Or he wants to be able to quote them exactly so that he does not accidently change what he says they believe into something they would vehemently disagree with.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You might want to fill your husband in on them then.
He's been starting fly-by threads asking question after question after question about what they believe.
Either that, or he's hiding behind question marks just to ridicule them.
Although I find it difficult to believe that you don't know this already (and if you do, the question is likely to be a set-up), I'll bite.What does the creation week have to do with the Flood?
Or he wants to be able to quote them exactly so that he does not accidently change what he says they believe into something they would vehemently disagree with.
Apparently AV1611Vet is so accustomed to quote-mining and using straw-man arguments that he just can't imagine an honest researcher carefully collecting the answers given by people using the own words. To him, such due diligence must surely be a sinister plot!
So speaks a person who cannot and has not provided a single verse to support thier distortions of the Scriptures or the misrepresentations she espouses.Your obsessions with my husband's posts are of no interest to me. Why not put some energy into finding Biblical and material evidence (i.e., scientific evidence) which might suggest that your opinions have merit? (Oh, I just remembered. You are the guy whose slogan is "evidence can take a hike." That explains a lot . Never mind.)
KWCrazy said:You know, what I really don't understand about the Bible is why Hansel and Grettle didn't break branches or use tracking tape to find their way back home. They should have know that bread crumbs would be eaten.
How could Little Red Riding hood possibly mistake a talking wolf for her grandmother? She must have been real near sighted.
If Rumplestiltskin didn't want anyone to guess his name, why was he singing it in rhyme in an insecure location?
If so called Biblical scholars can tell wild stories about what the Bible actually sayss without ever providing any evidence, I can certainly proclaim that it's all about Aesop's Fables. After all. It's as accurate as proclaiming that the Bible supports evolution.
If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse. They do not. They make statements without backing. When they do provide a source of Scriptural reference it's a portion of a verse so twisted out of context that the original verse posted in its intirety semonstrates their false assertions.Hermeneutic and translation scholars don't do anything about twisting scriptures anymore than Matthew did in interpreting how Jesus fulfilled prophecies. Your examples are comical but not equivalent to what biblical scholars do, so called or not.
If so called Biblical scholars can tell wild stories about what the Bible actually sayss without ever providing any evidence, I can certainly proclaim that it's all about Aesop's Fables. After all. It's as accurate as proclaiming that the Bible supports evolution.
If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse. They do not.
They make statements without backing.
When they do provide a source of Scriptural reference it's a portion of a verse so twisted out of context that the original verse posted in its intirety semonstrates their false assertions.
I've been waiting for one of them to actualy give supporting evidence to something they claim, but they never do. We are left with the knowledge that there IS NO Scriptural basis for their claims; that it is a distortion of the word, not an interpretation of it. They simply have no credibility.
If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse.
No, I mean the "Biblical Schoalars" who continuously say that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly states; that the evening andf the morning could be thousands of years, that the flood was only a local flood, and that evolution is affirmed through the Bible. I could name a few names, but these people know who they are. They call themselves "Theistic evolutionists" because they want to hang with the "in" crowd but they still want to go to Heaven when they die. Professing to believe in the "truth" of the Bible and "facts" of evolution, they understand neither.As a matter of fact he did, he just didn't give you the references since you demonstrated that you haven't the slightest interest.
These are a list of some of the early fulfillments:
Originally Posted by KWCrazy http://www.christianforums.com/t7726720-56/#post62555710 If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse. They do not.
No, I mean the "Biblical Schoalars" who continuously say that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly states; that the evening andf the morning could be thousands of years, that the flood was only a local flood, and that evolution is affirmed through the Bible. I could name a few names, but these people know who they are. They call themselves "Theistic evolutionists" because they want to hang with the "in" crowd but they still want to go to Heaven when they die. Professing to believe in the "truth" of the Bible and "facts" of evolution, they understand neither.
You do understand that the bible wasnt written in English, right?
You do understand that the bible wasnt written in English, right?
Loudmouth said:No, he doesn't understand that. He really does think that the original authors wrote the original Bible in the King's English (i.e. King James english).
What Bible?
Have you ever heard of the Septuagint? Masoretic scrolls? Can you guess what language they are in?
I know about the language; I've just never heard them referred to as Bibles.
There you have it, folks. He didn't know that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (aka Tanakh) and the Greek New Testament were Bibles of the ancient world. And he had no idea that the Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible often quoted in the New Testament. (He thought that they were quoting the King James Bible 1611 edition!)
This illustrates quite well the dangers of elevating a fallible work of man (a particular translation edition of 1611) above the original scriptures which they claim to revere. It also recalls the lessons of the Book of Proverbs about mocking instruction and knowledge.
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?