Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
You have accused me of misrepresenting you in the thread is creating with age deceptive?
So I gave a long post detailing exactly what had been said:
Originally Posted by Assyrian
It is probably worth tracing the conversation. The lines you have quoted are underlined and I have greyed out the usual Archie insulting and accusing evasions, and us asking you to actually answer the point.
Archie: use your science to determine the effects of The Fall, please feel free to examine it from all aspects. compare the pre-wall world with the post and see the difference.
{i know you won't because it is easier to make up stuff and try to fit the evidence to that than it is to simply believe God}
i do no tthink you can get it much clearer thanwhen Paul said, 'by one man sin...death... entered into the world'.
Shernren: No, archie said "by one man sin ... death ... entered into the world."Paul said (or rather wrote),
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- (Romans 5:12 NIV)
Note here that the Bible specifically says that:
1. Death came to "all men". Not a peep about animal death.
2. Death came to all men because all sinned, not because one sinned. The comparison is "sin through one man : death through sin :: all sinned : death to all men"
Archie evasion: both posts aren't worth dignifying with an answer. just goes to show you as to what lengths alternative believers will go to screw up a person's point.
Nooj: What lengths are those? Shernren correcting your incorrect Biblical phrases? Or correcting the way you talk as if you speak for God?
Archie: neither.
you forget that the first mention of animal death was done after the fall of man when God clothed adam and eve.
Assyrian: And the first mention of animal death has to be the first animal who died? Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. No, no mention of the animals whose skin it was being the first to die. I am afraid you may be reading things into scripture again.
Archie evasion: again, going to the extreme to crudely hide mocking
Assyrian: What is extreme about pointing out that the scripture you quoted does not mean what you thought?
But again you resort to unsupported accusations and abuse when you don't have an answer.
Archie: according to your unsubtantiated opinion, the following backs me:
[Keil & Delitzsch quote...]
Assyrian: This is amazing. Even when you quote commentaries you pick one that doesn't say what you claim. Where do K&D say these were the first animals who died?
You were talking about the difference between the pre and post fall world and mangled Romans 5:12 in support. Shernren corrects your quote, looks at Romans 5:12 and points out "1. Death came to "all men".Not a peep about animal death."
After accusation and evasion, your reply with
you forget that the first mention of animal death was done after the fall of man when God clothed adam and eve. This is the line you you say I misrepresented.
The context is a discussion of difference between pre fall and post fall worlds, and shernen's reply that Romans 5:12 does not mention animals death.
Given that your reference to animals death after the fall, is given as a reply to shernren's statement about animal death and the fall, you seem to have believed that your reference showed shernren was wrong, and showed that animal death began after the fall, because the animals that were skinned were the first ever to die.
I then asked you And the first mention of animal death has to be the first animal who died?
Your reply, after the usual evasion and accusation was to claim, not that I had misunderstood your argument, but that Keil & Delitzsch back you up. It is only when we see that K&D no more back you up than the original scripture verse, you claim I am misrepresenting you.
Interesting what you say about false accusations there.
You never got around to answering these false accusations you made.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36347840&postcount=283
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36363294&postcount=286
Instead of dealing with the conversation I listed and showing how I had misrepresented you, or withdrawing your accusation of misrepresentation, instead of going back and dealing with the links I gave to misrepresentations and accusations I had call you on before and you ignored, and either backing up your claim or apologising yourself, you simply say:
Why do you call for people to apologise for alleged misrepresentation you cannot support, while you refuse to deal with your own accusations and misrepresentations when we show them to be false?
Upvote
0
