy men of God'. Peter says, 'No prophecy of Scripture', indicating the inspiration of Old and New Testament as well as any prophetic oracles proceeding directly from God.
There you go again, denying the obvious in circles.
You haven't given any support whatsoever for your claim that day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"An argument from incredulity (ignorance) which is caused not by a lack of proof but rather you're refusal to acknowledge clear and obvious facts.Don't see what any of that has to do with you claims:
(1) Day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
Again nothing whatsoever to do with Peter describing his eyewitness of the transfiguration with "we did not follow cleverly devised myths". Nor was Peter's description of the transfiguration prophecy it was eyewitness testimony.Prophecy includes all Old and New Testament inspiration and authority.(2) Peter was referring to OT scripture when talked about cleverly devised myth.
Hand waving. You need to show from the text that Peter was talking about our interpretation of prophecy.The two are not mutually exclusive.(3) Peter's reference to 'private interpretation' refers to our interpretation of rather than the prophet's.
No you still haven't got it. You are still confusing God's creation/work of creation, with the description of creation in Genesis. Genesis isn't a creation except in the literary sense. Instead it describes the creation. God creating the heavens and the earth is the actual act of making them, not a writer sitting down and writing a text about it.A creation is by definition a 'work' of creation, that's just common sense, your arguing in circles again. Now a context sensitive meaning like the finished creation and the act of creation allows a logical distinction but you don't do logical distinctions, you just deny the obvious in circles.(4) Your continuing confusion between real and literal, and between the Genesis descriptions of Creation and the work of creation itself.
And yet you haven't addressed any of my questions.Your scarping the bottom of the barrel for ad hominems now, there isn't even enough there to argue in circles. It's sad when you fall into your own fallacious trap, pitiful even.
Whether that is true o not, it has nothing to do with my point that authoritative scripture doesn't have to be historically true.There are no parables in Genesls,Need I point out that that Jesus' parables are authoritative without being historically true.
Some are indicated in the immediate context or are similes using 'like' or 'as', but not all of the parables in the OT or NT come with indications. I have shown you that before Mark.it's a New Testament comparison indicated by 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context. All figurative language has clear indicators in the immediate or proximate context.
Interesting you think bara create is being used poetically. But lets stick to the issues you have yet to address.The only poetic license used in Genesis 1 is the repeated statement that Adam was 'Created', ('bara' H1254 בָּרָא ), the Qal form meaning: to shape, fashion, create, always with God as subject. Used in reference to the creation of the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and 3x in the creation of man (Gen. 1:27)In the beginning God created H1254 the heaven and the earth. (Gen 1:1)...
(Gen 1:27)
So God created H1254 man in his own image, in the image of God created H1254 he him; male and female created H1254 he them.
And yet you haven't been able to show it in any Lexicons or texts. You just post lexicon quotes that say nothing of the sort and simply claim that they do.Which is straight out of the Lexicon, Dictionary and Concordance definitions as well as the clear meaning of the text in English. You deny this in spite of all evidence proving your assertion false, against all dictates of conscience, logic and simple common sense.No I have kept good track on the issues you have brought up and haven't been able to defend.
(1) Day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"
Again nothing to do with Peter's "cleverly devised myth" referring to OT Prophecy. Can you try to back up that claim please?Prophecy is regarded as authoritative whether the prophetic oracles of Moses in Genesis or Peter's eye witness account of Christ at the Transfiguration. The revelation of Moses and Joshua was confirmed by signs, miracles and God's righteous deeds, just as they were in the time of Elijah and Elisha and Christ and the Apostles.(2) Peter was referring to OT scripture when talked about cleverly devised myth.
Unusual for people to quote this from Acts, but then if you quoted it from Matthew Mark or Luke it would be in the context of Jesus speaking in parables, which is not what you want when you are trying to insist on literal interpretation. Of course 'the Word' in John 1 is another metaphor for Christ, which you seem to have forgottenThis is not only evident it's obvious, if you can't see it the problem is with you not the clear testimony of the Word of God.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Acts 28:27)
I'm just trying to get you to show from the text that Peter was talking about our interpretation of the prophecy rather than the prophets own interpretation. Of course you cannot support you claims.No prophecy is of private interpretation, yet another example of a Theistic Evolutionist denying the obvious in circles.(3) Peter's reference to 'private interpretation' refers to our interpretation of rather than the prophet's.
You are the one refusing to even try to understand the distinctions I am making. Meanwhile try a really good dictionary literal: definition of literal in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)Antonyms for 'literal' are 'unreal', 'figurative' and 'fake'. 'Literal' Thesaurus.com . There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The obvious being you cannt answer any of my questions, but boy can you dance.Around, around he goes, arguing in circles around the obvious.
I have warned you about using 'inextricably linked', that it means you see a vague connection but you don't understand it well enough to put it down clearly in words.Except that salvation and creation are inextricably linked.No point in repeating Athanasius either if you you don't address you confusion between real and literal and between the actual creation that Athanasius is talking about and the literal interpretation of Genesis.
No you haven't. You have avoided the questions every time.I've answered it every time you asked it and always with fresh material in support of the obvious, you respond with nothing but pedantic denials and fallacious arguments.
After all these years quoting popes and the catholic Encyclopaedia, you finally discover the Reformation? It doesn't help you though when the issue is why Galileo was put on trial and what the document from the time say.Protestants were burned at the stake for preaching justification by faith alone, that doesn't make Rome right or their arguments Biblical.
You are desperate for an argument to support your claims. i have show you documentary evidence from Galileo's trial and you call it spam.Spam formatting of pedantic special pleading isn't substantive reasoning.Except that's not the literal interpretation of church fathers and commentators before Galileo as I have shown you from texts of the time.
The charges Galileo was found guilty of are pretty clear. Bellarmine's statement that he contradicted the common agreement of church Fathers and commentaries is pretty clear too. In contrast you have offered no, I repeat no, documentary evidence whatsoever in support of your conspiracy theory about why Galileo was condemned.Evidence is beyond you, I'm well acquainted with Galileo's trial and the political intrigue that caused it. Quoting a text without a context is a pretext and the trial of Galileo is a prime example of it.
No a simple fact based on your inability to refute any of my points.Pedantic ad hominem based on circular logic.If you have been able to refute you might have a point.
No I don't need to deny it. I deny your equation for defining a day "evening and morning equals one day" simply because it's atrocious Hebrew without a shred of support in Hebrew Lexicons.You have continually denied it as he did and all Theistic Evolutionists must. He just knew when to quit.
And I have show you the modern scholarly translations are much closer to Hebrew. You just snipped it out and ignored it. Here is Genesis 1:5 for you (NASB).The original text remains unchanged because there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the manuscripts or the translations. A point that continues to elude you because you refuse to accept the message, not the exegesis and translation of the original.
Nah you came up with no Lexicon entries, no exegesis of the texts, to support you equation, no matter how often you pretend you didWhich was provided every time you argued that in circles, the truth does not change because you refuse to admit it.
Again all you have to do it try to support your claims. Even a half hearted but on topic attempt we could discuss. But instead you provide detailed defences for question I haven't asked you. I can only assume you do it on purpose because you know you can't defend your claims..Which I have done in every single post responding to your arguments from incredulity and it's done nothing but get stronger.
Ok, your just repeating yourself endlessly. Chase the pedantic denials in circles till you drop it doesn't concern me in the slightest. As is always the case you have been left with nothing in support of your arguments except fallacious ad hominem remarks in contradiction of the facts. Since you are determined to argue them in circles I see no reason to chase your pedantic rationalizations of the obvious in circles around the mulberry bush.
Have a nice day
Mark
That's the point of a definition, there is a definite meaning with precise details, essential meanings, literal and common usage meanings.
Originally Posted by Papias
Dar·win·ism/ˈdɑrwəˌnɪz əm/ Show Spelled[dahr-wuh-niz-uh m] Show IPA
noun the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.
Darwinism: Also called Darwinian theory. It originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection(Darwinism, Wikipedia)
This is Darwinism from the Darwins themselves:
Making up definitions from Wikipedia, Charles and Erasmus Darwin's own words and citing the man who coined the phrase in the first place. Yea, just pulled it out of my hat.psst. mark, you are making up definitions again.
(Encyclical of Pope Pius X On the Doctrines of Modernists 1907)No, that's a conclusion you have in your own mind. I've asked your for actually RCC support of that, and you've failed repeatedly to give it.
We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism.
We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep(Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
1. Christian culture being attacked on all sides(Humani Generis)
2. men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
5.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
What part of the 'Darwin' in the term 'Darwinism' is too hard for you to comprehend?I gave the actual definition of Darwinism. Do you finally agree that mining old writings and stitching them together is not a way to get a defintion?
I refused no such thing, I've used them repeatedly, just not to the exclusion of the original source of Darwinism, Charles and Erasmus Darwin.Sure it is. You obviously don't know what the words mean when you make false claims like those in these posts of yours, and it's especially telling when you refuse to simply use the dictionary definitions I've supplied.
Then the inevitable ad hominem remarks that tell me you have nothing left:
Except for a few random words ripped from their context:
Don't hold your breath, taking the words of the Pope out of context is against my religion.
I'll wait for a response on those questions..........
- the part about "converging evidence"?
- How about "virtually certain"?
- How about "humanoid lineage"?
- When he says "humanOID", what you think is meant?
Sure, he makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about atheistic versions of evolution. We could together fight those much more effectively if UCA deniers didn't insist on an untenable position.Now he turns to the empty, Darwinian Theater of the mind, speaking to rows of empty seats, Papias dramatically proclaims nothing to no one.
The fallacious rhetoric echos through the empty theater, followed by silence.Oh, OK, then you are going to start using dictionary defintions? Good.
Darn. I thought you were going to use real defintions. My bad. I guess we're back to you making up definitions and ignoring the actual definitions & facts. I should have realized that by "standards" you meant "my own personal definitions".
I did, several posts ago. The difference is and has been obvious.
So, where did you post the dictionary definition for darwinism?
Still falsely equating two different things. Sad to see.
Universal Common Ancestry is an a priori assumption that all life is the result of natural law, not miraculous interposition. Which is the categorical rejection of God, as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang and you know it.As many of us have pointed out repeatedly (and will continue to do as long as you make your baseless claims), UCA is a conclusion, not an a priori assumption, regardless of how much you wish it were.
Round around with the circular argument, weeeeeee....Did you see the dictionary definition, or should I post it again?
Ad hominem, circular argument combo.I looked, and I didn't see them. Could you please list the post number and quote were I insulted you or someone else ?
Word salad, which is especially funny since you mention defitions and still refuse to use regular dictionary definitions.
However, see that you did finally use your "ghosts" phrase.
There is a reason for that, you can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth. Now go home so the janitor can sweep your fallacious confetti from the stage.
Have a nice day
Mark
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?