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're not here to rebuke, you're here on an ego trip. That's my rebuke ok?
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
Yes however I don't find PRATTs and false equivocation particularly enlightening.
I also read post 44, largely more of the same.
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.
This is all baloney. You came here with your mind made up and you don't believe what God says about Genesis. That much is very evident.
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
This is all baloney. You came here with your mind made up and you don't believe what God says about Genesis. That much is very evident.
Oh come come Mark, you can tell the difference between mockery and insults don't you? As it is I wasn't actually trying to mock him I was merely holding up a mirror to his own behaviour.
You know Mark perhaps there wasa touch of pride in my initial involvement in this thread, although I did think twice about it. But in saying that I am a TE and still believe the Bible I was simply hoping someone might actually ask me how this was the case. but that just goes to show that few people come here with an enquiring mind, that goes for both sides.
See my response to Mark above. I'm certainly not going to have my mind changed by false accusations.
Oh come come Mark, you can tell the difference between mockery and insults don't you? As it is I wasn't actually trying to mock him I was merely holding up a mirror to his own behaviour.
You know Mark perhaps there wasa touch of pride in my initial involvement in this thread, although I did think twice about it. But in saying that I am a TE and still believe the Bible I was simply hoping someone might actually ask me how this was the case. but that just goes to show that few people come here with an enquiring mind, that goes for both sides.
See my response to Mark above. I'm certainly not going to have my mind changed by false accusations.
Yeesh, does anyone here debate any more?
Did you bother reading the OP and the answers I gave to Assyrian and Glaudys?
You never gave me any answers, even when I repeated the questions twice.
Yes, I've heard them all before.Martyrs44 said:Did you bother reading the OP and the answers I gave to Assyrian and Glaudys?
Oh Mark, do you have to be so bi-partisan? Do you have to make so many false accusations against fellow Christians? Don't you ever believe that someone can at the same time disagree with you and not be a liberal bible-hater?No you were insulting him by any means available, making course condescending criticisms and harsh personal remarks. That's pretty much all you guys have did in this thread and all you do on these boards.
Thanks, that was very helpful
Close encounters of the pedantic one liners, you guys are so much alike and yet, each has their own unique style. He has been very civil and even kind in his responses to you and you have been rude. I told him how this would end, you guys are consistent if nothing else.
You won't have your mind changed by solid proof and documentation either. You didn't come here open minded.
Oh Mark, do you have to be so bi-partisan? Do you have to make so many false accusations against fellow Christians? Don't you ever believe that someone can at the same time disagree with you and not be a liberal bible-hater?
Um no out is quite evident that he has not been civil, neither have you been Mark. I know you believe it's some kind of duty of yours to stamp out TE, but your antagonistic words and wilful false witness towards your fellow believers says more about you than out does about them. And for someone who complains about a lack of theology around here you've not shown an awful lot of interest in how I could be aTE not not reject the Bible. But I'm expecting your reply will simply be more of the bi-partisan antagonism for which I used to have you on ignore.
My mind has already been changed by solid proof and documentation, I used to be a Creationist remember.
gluadys said:There are none.
Thank you for admitting there are no verses of scripture that support evolution or billions of years. Thank you for admitting that us eisigesis.
gluadys said: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 believe the bible is literally true and accurate. I believe that Genesis 1-11 is historical not figurative. I believe that salvation lies only in Jesus Christ.
gluadys said:What theology lies behind the demand of many Christians today that we change that practice?
I deleted the bulk of your post because it was silly. The bible also doesn't mention every kind of animal that was created, so are you saying that no animal was created? My point is, that the bible doesn't directly talk of "modern" things, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them. However what you and others are doing is looking at what "modern" science is saying and trying to read that into the scriptures. Because of that it is warping the obvious literal meaning of Genesis. When you open any book, and read the first chapter do you disregard it as not meaning what it really says and has no context through the rest of that book? Of course not, and the refrences back to Genesis by Jesus and His disciples give credence to its historical authenticity. The fact that the bible does not mention billions of years or macro-evolution is no fault of the scriptures, but of those who would try to force them into the box of "modern science". What would you say if tomorrow scientists said they found absolute proof of a young earth, and it became a universal concensus? Would you then abandon your faith in billions of years or your faith in science? You see science is constantly having to refine and change its ideas, and we as humans have constantly tried to twist the scriptures to fit that amorphous "truth" that science keeps offering. The only 100% infallible truth is God's Word, and until Jesus's return, its where our faith should start and grow.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Your link is dead I am afraidYou know, if you would go back to where you were already corrected it would save time.
http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=5104708
So you are resorting to insults instead of answering my question.I'm saying that you don't get to dismiss the Word of God as figurative because you don't believe it.Are you saying God doesn't use metaphors to teach truth? Or are you simply ignoring my point and and resorting to insults?
So even if the author intended it as a metaphor or parable, you will interpret it literally because you don't like TEs.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.So even if the author intended to speak in a parable or metaphor we need to take the words literally because 'words mean things'?
There is nothing in the text or the context to suggest it is a metaphor. The one indication it isn't literal is because we have another account of the Israelites travels where they walked. But if two contradictory accounts tells you God is speaking in metaphor, we have that in the creation account in Genesis as well. Shouldn't creationists recognise they are non literal too instead of forcing Genesis 2 to fit Genesis 1?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.
I am showing you how God used metaphor to speak to Moses. You don't seem to want to learn how God speaks, even from mount Sinai. Instead you resort to insultsIt'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.
What is it in the immediate context that tells you these aren't literal talking trees? Or do you "dismiss the Word of God as figurative because you don't believe it."Again, it is evidence and obvious from the immediate context. Again and again.....
But you don't care about the intended meaning, you say that the literal meaning is always to be preferred even if the author intended to speak in a parable or metaphor. Look at the highlights in blue near the top.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.
Where am I "ridiculing essential doctrine and one of the clearest expressions of the Gospel in the book of Hebrews"? I see the same expression of the gospel in Hebrews you do. Heb 4:10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. The only difference is I recognise that the writer is interpreting God's seventh day rest as the rest we are called to enter, a picture of the gospel. Your problem is you so despise metaphor and allegory that that when an allegorical interpretation is pointed out to you in the bible you accuse me of mockery.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: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.
“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)
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.
You answer regularly and accuse me of mockery too, you you can never seem to back up your answers.I answered your erroneous mockery of the clear meaning of Scripture
Still dead.
There is a metaphor of being born again and an allegorical interpretation of the bronze serpent. Do you have a point here other than admitting that Jesus used figurative language?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 addressed all those with you, you really don't do very well in the discussions.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.
Because the meaning has been drummed into you again and again. What you have to ask if what it would mean to someone who never heard the phrase before. Was Nicodemus especially thick?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.
If Jesus used metaphor and allegory, how, after thirty years of studying his word, can you still have such a hatred and fear of metaphor that accuse people of mockery for seeing the metaphors and figurative language in the bible.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
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?