Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

Biliskner · Apr 24, 2005

gluadys said:
There is no example of evolution in which the child is not of the same "kind" as the parent. Yet evolution happens.

You want an explanation of this trick? Go back to the talkorigins article and read it again, paying close attention.

i'm arguing for the roots of evolution, that evolution from amoeba to humans does not happen. you're arguing for a computer generated program that Dawkins wrote and asserts that evolution happens. those two topics are not even in the same book. as i have found (surprisingly), evolution has taken on the meaning (NOT by the secular people - and yes i have lots of naturalistic evolution friends) but rather by you TEs, no other TEs I know in my Christian circles suggests that anything that changes (mutations) IS proof of evolution. that idea is bung, and you can believe it if you want. but like i said in the first sentence, we're not talking about the same book. so line or no line, branch or no branch, evolution in MY SENSE - does not happen. You can draw lines stretching till the kingdom comes, but you're talking dogma and unfalsifiable claims. two green eye parents giving birth to a blue eye child is NOT evolution.

Biliskner · Apr 24, 2005

kofh2u said:
Oh, yeah, the New Age people I have encountered on the net can pull a verse here or two to underline some point.
Right?

so that makes two of us.
i can even pull websites for you. but for the sake of those with weaker faiths, i won't.

Biliskner · Apr 24, 2005

shernren said:
Which isn't saying a lot. The reason we don't see things like new phyla, new families etc. in the lab is simply because we haven't been researching evolution all that long. Things like this take time.

no. it's because the evolution you're looking for does not happen.

can your PDA become a laptop?
can your laptop become a super computer?

organic life is 1,000,000 MORE complicated than inanimate objects.
if my PDA cannot become a laptop, evolution cannot happen and my ancestor was not an ape, he was Adam, created from the dust of the earth.

rmwilliamsll · Apr 24, 2005

Biliskner said:
no. it's because the evolution you're looking for does not happen.

can your PDA become a laptop?
can your laptop become a super computer?

organic life is 1,000,000 MORE complicated than inanimate objects.
if my PDA cannot become a laptop, evolution cannot happen and my ancestor was not an ape, he was Adam, created from the dust of the earth.

laptops for example do not met the minimal requirements for an evolutionary system.

inheritance.
inheritance with change.
but genetic algorithms running on laptops can met these minimal requirements and wow GA works.

...

gluadys · Apr 24, 2005

Biliskner said:
i'm arguing for the roots of evolution, that evolution from amoeba to humans does not happen.

so line or no line, branch or no branch, evolution in MY SENSE - does not happen.

In a sense, though you don't realize it, you are contradicting yourself. For the roots of evolution are in understanding what those lines and branches mean and how they describe the relationship of amoebae to humans.

Your problem is the evolution in YOUR SENSE wants to understand what is at the tips of those branches (amoebae, butterflies, pine trees, a lactobacillus, a horse, etc) without examining those lines and branches. Your attitude is :"Skip all the trivial stuff about moths changing colour or fruit flies learning to eat meat. I want to know how a eukaryote became human."

But the only way to understand how a eukaryote became human is to knuckle down and learn why moths change colour and how fruit flies learn to eat meat.

The process of evolution is a single unified process. You have to understand it small scale before you can apply on a large scale, just as you have to learn to walk before you can run. Eukaryotes became humans in exactly the same way as a population of white moths became a population of black moths. It just took a much longer time.

no other TEs I know in my Christian circles suggests that anything that changes (mutations) IS proof of evolution. that idea is bung, and you can believe it if you want.

I don't say or believe that either. Mutations are part of the process of evolution. But only a part. You can't equate them.

You can draw lines stretching till the kingdom comes, but you're talking dogma and unfalsifiable claims.

Not true. The lines are backed by data drawn from real-life observation. They have been verified by multiple lines of evidence, much in the same way that the age of the earth has been verified by the consensus of numerous different measuring tools.

two green eye parents giving birth to a blue eye child is NOT evolution.

True. That is only an individual difference explained by Mendelian genetics.

However, changing the overall proportion of blue-eyed people in the population from 25% to 30% is evolution. That requires either that blue-eyed people have more than an average number of children or that their children have a lower than average mortality rate. Or both. That represents a change in the frequency of the blue-eyed allele under postive selective pressure. And that IS evolution.

And the whole history of a single-celled eukaryote eventually having a human descendant is a matter of that process happening over and over and over and over and over and ....... over for about 1 billion years.

kofh2u · Apr 24, 2005

Biliskner said:
so that makes two of us.
i can even pull websites for you. but for the sake of those with weaker faiths, i won't.

Saved by Faith in Christ.

We are saved by Faith in Christ.

We are NOT saved by a personal belief in OUR interpretation of scripture, and webare dishonest in calling this belief the Faith Christianity proclaims is the Fzith which saves.

I accuse you of misusing the term Faith.

You confuse it, are are confused yourself about what it is.

You apply the word Faith to one particular Faith ig ori that there not only are other Faiths, but that everyone HAS a faith.

This is important here.

You generalize the word Faith to mean a par icular denominational beef in Bible inte pretation. In this you usurp the Christian mantra of Faith in Jesus to mean faith in the way you understand scripture.

This is quite dishonest and in yoir case, I believe wrong because your interpretation is weak , not the best of many available, and not tied to the meaning of Saved by Faith in Christ.

kofh2u · Apr 24, 2005

shernren said:
oh dear. I wonder where in the Bible is there any support at all for calling God a "Universal Force". That's anathema!

1) The Bible makes absolutely no definitive statement about God.

In fact, scripture tells us God's name is YHVH, which in Hebrew means "I am what I turn out to become"...

IMO, God is the First Cause.

God is the philosophical starting point for everyone, the Uncaused Cause of all that follows.

Hence, to emphasize this clear scriptural, fact, the interpretation of the word, God, as the "Universal Force" in Genesis is suggested and informative.

It informs even suppose Atheists that they are not exempt from the concept of God.

Is 32:4 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and
understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.

Is 32:5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes!

Click to expand...

SBG · Apr 24, 2005

kofh2u said:
1) The Bible makes absolutely no definitive statement about God.

In fact, scripture tells us God's name is YHVH, which in Hebrew means "I am what I turn out to become"...

Ok. This is just false, completely false. First off, do you even know hebrew?

YHVH is compose of four hebrew letters Yod, Hey, Vav, and Hey. This is often referred to as the 'Tetragrammaton,' which simple means 'the four letters.'

YHVH means the Unutterable Name and the Existing One. YHVH is the Source of all being and has being inherent in Himself (i.e., He is necessary Being). Everything else is contingent being that derives existence from Him. The name YHVH also bespeaks the utter transcendence of God. In Himself, God is beyond all predications or attributes of language: He is the Source and Foundation of all possibility of utterance and thus is beyond all definite descriptions.

kofh2u said:
IMO, God is the First Cause.

God is the philosophical starting point for everyone, the Uncaused Cause of all that follows.

Hence, to emphasize this clear scriptural, fact, the interpretation of the word, God, as the "Universal Force" in Genesis is suggested and informative.

It informs even suppose Atheists that they are not exempt from the concept of God.

Is 32:4 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and
understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.

Is 32:5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes!

You can at least quote correct Scripture.

Isaiah 32:4-5
"The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful."

I have seen you doing this more than once, taking liberties with Scripture and rewording it and citing as a passage. At least give the correct Scripture and then your interpretation of it, otherwise you are just changing Scripture outright to suit your own needs.

kofh2u · Apr 25, 2005

We seen=m to agree on most everything,...except you just don't like my style....

NEVERTHELESS, my basic statement wa that "God is NT directly defined in scripture.

You start right off with JUST your own personal definition. Not far from mine,r=tho'.

SBG:

Ok. This is just false, completely false.

KOFHY:
No.
Moses was told to define the name for Pharoah exactly as the Hebrew word is used.

God's name, used as a word, is a future participle of the Hebrew word "to be."

As a word, it means "I am what I turn out to be"... loosely interpreted: (see Strong's Concordance.)

In Ex 3:15-17 God interprets the name for Moses, "I am what I turn out to be"...

SBG:
First off, do you even know hebrew?

KOFHY:
In regard to YHVH, no one knows the Hebrew as an ultimate authority. It only appears in the scriptures and the inte pretation is hotly debated.

SBG:
YHVH is compose of four hebrew letters Yod, Hey, Vav, and Hey. This is often referred to as the 'Tetragrammaton,' which simple means 'the four letters.'

KOFHY:
Now, don't try to have it both ways later when we see that you are correct and that the permutations of this name are used to explain the Hidden Manna of the Jewish Kabbalah.

SBG:
YHVH means the Unutterable Name and the Existing One.

KOFHY:
Can you show me scripture, or is that just Jewish tradition?

SBG:
YHVH is the Source of all being and has being inherent in Himself (i.e., He is necessary Being).

KOFHY:
True.

That was the general idea inherent in "the Universal Force" inte pretion which I am defending.

SBG:
Everything else is contingent being that derives existence from Him.

KOFHY:
Absolutely. God IS the Universal Force.

SBG:
The name YHVH also bespeaks the utter transcendence of God. In Himself, God is beyond all predications or attributes of language: He is the Source and Foundation of all possibility of utterance and thus is beyond all definite descriptions.

KOFHY:
W agree again. m In fact, from the Einsteinian perspective of Creation, God transcends the mate ial, concrete Universe, pre-existing it as Absolute Energy.

In harmony with the mathematics of E = mC^2, energy transforming into matter in the Creation of Universe, God is Theistic, transcendent, as you say.

SBG:
I have seen you doing this more than once, taking liberties with Scripture and rewording it and citing as a passage.

KOFHY:
Never.

You observe that inte pretations follow DIRECTLY in brackets and completely, therefore, in explicit context.
This is a vast improvement in clarity and much more honest than following complicated verses with long, long explanations certain to make the simple confusing.
Wisdom is brief.

I challange all to fill in the brackets vompetitively, for I find a vacuum of ideas in most cases.

SBG:
At least give the correct Scripture and then your interpretation of it, otherwise you are just changing Scripture outright to suit your own needs.

KOFHY:
All quotes are KJV, followed by bracketed explanations.

SBG · Apr 25, 2005

Your version:

kofh2u said:
Is 32:4 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and
understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.

Is 32:5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes!

KJV
"4The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.5The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful."

SBG · Apr 25, 2005

Yahweh, Yahveh, or Yahoveh (Jehovah) are all the same and literally mean from Hebrew the Existing One. The Unutterable Name is from Jewish-Christian teachings because no one knows how to truly pronouce the True and Real Name of God, YHVH.

And if you don't think Yahweh, Yahveh, or Yahoveh (Jehovah) are in the Bible, look them up. Genesis 2:5 for one. All the times in the OT where LORD is used, this is Yahweh, Yahveh, or Yahoveh (Jehovah).

The Jewish sages note that the four letters of the Name are used to form the phrase , hayah hoveh yiyeh, He was, He is, He will be. Hence the term God used and Jesus used, I AM.

invisible trousers · Apr 25, 2005

Am I the only person here completely disheartened by the concept that christianity and science have to conflict?

Biliskner · Apr 25, 2005

invisible trousers said:
Am I the only person here completely disheartened by the concept that christianity and science have to conflict?

the sciences of the world has to be seperated into what really is science and what is not science. i use the 'falsifiable' theory to check which is which

falsifiable:
physics
chemistry
genetics
medicine
anatomy
physiology
chiropractic
some astronomy

unfalsifiable:
evolution theory
some astronomy
geology
archaeology

you get the idea. you'll notice the difference is in the testability of the science, rather than an interpretation. the falsifiable ones are easy to test, with experiments. i can gene spice proteins and use PCR to test my theories on genetics. i can x-ray drosophila to see what happens to the genetics of files that are irridated etc. in physics i can test gravity by throwing my pen into the air etc. and in chemistry i can make stuff and freeze stuff etc.

the unfalisifable 'sciences' are abit more tricky. you dig up a fossil and say "hey that's 6 MYO" but someone else will come along and say "hey that's 6,000 YO!" and no one is correct, 'cos all that stuff has to do with history, time that has passed. some big-headed people will say that "i'm right and you're wrong" but in real fact no one knows. if i said that when the Allies landed on the beach of Omaha they were all snipers, would i be right or wrong? obviously you would go to the history books, but you cannot 'test' it using 'science' to see whether i'm correct or incorrect. and your 'logic' does not work, because events such as those unfalsifiable are circumstancial.

so don't listen to the badgering of some of the morons on these forums/threads (actually, you know which is the "better science/side" just BY listening to the badgering party and wondering why they are so ... err... "badgering"). listen to what both sides have to say and read up on both sides of the arguments. look to the 17th C philosophers with their scientifc methods as well as their scientific metaphysics. they have a whole world of wisdom to offer, definately a heck of a lot more open minded than the generation of today (no offence to anyone )

don't be disheartened, science is good. if you're up for it i recommend going to your library and reading Newton's Principia, and for starters on philosophy, Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.

Enjoy

Maccie · Apr 25, 2005

Am I the only person here completely disheartened by the concept that christianity and science have to conflict?

Well, fortunately, only a very small minority of Christians believe that concept, though they do seem to be gathered together on this Board!!!

Biliskner · Apr 25, 2005

gluadys said:
In a sense, though you don't realize it, you are contradicting yourself. For the roots of evolution are in understanding what those lines and branches mean and how they describe the relationship of amoebae to humans.

Your problem is the evolution in YOUR SENSE wants to understand what is at the tips of those branches (amoebae, butterflies, pine trees, a lactobacillus, a horse, etc) without examining those lines and branches. Your attitude is :"Skip all the trivial stuff about moths changing colour or fruit flies learning to eat meat. I want to know how a eukaryote became human."

But the only way to understand how a eukaryote became human is to knuckle down and learn why moths change colour and how fruit flies learn to eat meat.

The process of evolution is a single unified process. You have to understand it small scale before you can apply on a large scale, just as you have to learn to walk before you can run. Eukaryotes became humans in exactly the same way as a population of white moths became a population of black moths. It just took a much longer time.

a common enigma that is elusive even in the mind of the evolutionist. you contradict yourself. step outside of your worldview for even 5 seconds and read word by word what you wrote; read inbetween your own words/lines.

you see the allele mutate. yes it changes color. that we can see and prove.
but you extend that to eukaryotes becoming humans that that is possible too. what the heck? am i the only one that sees that as the most absurd thing to believe? (yes it is a belief, you BELIEVE that euks can become humans, you have NO proof whatsoever).

that's like saying "oh, i can peddle my bicycle harder to go faster so when i'm in my car/aeroplane/spaceship/submarine/tank/jetty boat i can peddle faster and make that go faster too."
yeh.

unfortunately for your paradigm's logic, premise is true, but conclusion is wacked.

gluadys said:
I don't say or believe that either. Mutations are part of the process of evolution. But only a part. You can't equate them.

what is the other part?
mutation is the loss of information. if you think the net gain of information can be increased when building on the loss of information all i can say is

gluadys said:
Not true. The lines are backed by data drawn from real-life observation. They have been verified by multiple lines of evidence, much in the same way that the age of the earth has been verified by the consensus of numerous different measuring tools.

the lines are drawn according to your imagination - not totally but the amount of times i've seen it REDRAWN, is yes... an imagination at best.

gluadys said:
True. That is only an individual difference explained by Mendelian genetics.

However, changing the overall proportion of blue-eyed people in the population from 25% to 30% is evolution. That requires either that blue-eyed people have more than an average number of children or that their children have a lower than average mortality rate. Or both. That represents a change in the frequency of the blue-eyed allele under postive selective pressure. And that IS evolution.

It might be your evolution, but it's not evolution in the secular world's sense, nor that of Darwin's Origins.

You really need to read up on the history of Darwin's era, Charles, and also his grandfather.

gluadys said:
And the whole history of a single-celled eukaryote eventually having a human descendant is a matter of that process happening over and over and over and over and over and ....... over for about 1 billion years.

You're a classic cinderella story.

"A princess kisses a frog and it changes into a prince. We call that a fairy tale. Put a billion years in-between and we call it science."

That's what you said, paraphrased.

Biliskner · Apr 25, 2005

kofh2u said:
oh dear. I wonder where in the Bible is there any support at all for calling God a "Universal Force". That's anathema!

1) The Bible makes absolutely no definitive statement about God.

In fact, scripture tells us God's name is YHVH, which in Hebrew means "I am what I turn out to become"...

IMO, God is the First Cause.

God is the philosophical starting point for everyone, the Uncaused Cause of all that follows.

Hence, to emphasize this clear scriptural, fact, the interpretation of the word, God, as the "Universal Force" in Genesis is suggested and informative.

It informs even suppose Atheists that they are not exempt from the concept of God.

Is 32:4 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and
understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.

Is 32:5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes!

kofh, are you a Christian? or a Gnostic Christian? or a New Age Pantheistic Christian Buddhist? ( we had a Christian Buddhist once running the Christian Union at Melbourne University, thankfully that was in the 80's and now we only have hardcore Jesus Christ Christian believers running the CU )

I ask because I want to know where you are getting your revised Bible from. From the quotes I've seen in multiple threads, you have a superbly "paraphrased" eisegesis interpretation of the Scriptures. In Genesis when it says God you put in brackets "Universal Force" - what the hell does universal force mean? can you BE more ambiguous?

Anyway, just in reply to your comment that: "The Bible makes absolutely no definitive statement about God." - you're wrong.

Jesus said: I AM the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me. - John 14:6.

Biliskner · Apr 25, 2005

oops, just realised it wasn't you who said that comment. sorry kofh. whoever said "Bible makes no definitive statement about God" - well you haven't read the Bible have you?

and kofh, why dont' you quote ppl the normal way like everyone else does? the button is right there. click "quote".

gluadys · Apr 25, 2005

Biliskner said:
you see the allele mutate. yes it changes color. that we can see and prove.

But alone, that is not evolution. You also have to see the frequency of the allele in the gene pool change. That requires natural selection. When you get only mutations, you do not have evolution. It is when you get mutations + natural selection that you get evolution.

but you extend that to eukaryotes becoming humans that that is possible too. what the heck? am i the only one that sees that as the most absurd thing to believe? (yes it is a belief, you BELIEVE that euks can become humans, you have NO proof whatsoever).

Lots of people think it is absurd. But their uninformed opinion does not stop it from happening.

that's like saying "oh, i can peddle my bicycle harder to go faster so when i'm in my car/aeroplane/spaceship/submarine/tank/jetty boat i can peddle faster and make that go faster too."
yeh.

Bad analogy. The one you want is: since we can observe that I can peddle my bicycle around the block, we can infer that I can peddle my bicycle across the continent.

what is the other part?
mutation is the loss of information. if you think the net gain of information can be increased when building on the loss of information all i can say is

Nothing prevents mutations from adding information. Give me a definition of genetic information and a mathematical basis for determining when it is increased or decreased and I'll wager we can find objective instances of increased information due to mutation.

the lines are drawn according to your imagination - not totally but the amount of times i've seen it REDRAWN, is yes... an imagination at best.

The branches and lines are based on data. They are redrawn on the basis of additional, more accurate data. For example, the recent analysis of the relationship of whales led to redrawing the mammalian orders to place the Cetacea (whales) inside the order of Arteriodactyla (even-toed ungulates) and renaming the latter Cetarteriodactyla.

It might be your evolution, but it's not evolution in the secular world's sense,

Because most of the secular world (especially in America) is so badly-informed about what evolution really is

nor that of Darwin's Origins.

It is Darwin's theory. If you disagree, show me the citation.

You really need to read up on the history of Darwin's era, Charles, and also his grandfather.

Been there, done that.

You're a classic cinderella story.

"A princess kisses a frog and it changes into a prince. We call that a fairy tale. Put a billion years in-between and we call it science."

That's what you said, paraphrased.

No, it's not. No magic required for evolution. Just an observed process continued one step at a time.

kofh2u · Apr 25, 2005

SBG said:
Yahweh, Yahveh, or Yahoveh (Jehovah) are all the same and literally mean from Hebrew the Existing One. The Unutterable Name is from Jewish-Christian teachings because no one knows how to truly pronouce the True and Real Name of God, YHVH.

And if you don't think Yahweh, Yahveh, or Yahoveh (Jehovah) are in the Bible, look them up. Genesis 2:5 for one. All the times in the OT where LORD is used, this is Yahweh, Yahveh, or Yahoveh (Jehovah).

The Jewish sages note that the four letters of the Name are used to form the phrase

He was, He is, He will be. Hence the term God used and Jesus used, I AM.

1) Again, you demonstrate that you have used the midnight oil in your lamp!

2) I would correct you on Jehovah as the Chaldean-Hebrew Alphabet had no lette "J," so Jehovah is incorrect as far as calling out God's actual name.

3) Far from saying I doubt I doubt the Great Tetragrammation is found in Scripture, I complimented your unusual Christian 8nderstanding that in spite of the four pronouciations you have supplied for readers here, these are letters in the Initials of God, and are really NOT his actual name.

4) A monogram on napk9ns or towels, for instance is what we have here: Y H V H.

5) I said,"You can't have it both ways," in my last post.

I meant, you insisted that I was wrong in reading these letters as a future participle of the Hebrew ve b, "to be."

Your point was these are NOT really a word, anyway.

To this, I said God told Moses to use YHVH AS IF IT WERE A WORD when he spoke to Pharoah, Ex3:15-7.

So, agreeing again, it seems that in pite of all you hope to find 9n tradition, in Jewish opinion, in the concordance, or in the Bible itself...
...you are lost, as are even the wisest Jews who refuse to even write this "magic" word, G-D.

5) I am...

I am becoming...

I am becoming convinced that you are hard necked and self assured looking to denigrate what I might have shared with you.

Consequently, let me just say that the Jews who understand their "spiritual" connect with G-d is and w
s and will be tied into something very important,...
... another "mystery" which they, themselves forgot or lost or died with their prophets..
...some hidden manna (Rev2:17) or some KABBALAH...
... is somehow relate
to the power in these four letters and its relationship to the Celestrial Hebrew Al-habet used by God to divonely reveal his knowledge and himself to men.

6) References.
Any rabbi will admit to a long tradiition of this unknown spiritual connection which I have described.

7) Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, (listen to this clear meaning), let him hear what the Spirit, (the Sevenfold Psyche), saith unto the churches, (that is, the evolving body of Christianity); To him that overcometh, (he who sublimates beyond the archaic interpretations of scriptural misunderstandings), will I give to eat of (Kabbalah), the hidden manna, (the hidden organizational pattern in Genesis), and will give him a white "stone," (a piece of paper), and in the stone a new name written, (one of the twelve fruits from the Biological Tree of [animal and plant kongdom] Life: Rev 22:3), which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven:

kofh2u · Apr 25, 2005

Biliskner said:
kofh, are you a Christian? or a Gnostic Christian? or a New Age Pantheistic Christian Buddhist? ( we had a Christian Buddhist once running the Christian Union at Melbourne University, thankfully that was in the 80's and now we only have hardcore Jesus Christ Christian believers running the CU )

I ask because I want to know where you are getting your revised Bible from. From the quotes I've seen in multiple threads, you have a superbly "paraphrased" eisegesis interpretation of the Scriptures. In Genesis when it says God you put in brackets "Universal Force" - what the hell does universal force mean? can you BE more ambiguous?

Anyway, just in reply to your comment that: "The Bible makes absolutely no definitive statement about God." - you're wrong.

Jesus said: I AM the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me. - John 14:6.

1) Hello, mr/ms B,

2) No apology needed.

(I am used to people arrogantly attempting retorts,.. NOT to the posted verses I offer to them.
In response to them, the best they can do is denigrate my faith in Jesus.
They imply our differences in interpretation make them "Ckristian," while I must not be as right, or rigthegous as they are.)

Is the disciple to expect more?
Can u c y we have had to wait so long, for the Second Coming?

Is anyone really ready for instruction, (Rev5:5)?

Wasn't your charges against my inte pretations the same as those of the Pharisees?

John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

Did not the RCC answer all Protestants with EXACTLY the same attacks? True?

Who is exhibiting Christian behavior when people ridicule or name call (gnosticism, Christian-buddhist, etc) ...
...simply because THEY, themselves, act as if they "KNOW" everything about scripture?
What say u to this point, brother?

Who are the goats, since the judgement of the sheep is not a final exam on interpretation?
The "final" judgement of who is a Christian requires an examination of Matthew 25:31-end.
True?

3) You didn't notice?
THERE HAS BEEN NO EXEGESIS OFFERED.

There has been no exegesis or explanation.
The interpretations, bracketed within the context of verses, has merely been stated.
Defense has not followed,,nor has any reader's criticism of what was said.

Except for the inte pretation of YHVH, here and above,

Yet, you seem on the ready to "judge" such as "eisegesis."

That is why I have cast no other pearls of defense, yet.

Clearly, my simple, concise reply to your criticism of "Universal Force" meaning First Cause, to an exegesis of the meaning of YHVY, to include all evidence that no one really KNOWS ... this has not excused me in YOUR opinion.

So, what chance of intelligent sharing do you offer?

Aren't you the bottom line for validation when all is said and done?

Remember former times,...

Matt. 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, (vain Bible lawyers), that ye are the (genetically related) children of them (who think so common to this Modern Homo sapien species) which killed the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets, (including Jesus Christ, whom you offered in human sacrifice to perserve a failed Judaism).

Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

avid reader

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

~this post promotes non-nicene christianity~