Why I rejected theistic evolution

[Martyrs44]

I'm not saying we shouldn't confront one another if we believe the other is in error, but are insults going to make our case any stronger or are we stooping to a level that does none of us any good? Rebukes of un-Godly or straight heretical, willful disregards for the Word and God are fine, but right now (and I'm just as guilty of this as anyone) it seems like that is all we're doing. I only wish to have our conversations glorify Him, and help us grow. I mean no disrespect to you or mark.

I didn't take it that way, brother...but,

do you understand the difference between rebuke and insult?

 

[Metal Minister]

I didn't take it that way, brother...but,

do you understand the difference between rebuke and insult?

Of course, but I've seen an amount of both from everyone (including myself) and I just want us all to grow in Christ, but its hard to grow when you're getting cut down. Lol, yes that's a terrible pun!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Keachian]

Of course, but I've seen an amount of both from everyone (including myself) and I just want us all to grow in Christ, but its hard to grow when you're getting cut down. Lol, yes that's a terrible pun!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Well one plants seed the other waters (1Co 3)

 

[BobRyan]

Bible believing Christians agree with evolutionists who freely admit that "Six days you shall labor..In Six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day" Ex 20:8-11 is not even remotely compatible with evolutionism.

That point is incredibly obvious to even the most casual reader of this topic.

The other thing about that which is incredibly obvious to all the objective readers - is that Exodus 20:8-11 is legal code - not poetry.

Thus on topic like "evolution vs the Bible" it is no wonder that the Christians appeal to an incredibly obvious point admitted to by both Christians and evolutionists like Darwin.

The actual six durations recognized by Science today are called the six Geological Eras:

That is eisegesis -- it is inserting ideas into the text to serve a later agenda. No Bible scholar argues that the legal code of Exodus 20 said "six real days you shall labor...for in six geologic ages God created the heavens and the earth".

Moses was not a Darwinist nor was he preaching evolutionism.

The word for day "yom" is the same in Exodus 20 both for the day worked by man and the day of creation week.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Martyrs44]

Bible believing Christians agree with evolutionists who freely admit that "Six days you shall labor..In Six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day" Ex 20:8-11 is not even remotely compatible with evolutionism.

That point is incredibly obvious to even the most casual reader of this topic.

The other thing about that which is incredibly obvious to all the objective readers - is that Exodus 20:8-11 is legal code - not poetry.

Thus on topic like "evolution vs the Bible" it is no wonder that the Christians appeal to an incredibly obvious point admitted to by both Christians and evolutionists like Darwin.




That is eisegesis -- it is inserting ideas into the text to serve a later agenda. No Bible scholar argues that the legal code of Exodus 20 said "six real days you shall labor...for in six geologic ages God created the heavens and the earth".

Moses was not a Darwinist nor was he preaching evolutionism.

The word for day "yom" is the same in Exodus 20 both for the day worked by man and the day of creation week.

in Christ,

Bob

That's right. Quite correct.

 

[Martyrs44]

The first postulate of Theistic Evolution is that the first six "days" were not earth man's 24 hour days, because god does not even make the Sun the time keeper of a 24 hour day until the third "duration" of His own "day."



We can understand this much better when we ralize that the English word "day" is interpreted from the Hebrew word Yowm.

Yown can mean half a day, a day, a year, and Age, or any duration of length approprite to the context one understands from the passage.

Nope. You are in error. The human race has observed the seven day week from the very begining and this is documented by secular history. Check it out for yourself by reading The Seven Day Week on Wikipedia.

Quote: "The seven-day week is used by the majority of the world and is the international standard as specified in ISO 8601."

That's just for starters. If you keep reading you will find that the seven day week was observed by the Babylonians, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu's etc. In light of this fact it can only be that ancient man observed the seven day week because it began in Genesis one and was passed down from culture to culture until our time.

So your thesis fails here.

 

[Keachian]

Nope. You are in error. The human race has observed the seven day week from the very begining and this is documented by secular history. Check it out for yourself by reading The Seven Day Week on Wikipedia.

Quote: "The seven-day week is used by the majority of the world and is the international standard as specified in ISO 8601."

ISO standards; there since the beginning of time!

 

[gluadys]

That's just for starters. If you keep reading you will find that the seven day week was observed by the Babylonians, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu's etc. In light of this fact it can only be that ancient man observed the seven day week because it began in Genesis one and was passed down from culture to culture until our time.

So your thesis fails here.

Actually, it doesn't need to be passed culture to culture.
In days before the invention of clocks and calendars, when people actually used the movement of heavenly bodies to keep track of times and seasons, one of the handiest references was the moon.

And one-quarter of a moon cycle is, on average, seven days.

The uniqueness of the Hebrew culture was not that it grouped days in sevens, but that it called for rest on the seventh day.

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course, and a figurative interpretation of Genesis still says God created everything. This is a problem with literalists the keep forgetting, metaphors still have meaning. Because they have such an aversion to metaphors, they forget God uses them in his word to teach truth.

No, because you don't get to torture the text into meaning whatever you want it to mean. Your treatment of the Scriptures is simply ridiculous.

What makes you think it reflects the intent of the author? Doesn't that depend on whether he was speaking literally or not?

It depends on what the author says, words mean things.

Assuming literalism is not sound scholarship.

The literal meaning is always preferred, not because I crave literal language but because clarity is highly advantageous.

I don't. I take the geocentric passages literally. The reason I take the Genesis creation account figuratively is because evidence in the text they are not speaking literally like two contradictory order of creation if you take both account at the plain meaning of the text and the fact there are no literal interpretations of them in the rest of the bible only non literal.

Non literal is just another form of unbelief the way your using it.

You really need to learn the difference between similes and metaphors.

You need to learn the Scriptures.

What errors?

Oh just about every exposition you have done on here. It seems you only get one right every now and then by accident.

 

[gluadys]

Wow, I'm seeing an awful lot of thinly veiled insults thrown back and forth, but not much true discussion. May I suggest an alternative? Since I saw that apparently there is not enough theological discussion, then I propose this: to the TE's please post your top 3 verses in the bible that you believe best speak to God's use of evolution, or even that the creation is billions of years old, and a short explanation as to why you believe it says that.

There are none. For the same reason the bible never mentions internal combustion engines, atoms, galaxies, molecules, or the western hemisphere, it never mentions evolution nor the actual age of the earth.

None of these things were discovered until many centuries after the bible was written.

We yec's believe the whole of Genesis is our biblical evidence so there isn't much point to our posting ours lol. From there we can hopefully move forward with a conversation that may get us somewhere! I hope...

There is a lot of reason for you to post your theology since it is not the text of scripture that is at issue, but how that text is to be understood in light of evidence not known to the ancient writers.



I have heard of a Christian denomination that will use only horns or stringed instruments, but not an organ, in their worship, for the latter is never mentioned in any part of scripture.

Do you think it inappropriate to use a certain instrument that was not alluded to in scripture because it was not invented until the Middle Ages? How would you justify theologically the use of an organ in Christian worship when not a single scripture even names it?

In early modern times, several scientists (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton) worked out the structure of the solar system. This structure is never mentioned in scripture.


Should we forbid teaching it because we can find no verse in scripture that supports it--and in fact do find many that would seem to support a very different cosmology?

Maybe, before you ask for three biblical references supporting evolution, you should first provide three verses supporting the existence of a sun-centered system in which the earth is only one of several planets.

Or explain the theology that allows you to agree with science in this case, when the biblical support for it is non-existent.

Then explain why the same does not apply to the case of the age of the earth or the process of evolution.


Or explain in general how Christians should apply theology in the light of new inventions or discoveries not named in scripture.


Clearly, in most generations, Christians have not considered it appropriate to throw that knowledge away. They have not asked that the bible speak of things not discovered or invented until centuries later.

Instead, they have reflected on how to incorporate the new information in a way that continues to support faith in God and the authority of scripture.

What theology lies behind the demand of many Christians today that we change that practice?

 

[Assyrian]

Of course, and a figurative interpretation of Genesis still says God created everything. This is a problem with literalists the keep forgetting, metaphors still have meaning. Because they have such an aversion to metaphors, they forget God uses them in his word to teach truth.

No, because you don't get to torture the text into meaning whatever you want it to mean. Your treatment of the Scriptures is simply ridiculous.

Are you saying God doesn't use metaphors to teach truth? Or are you simply ignoring my point and and resorting to insults?

It depends on what the author says, words mean things.

So even if the author intended to speak in a parable or metaphor we need to take the words literally because 'words mean things'?

Remember Exodus 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

There is no mention of 'as' or 'like' so if 'words mean things' it must mean God flew the Israelites out of Egypt using giant eagles.

Judges 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.'
9 But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?'
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come and reign over us.'
11 But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?'
12 And the trees said to the vine, 'You come and reign over us.'
13 But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'
14 Then all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come and reign over us.'
15 And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'

There is no mention of 'as' or 'like' so it must be literal. Trees really could talk back then.

The literal meaning is always preferred, not because I crave literal language but because clarity is highly advantageous.

So you prefer a simple interpretation that is wrong over one that takes more thought and prayer?

Non literal is just another form of unbelief the way your using it.

Was the writer of Hebrews writing in unbelief when he interpreted God's seventh day rest as a non literal day and a rest we can enter into today? Paul was writing in unbelief when he interpreted the Sabbath as a shadow of what we have in Christ? You aren't addressing my point you are just throwing out insults.

You really need to learn the difference between similes and metaphors.

You need to learn the Scriptures.

I have pointed out to you in this thread and on previous occasions that you are confusing similes (which use 'like' or 'as') with metaphors which don't, as a result you think metaphors in the bible have to be flagged by words like 'like' or 'as', meaning you only see the similes in the bible and are blind to metaphors. You choose to remain in ignorance, it is not like you are disagreeing with my interpretation of the bible here, this is basic grammar you are refusing to understand, refusing to look up and check to see if it is even vaguely possible I might be right.

Oh just about every exposition you have done on here. It seems you only get one right every now and then by accident.

How can you tell when you cannot answer my expositions or if you do you cannot put up a decent defence of your answers?

 

[Philis]

I seriously want to hear your literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I even started a new thread hoping you'd chime in. If you can't explain a literal reading of Genesis 1 then just let me know and I will stop pestering you.

My main question is that you said the firmament is an expanse between the waters, and the waters above are ice. I'm just wondering how that works since the stars were placed in the firmament. How could there be ice above the stars that melts to cause the global flood?

Martyr,

You don't have an answer for this do you? That's ok, it confirms my beliefs that the origins story is best understood with ANE cosmology in mind. Only MK actually tried to address this problem but in order to do so he had to interpret the passage to mean something other than what it said (God didn't place the lights on that day, He just made them appear to us, which isn't what it literally says). Also MK accepts an old universe to explain his theology, which if I understand correctly is in conflict with your theology.

I won't close the book on this line of inquiry though. I will remain open minded and leave the question with you in hopes of getting a response. So far my request for a breakdown of the literal reading has gotten me 3 different literal meanings that all contain interpretations (as opposed to just literally reading it).

I hope you can clarify what the literal historical view of Genesis 1 is, I'd really like to know.

Thanks!!

 

[theFijian]

You haven't given one.

You're correct as I haven't actually been trying to make an argument. I only offered my personal testimony as evidence that you can reject YEC without rejecting the Bible

Sir, did you even bother reading the OP? Yes/no.

Yes however I don't find PRATTs and false equivocation particularly enlightening.

If not, I would suggest you do so. Then read post # 44 in my answer to Assyrian.

Best wishes.

I also read post 44, largely more of the same.

 

[theFijian]

I didn't take it that way, brother...but,

do you understand the difference between rebuke and insult?

You're not here to rebuke, you're here on an ego trip. That's my rebuke ok?

 

[Assyrian]

Actually I must lovingly disagree here. Yom, when qualified with a numeral as is the case in Genesis 1 always means a literal 24 hour day...
A little explanation here: The meaning of yom in Genesis 1
Progmonk this may interest you as well!

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me. Language doesn’t work like that. You could say all of the other uses are literal (which isn't actually the case) but even if it were, it still wouldn't stop Genesis using them figuratively. Is there a culture or language anywhere in the world where people people with a flair for vivid and creative language have to check it against a list of phrases that cannot be used in metaphors because they had always been used literally before? How could you ever have a first time words are combined together metaphorically unless they had never been used together ever before? Imagine Asaph writing Psalm 74:1 O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture, only to find David and a delegation of shepherds complaining that sheep and pasture have only ever been used together literally, it cannot be used in a metaphor.

 

[mark kennedy]

You know, if you would go back to where you were already corrected it would save time.

http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=5104708

Are you saying God doesn't use metaphors to teach truth? Or are you simply ignoring my point and and resorting to insults?

I'm saying that you don't get to dismiss the Word of God as figurative because you don't believe it.

So even if the author intended to speak in a parable or metaphor we need to take the words literally because 'words mean things'?

The literal meaning is always preferred because people like you want to twist things around to suite their whims and caprices. I don't know what you actually believe but you cannot believe the nonsense you are putting out on here, you have been proven wrong too many times and too many ways.

Remember Exodus 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

There is no mention of 'as' or 'like' so if 'words mean things' it must mean God flew the Israelites out of Egypt using giant eagles.

It is generally marked by like or as or something indicating figurative language in the immediate context. Now I have told you this again and again and yet you repeat the same error, again and again. You are putting 'bore you on eagles wings' on the same level as Genesis 1 being completely figurative when it is clearly an historical narrative.

It's called equivocation and it's one of the fallacious arguments theistic evolutionists use on a nearly constant basis. To tell you the truth, I think sometimes you make blatantly false statements just to see if Creationists will go for it. I think you throw that kind of nonsensical, fallacious reasoning out there, off the wall, to run creationists in circles.

Judges 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.'
9 But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?'
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come and reign over us.'
11 But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?'
12 And the trees said to the vine, 'You come and reign over us.'
13 But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'
14 Then all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come and reign over us.'
15 And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'

There is no mention of 'as' or 'like' so it must be literal. Trees really could talk back then.

Again, it is evidence and obvious from the immediate context. Again and again.....

So you prefer a simple interpretation that is wrong over one that takes more thought and prayer?

No, I prefer to take what it says as the intended meaning. Sound exposition has rules from common sense logic to exegetical standards, you apply none of them. Your arguments are to take whatever I say and insult or contradict it by whatever fallacious or erroneous means occur to you off the top of your head. When you are soundly refuted you just ignore it, wait a while and repeat the previous error using the same rhetoric.

Your purpose is not to understand the Scriptures but to waste my time and energy. The thing is, you only have a couple of arguments so shooting them down is fish in a barrel. You seem especially fond of equivocation but begging the question of proof is your standard backup. Where ever you fallacious logic starts it always goes back to the ad hominem attack that is theistic evolution, you have to hammer the personal convictions of Creationists, that's the whole point.

Was the writer of Hebrews writing in unbelief when he interpreted God's seventh day rest as a non literal day and a rest we can enter into today? Paul was writing in unbelief when he interpreted the Sabbath as a shadow of what we have in Christ? You aren't addressing my point you are just throwing out insults.

I get really tired of seeing you trample essential doctrine under foot. Most of the empty rhetoric and fallacious logic is forgivable, but I warn you this kind of calloused indifference to the Gospel is dangerous spiritually. It won't make one iota of difference to me but you are doing irreparable harm to yourself.

I strongly advise caution here because what you are doing has gone beyond childish mockery. You are now ridiculing essential doctrine and one of the clearest expressions of the Gospel in the book of Hebrews. I'm warning you not because I'm offended but because this kind of error can harden your heart beyond repair. Be very careful here, there is more at stake then you can possibly imagine.

Your not struggling with an interpretive challenge, you are mocking the clear meaning of Scripture due to unbelief:

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:

“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
In the day of trial in the wilderness,
Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me,
And saw My works forty years.
Therefore I was angry with that generation,
And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart,
And they have not known My ways.’
So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest.’”

Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, while it is said:

“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Hebrews 3:7-15)​

That is what the Sabbath rest was always supposed to be, the work is done so God being finished, rested, in the sense that the work had ceased. What you are hearing here is the voice of the Holy Spirit calling you to rest in the completed work of Christ. At the end of the creation week God 'rested' from the work of creation because it was done in all it's vast array, the Sabbath commemorated that historical moment. When Christ had completed the work of salvation, ascended to the right hand of the Father, the work of salvation was complete.

Now the Gospel comes to whosoever will, they believe it and are marked by the Holy Spirit of promise until the redemption of the purchased price, the resurrection of our bodies. That is the rest wherein the weary may rest but the Hebrews were considering returning to the Levetical system of a works righteousness because they where having doubts. The author is warning them if they depart from God in unbelief after hearing the Gospel there is no way of returning to repentance. The result would be perdition.

Don't do this Assyrian, most of what you do on here is harmless, meaningless mockery. This passage is one of the most serious doctrinal issue in Scripture, the condition by which an unbeliever goes on to perdition. Please take this seriously because there is more at stake for you then you can possible realize.

I have pointed out to you in this thread and on previous occasions that you are confusing similes (which use 'like' or 'as') with metaphors which don't, as a result you think metaphors in the bible have to be flagged by words like 'like' or 'as', meaning you only see the similes in the bible and are blind to metaphors. You choose to remain in ignorance, it is not like you are disagreeing with my interpretation of the bible here, this is basic grammar you are refusing to understand, refusing to look up and check to see if it is even vaguely possible I might be right.

How can you tell when you cannot answer my expositions or if you do you cannot put up a decent defence of your answers?

I answered your erroneous mockery of the clear meaning of Scripture

http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=5104708

You have ignored it again and again. You problem isn't intellectual, your problem is that you don't believe what is written so you dismiss whatever you don't believe with regards to redemptive history as figurative. That is not an exposition, a text without a context is a pretext. Figurative language can and often does reflect a literal meaning, in fact, that is the whole point. God can and does use earthly things to explain heavenly things, here is an example of the Gospel being explained in figurative language and I will warn you one last time Assyrian. If you use your childish mockery here the consequences are far more serious then you can possibly imagine:

You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” (John 3:7-15)​

I have shown you clearly that the Genesis account is an historical narrative and Paul in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 is speaking of Adam as, 'the first parent of humanity'. You have been shown in no uncertain terms that Adam is a literal person who is a 'figure' of Christ and how the exact same word is used of Timothy being an 'example' to others. You ignore this, every single time I teach it to you are go right back to you erroneous mockery of the clear meaning of Scripture.

It is not an interpretive challenge to see the use of 'born again' here as a clear example of figurative language (earthly things) being used to explain spiritual rebirth (heavenly things). A child could understand. This passage is one of the clearest and fundamental expressions of the Gospel in Scripture using figurative language that you say I don't understand.

Thirty years I have studied the Word of God, carefully, prayerfully and with an unwavering reliance on the guidance and admonition of the Holy Spirit. My assurance of salvation, the insights into the revelation of God, my relationship with Christ on a personal level. Every aspect of my Christian walk has been focused on hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit regarding the things of Christ available to be by faith.

I warn you with all the earnestness I have in my being. Do not make a mockery of this passage, I fear you will not recover from the consequences. Even if you did I would have to shun you and reconsider whether I can engage theistic evolutionists on these matters again. Because of your Christian profession there are rules, the only reason I can do these debates with professing Christians is because I have yet to see one of them deny or make a mockery of the Gospel. If you resort to your childish mockery this time the consequences will be far more serious then you can possible realize.

I strongly advise caution, for your own sake, take this seriously.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Martyr,

You don't have an answer for this do you? That's ok, it confirms my beliefs that the origins story is best understood with ANE cosmology in mind.

Which means your a theistic evolutionist who's only purpose on these boards is to insult and demean Creationists. I knew you were, now you have admitted it openly. Thanks for that.

Only MK actually tried to address this problem but in order to do so he had to interpret the passage to mean something other than what it said (God didn't place the lights on that day, He just made them appear to us, which isn't what it literally says). Also MK accepts an old universe to explain his theology, which if I understand correctly is in conflict with your theology.

Let's get something straight, I don't need an old earth cosmology to 'explain' my theology. I have done many detailed expositions and exegetical searches into the passages in question, New and Old Testament references and came to my conclusions based on those studies. There is no conflict from the rationalizations of unbelievers in the theology of Creationism, that is putting way too much importance of the unbelievers influence.

I am a young earth creationist by default, if I have good reason to conclude that an old earth and an old universe is both right and not in conflict with essential doctrine is perfectly permissible for me to revise my views. The important thing to realize here is that either way my theology is not in conflict with anything remotely scientific. My interests are intellectual not spiritual and there is no reason for Martyr to jump through hoops for you personal amusement.

I won't close the book on this line of inquiry though. I will remain open minded and leave the question with you in hopes of getting a response. So far my request for a breakdown of the literal reading has gotten me 3 different literal meanings that all contain interpretations (as opposed to just literally reading it).

No your not open minded, you are a skeptic and a critic of the clear meaning of the Scriptures. Theistic evolution is really nothing more the a secular philosophy put in mildly theological terminology, it has no theology of it's own it simply attacks Creationism.

I hope you can clarify what the literal historical view of Genesis 1 is, I'd really like to know.

Thanks!!

I suppose he might if there was something to compare it to. What is your view? It seems pretty obvious that you just want a positive statement so you can just take pot shots at it. Creationists typically shun this kind of thing, when they don't respond to you it's because it's against their religion to teach doctrine to someone who tramples it under foot.

Have a nice day.
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You're not here to rebuke, you're here on an ego trip. That's my rebuke ok?

No actually that is childish mockery and every thread on this board is dragged down to this level by the theistic evolutionists on here. No matter where it starts it always ends up with a group of you hurling one insult after another at Creationists. You guys are swirling around him like starving dogs in winter and that is what you always do. Don't pretend it's his arrogance that motivates you, it's yours.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Martyrs44]

You know, if you would go back to where you were already corrected it would save time.

.... If you resort to your childish mockery this time the consequences will be far more serious then you can possible realize.

I strongly advise caution, for your own sake, take this seriously.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I concur, Mark. His scripture twisting and 'logic' is so bad that I finally decided to remove him from sight. I will only deal with issues he might bring up if others have questions...but he is a pure waste of time to deal with.

Have a great day.

 

[Martyrs44]

Which means your a theistic evolutionist who's only purpose on these boards is to insult and demean Creationists. I knew you were, now you have admitted it openly. Thanks for that.

That became evident in time. You were right on target.

God give us those who are sincere honest seekers. In Jesus name, amen.