If you cannot believe the genesis account....

[Mistermystery]

And whether you agree with it or not, I see evolution as a heathen teaching anyway....
It serves no purpose but to cuase God fearing believers to slowly start rejecting the truths in the Bible

And I see your way of thinking as someone who mindlessly without any thinking on his part follows other people. That doesn't mean that it's nice to say that to other people, so I kindly ask you not to do that anymore. And F**k off with that last part, because for the last time:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT MEAN ATHEISM

 

[Nathan Poe]

And whether you agree with it or not, I see evolution as a heathen teaching anyway....

And as I've noticed before, your "objection" has nothing to do with whether evolution is accurate or not.

Do you even care?

It serves no purpose but to cuase God fearing believers to slowly start rejecting the truths in the Bible

Mistermystery (and everyone else) has addressed this bit of nonsense already. Evolution != Atheism.

 

[JohnR7]

And whether you agree with it or not, I see evolution as a heathen teaching anyway....

You think that evolution is a heathen religion?
Do you have to be a card carrying ACLU member to join?

 

[JohnR7]

[/font]Yep, they tell us that the earth is fixed in space and the sun goes around it daily,

Just what Bible school is it that teaches this?
Most pastors I know, go to Bible school for at least 2 years, if not longer.
So I was wondering just what school it was, that is teaching this.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Just what Bible school is it that teaches this?
Most pastors I know, go to Bible school for at least 2 years, if not longer.
So I was wondering just what school it was, that is teaching this.

I didn't say that any Bible College teaches geocentrism. I said geocentrism is clearly what the Bible teaches.
GRAMMATICALLY AND SEMANTICALLY
THE BIBLE DENIES COPERNICANISM

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

I didn't say that any Bible College teaches geocentrism. I said geocentrism is clearly what the Bible teaches.

Oh, so you know more about the Bible than a Bible school graduate. Well according to that way of thinking, then I could know more about science than a science school graduate. Even though what I profess to believe is not taught in any school of science anywhere in the country.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Oh, so you know more about the Bible than a Bible school graduate. Well according to that way of thinking, then I could know more about science than a science school graduate. Even though what I profess to believe is not taught in any school of science anywhere in the country.

I know what I observe which is this. The sites such as the one I pointed out show that a straightforward reading of the verses clearly indicates geocentrism. The modern literalist who tries to deny geocentrism must resort to saying things like "well that's just a figure of speech". "The verses that say the earth is immovable don't really mean that the earth is not moving. They're just poetry"

The straightforward reading was expounded on by Cardinal Bellarmine in his famous letter.

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html

Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith "as regards the topic," it is a matter of faith "as regards the speaker"; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.

​

........​

​

I add that the one who wrote, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose," was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated.​

​

​

​

If the Bible is not geocentric why do modern non geocentric literalists have to go through so many twists and turns and reinterpretations to deny its geocentric verses?​

​

the frumious Bandersnatch​

 

[JohnR7]

The sites such as the one I pointed out show that a straightforward reading of the verses clearly indicates geocentrism.

That is nonsense. You twist the meaning of the Bible, then you try to call it a "straightforward" reading.

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[Mistermystery]

Oh, so you know more about the Bible than a Bible school graduate. Well according to that way of thinking, then I could know more about science than a science school graduate. Even though what I profess to believe is not taught in any school of science anywhere in the country.

Then by all means, Falsify his claim. I'm sure that he won't mind to learn.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That is nonsense. You twist the meaning of the Bible, then you try to call it a "straightforward" reading.

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Really. How is it twisting the meaning to say that stopping the sun means stopping the sun not the rotation of the earth?

How is it twisting the meaning to say that Ecclesiastes 1, 5:”The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” Means that the sun is moving? How is it twisting the meaning to say that Isaiah 38:8 "Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees...ten degrees backward. So THE SUN RETURNED ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down...." indicates that that the sun moved?

Psalm 19:4-6 Their line [the heavens] is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

How is it twisting the meaning to say that coming out of his chamber and running a race and making a circuit indicate that the sun makes a daily circuit around the earth?
[size=+0][/size]
[size=+0]1 Chronicles 16:30: ” Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1 “The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously....”

Psalm 104:5: ” Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” [/size]

How is it twisting the meaning to say that these verses mean that the earth is not moving. [size=+0]

Why do you suppose that evey single Bible commentator before Copernicus and many after saw the clear geocentrism of the Bible if it required twisting the meaning? Suddenly after modern science showed differently it becomes twisting the meaning to say that these verses say what everyone thought they said for the previous 1600 years or more. Now that is nonsense.

the frumious Bandersnatch




[/size]

 

[lucaspa]

Funny thing was, i wasnt confused at all till I came in here

You were just wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

Im not typing out a page for your enjoyment....

I will however do what you all do and give you a link

http://www.peterallport.com/gravity.htm

study up........its on the test

and maybe you can critique that site for me while youre at it

You could critique it if you took the time. To start off there is no quantum medium.

FoC, do you deliberately look for the most ridiculous thing you can find, or is this just a talent you have?

Now, can you point out to us where the author has "ABSOLUTELY PROVED" his claims? After all, that is what you demand of science, but you don't follow your own rule for the site you post. Why not?

FoC, are you truly seeking truth or are you one of those Paul warned us about and are out sowing confusion?

 

[JohnR7]

FoC, are you truly seeking truth or are you one of those Paul warned us about and are out sowing confusion?

Are you truely seeking to walk in the love of God, or are you one of those people they warned us about that likes to create divisions.

 

[lucaspa]

But how do you dispute the OTs Masoretic text that says virgin

This is from Strong's Lexicon for the word, almah, used in Isaiah:

"virgin, young woman

1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin"

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05959&version=kjv

It appears that you are bearing false witness against the Bible, FoC!! How can you do this?

When the OT really wants to say "virgin", then it uses the word "bathuwlah" http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01330&version=kjv

Are you aware that there was considerable dispute among the early Christians as to whether Jesus really was born of a virgin?

 

[lucaspa]

Honestly, I tried and tried after I got saved to push that tripe in......it just doesnt fit so I just had to pretend it didnt matter and ignore Genesis altogether...

I would read thru Genesis 1 very quickly and then try to throw the ''day is as 1000 years''' thing in to try to convince myself that it could be any amount of time.....

Why are you trying to read Genesis 1 as literal history to begin with? Especially when the text tells you not to?

Did it ever occur to you that Genesis 1-3 was never meant to be history and that the people of the time knew that? Why are you trying to impose your view on the Bible?

Let's take this out of religion for a minute, so maybe we can reduce your emotional content.

FoC, when you read Shakespeare's Macbeth, do you read it as literal Scottish history? Do you insist it must be accurate Scottish history before you can find the human truths in the play: greed, lust for power, etc.?

Genesis 1-11 is not a story of how God created. It was never meant to be that. Jesus never took it like that. He used the stories only for the theological truths contained in them, never as an actual history. For instance, in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 Jesus took the theological truth that men and women were meant to be together, so he used that as an argument against the divorce laws of the time. These laws allowed the man to put aside his wife whenever he wanted to. Jesus said that law was wrong; a man can't simply dismiss his wife out of whim.

So, why are you trying to force your view on the text instead of studying the history of the times and the text to see what God was trying to tell you? You want the text to be accurate science. But that is not what God wanted.

 

[lucaspa]

No, it is not really my theory, just something I heard somewhere.

Then it is someone else's theory that you are repeating as tho it is accurate. Didn't you test the theory that Satan was speaking thru the serpent by looking at the text to support or refute it?

For us really I think what God said to Cain is important.

Genesis 4:7
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

And this is out-of-context. God tells Cain this right after Cain brings an offering of the "fruit of the ground" and God has arbitrarily rejected it in favor of Cain's offering. I take this to mean that we must accept what God has done whether we agree with it or not.

So, in this context, why don't you accept that God created by evolution even tho you don't like it? Won't the rejection of that truth lead you, like Cain, to sinful acts?

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Do you think satan can work through lions to?

Is this how you took the simile? John! see the words "like a"? This has nothing to do with Satan working thru lions! It is giving a description of the devil by comparing him to one characteristic of lions!

I truly begin to despair for you. Your disappointment in not having creationism be true is working on you like Cain's disappointment worked on him. Cain ended up murdering his brother. It looks like you will end up trying to murder Christianity. You certainly murdered the text of 1 Peter 5:8.

 

[lucaspa]

Wow lucaspa, do you really want to go there? We could if you want.

You already took us there, John. What, are you now scared you can't back up your ad hominen? You said Satan was speaking thru people on this board. Since you've taken us here, John, put your money where your character assassination is.

 

[lucaspa]

Hedge is put around something to protect it from adversary and since Job belong to God, he did blessed Job . satan means "adversary".

There are several different words that Strong's lists as being "adversary". http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?search=adversary&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

However, in Job the Hebrew word is "sh'tan". At the time, "adversary" was not the meaning. It is something that has been put into the word since then. The text of Job indicates that Satan was part of the heavenly beings. He is an "adversary" here only in the context that he is of a different opinion than God over why Job praises God.

There is nothing in the text to suggest a "hedge" around Job. For instance, God doesn't say "I remove my hedge around Job so that you can do bad things to him." God simply gives Satan his instructions.

of course the scriptures tells us more about this adversary thoughout the bible yet this teaching line up with satan has authority on this earth.

It doesn't line up with Job, where Satan does not have authority. All Satan's authority in Job comes from God. He has none of his own.

this is also an underlining truth in Genesis as well since mankind has fallen from the position which god place him. in fact the three temption satan tried to uses againest Jesus are exactly the same he used on Eve.

I don't see that. List them, please. The serpent offers only one temptation: knowing good and evil.

"The evolution of satan" must have said something about God had a bet with satan or all this is some kind of experiment like a scientist does to a lab rat since it no where seen to be found in Job.

Job is a lab rat in the story. I've given you the verses where the bet is given and the experiment starts. So it is a little late to deny that this is in the book.

God can and will use man's and satan's own judgments againest themselves as these is something even Job clearly testified. ( which it one of many truths reveal in this book)

Walk us thru the verses that you think supports your point, please.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, they certainly ruined it for the nudists among us.

Interestingly enough, being nude was not one of the punishments! After eating the fruit, they were ashamed of their nakedness. God never said it was bad. He just said "who told you that you were naked?"

 

[aeroz19]

And I see your way of thinking as someone who mindlessly without any thinking on his part follows other people. That doesn't mean that it's nice to say that to other people, so I kindly ask you not to do that anymore. And F**k off with that last part, because for the last time:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT MEAN ATHEISM

Alright, this is going too far.