- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 3/15/26 at 7:26 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 3/15/26 at 7:26 am to FooManChoo
quote:.... and you are ignoring it.
while God explicitly stated the truth in the Bible....
.... You are putting a lot into this one verse that says that God is consistent and upholds the universe in a consistent way.
Ironically, you are ignoring it while simultaneously acknowledging "God explicitly stated the truth in the Bible."
Likewise "i put a lot into this one verse" as well:
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
"i put a lot into this one verse" too:
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
You ironically discount both while simultaneously acknowledging "God explicitly stated the truth in the Bible."
Instead, you hinge your belief on God repeatedly breaking his covenant as to natural law, and doing it for no stated reason. That stands in complete contrast to other described miracles. In those instances, the Bible states the reason for the miracle.
God repeatedly breaking his covenant would also render physics, chemistry, and other scientific fields unusable. You don't really understand that, and I guess will instead assume more magical intervention ... further abrogating the covenant for no stated reason. All so you can believe >14.4 billion years was compressed into 144 hours, breaking God's covenant, for no reason whatsoever.
---
Some facts:
Paleozoic => Cenozoic stratification, each strata with its own epoch-peculiar species, speaks to vast time expanses. Strata immediately prior to the K-Pg boundary (Asteroid Impact) are loaded with dinosaur fossils. After the K-Pg ... no dinosaurs. Man does not enter the fossil record for another 65.5 million years. You don't understand the nature of that separation or the redundancy of it's verification, but you should try. Likewise for ice core data, or even tree rings.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-1197161989-d690d5c429234503a34f2850c471d4c5.jpg)
The Tepees Hills in the Painted Desert Each band represents a different ancient environment . Each is a snapshot of changing climate, hydrology, and chemistry over millions of years during the Late Triassic when the region was a lush, tropical lowland rather than a desert.
Loads of marine fossils have been found >28,000ft up Mt Everest. That's not because of some 29,000ft flood (which would obviously not result in eons of marine fossils). Rather the Everest fossils are present because the land now forming Everest was once seafloor between the Eurasian and Indian plates. As those plates collided, the ocean floor was buckled and forced upward, eventually forming the Himalayas, and taking the ocean fossils with it. Himalayan marine fossils date to periods as far back as 400 Million years. The youngest date to the mid-Cenozoic
The Eurasian plate is moving north at about 2 cm per year, while the Indian plate is currently moving northeast at about 5 cm per year. The slow-motion collision raises the Himalayas about 0.5-1.0 cm/year. Those are known facts, Foo. You do the math.
2
Posted on 3/15/26 at 7:54 am to AUveritas
quote:
Early Churches also used books like The Epistles of Clement, the Didache
These two works, along with the epistle of Barnabus, plus canonical James, Jude, 1 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, Paul’s genuine seven letters, plus Colossians and Ephesians present a celestial visionary Christ having never been on Earth.
quote:
The Shepherd of Hermas, etc.
This is a close one theologically to the Didache - neither of which even mention Jesus suffering, death, or atonement sacrifice. The one interesting thing about the Shepherd of Hermas was that it mentioned the holy spirit as being pre-existent and coming to dwell in the flesh of a man as that flesh pleased God. There’s no other mention of any of Jesus’ miracles, ministry, death by Roman persecution, or any other thing about the “historical” earthly Jesus. It’s reminiscent of the scene in the gospel of Mark where Jesus is baptized by John and then becomes the son of God when the Holy Spirit comes down and inhabits Jesus.
The Shepherd of Hermas was included in Codex Sinaiticus along with all the other New Testament works in the mid 4th century.
quote:
It's weird that Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did any of His followers for a generation yet you think it is the linchpin of Christianity
It’s not weird once you figure out the earthly Jesus depicted in the gospels is not a historical person. The stories of the earthly Jesus are all based in allegory and parables as a means to teach of the “real” celestial Jesus that had appeared to a number of apostles in visions and dreams. When “Mark” wrote his gospel, he even wrote that the whole narrative is an allegory and not meant to be taken literally.
quote:
To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed hear, but not understand; lest they should turn and be forgiven.
That leads to second century “historicist” Christians writing letters to each other and other churches about the “mythicist” (original) Christians, who they labeled “Docetics”, as denying Jesus “came in the flesh” like in first and second John and second Peter… they write “Jesus truly suffered and Jesus truly was crucified under Pontius Pilate…” as a response to Christians who said that was all malarkey and fictional allegory.
Here’s some quotes of Ignatius of Antioch (around 110CE) you might find interesting.
quote:
Stop your ears, therefore, when anyone speaks to you of anything except Jesus Christ, who was descended from David and was also of Mary, who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and truly died … He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him.
quote:
He was then truly born, truly grew up, truly ate and drank, was truly crucified, and died, and rose again.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 7:59 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Those are known facts, Foo. You do the math.
You’re wasting your time. The facts are like water being poured onto his back if he were a duck.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:18 am to FooManChoo
Foo - appreciate your posts. I think they've got us surrounded - the skeptic, the heretic, the septic.
Have a blessed day worshipping our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
"Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him, that it would be paid back to him? 36 For from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." Rom. 11:33-36
It is He who changes the times and the periods; Dan. 2:21
Have a blessed day worshipping our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
"Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him, that it would be paid back to him? 36 For from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." Rom. 11:33-36
It is He who changes the times and the periods; Dan. 2:21
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:37 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:We've had this conversation regarding Paul. Again, given his own encounter, the "celestial visionary" one, it's only natural for him to relate along those lines. But it clearly is not some sort of denial of Jesus' ever being on Earth.
Paul’s genuine seven letters ... a celestial visionary Christ having never been on Earth.
For example, in his letters to the Galatians he notes Jesus birth: "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law." He also mentions meeting Jesus' brother in Jerusalem: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother."
Paul's notation about the Last Supper remains central to the Catholic Eucharist:
"the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
Posted on 3/15/26 at 9:05 am to AUveritas
quote:Christians call the Bible the Scriptures; they are synonymous terms.
If we were discussing the Jewish Bible, that'd be relevant.
Paul referred to the Scriptures before the New Testament was complete, because he was mostly referring to the Old Testament. Jesus also referred to the Old Testament as the Scriptures.
Given your additional statements, I assume you are referring to the New Testament alone. You should be more careful with your language if that is the case, because Jesus and Paul had the Bible available to them. It just wasn’t complete until the end of the fist century.
quote:I don’t worship the Bible. I worship God. But even Jesus called the Scriptures the word of God. If they are God’s word, then there will be characteristics of it that reflect God’s character.
It's as weird to me to see someone worship a book and assign it attributes that belong only to God.
Again, it is strange to see a supposed Christian work so hard to show that the Bible is less than what it claims about itself. I really don’t think you’ve thought this through.
quote:The Scriptures were known and used widely as such by the end of the first century. Those writings from and approved by the Apostles had pedigree that were known by the churches they were sent to.
Individual books that most couldn't read were. The Bible wasn't complete for 400 years. Early Churches also used books like The Epistles of Clement, the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc.
The other writings were known and used, but not as sacred Scripture. The early church fathers had two categories for books used by the church: those that were canonical with teach authority, and those that were devotional and helpful to the church. You seem to be conflating these.
You also seem to not understand the difference between the canon being complete and the canon being formally acknowledged by a Council. Jesus taught that the Old Testament were Scripture even though there was no Jewish Council that made such a declaration by that time. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church never made a supposedly infallible definition of the canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. That is beside the point, though.
quote:The Jews in the first century were still primarily people who communicated orally, and memorized things better than we do. As Christianity spread to other non-Jewish nations, the need for writing was necessary, and the epistles and gospels eventually were written for that need.
It's weird that Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did any of His followers for a generation yet you think it is the linchpin of Christianity.
God’s revelation is the linchpin of Christianity, and it was recorded and preserved in the Bible.
quote:2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks of the Scriptures as being God-breathed. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says that Scripture is from God, not man. Jesus taught many places that Scripture cannot be broken, such as in John 10:35. Hebrews 6:8 says God cannot lie.
Even the Bible that you think is perfect and contains all sources of Chrostoan truth makes no claims about being the inerrant word of God. But Paul does claim that the Church is the source for all truth
I could go on and on, but in short, you are wrong.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 9:06 am to AlwysATgr
quote:Thank you, brother. I will! Hope you do, too!
Have a blessed day worshipping our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 9:23 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I don’t worship the Bible
You have absolutely made an idol out of Scripture.
quote:
If they are God’s word, then there will be characteristics of it that reflect God’s character.
Ig God wrote them Himself and dropped them from Heaven.
quote:
Again, it is strange to see a supposed Christian work so hard to show that the Bible is less than what it claims about itself. I really don’t think you’ve thought this through.
It makes no claim of inerrancy. And, as you said yourself, any mention of Scripture refers only to the OT.
quote:
The Scriptures were known and used widely as such by the end of the first century. Those writings from and approved by the Apostles had pedigree that were known by the churches they were sent to.
Not in the way you're claiming. Different churches used different Scriptures.
quote:
The other writings were known and used, but not as sacred Scripture
Wrong again. They were treated as Scripture.
quote:
You also seem to not understand the difference between the canon being complete and the canon being formally acknowledged by a Council.
There was no universal canon. It's why the Catholics, Orthodox and Copts still have different canons.
quote:
As Christianity spread to other non-Jewish nations, the need for writing was necessary, and the epistles and gospels eventually were written for that need.
That's just patently false. There was nothing written down initially because Paul and other Christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetime. They didn't see a need to write things down until it started to seem they could be wrong
quote:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks of the Scriptures as being God-breathed. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says that Scripture is from God, not man. Jesus taught many places that Scripture cannot be broken, such as in John 10:35. Hebrews 6:8 says God cannot lie.
Again, this references only the OT. Also, nowhere do you see inerrancy referenced.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 11:16 am to AUveritas
quote:
There was nothing written down initially because Paul and other Christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetime.
Most of the disciples were probably illiterate or marginally literate, Matthew likely did not fall into that category. It would follow that he wrote down the accounts of what became foundational to his gospel. It is not improbable that his notes/writings could comprise the Q source. Paul wrote prodigiously.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 11:30 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
We've had this conversation regarding Paul. Again, given his own encounter, the "celestial visionary" one, it's only natural for him to relate along those lines. But it clearly is not some sort of denial of Jesus' ever being on Earth.
James or Peter or the other “super apostles” never thought to attempt to claim Paul wasn’t a real apostle because he had never talked with, ate with, or walked with the man Jesus. Paul never had to respond to that criticism even though they were criticizing his apostolic authority. Paul writes “am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Kyrios?” The key apostolic credential, at the time of Paul, wasn’t having ate with and walked with a man Jesus on earth, but having visions of the risen Kyrios.
quote:
For example, in his letters to the Galatians he notes Jesus birth: "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."
You and I both know the greed word is “made” or “come into being” and not “born”.
quote:
He also mentions meeting Jesus' brother in Jerusalem: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother."
You and I both know that Paul wrote that all Christians were brothers of the Lord and sons of God. It’s very weak for someone to say “look, Paul means James was Jesus’ literal biological brother, but all other references to all Christians being brothers are purely allegorical”. You guys are picking and choosing what you want to be literal and what you want to be allegorical and it isn’t based on context but your own dogmas.
quote:
Paul's notation about the Last Supper remains central to the Catholic Eucharist: "the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Paul calls it the Lord’s supper. Not the last supper. And the word translated as “betrayed” simply means “handed over”. As in, God handed Jesus over to the archons to be sacrificed and it was a willing sacrifice and part of the master plan, no betrayal necessary. Notice one thing that isn’t in Paul’s vision of the Lord’s supper? Any other people. No disciples. No one.
quote:
In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
The first temple priests, on the day of atonement, would release the goat carrying away the sins of Israel to Azazel the desert demon, and the other goat they would sacrifice “as” the Lord (not “to” the Lord) and they would eat part of the goat raw and with sour wine (vinegar) and drink its blood.
That’s how we know Christianity isn’t an offshoot of second temple Judaism. Those Jews - the Pharisees and Sadducees - which “Jesus” rebuked in the gospel myths would have never eaten raw meat, or a person, or drank any blood much less the blood of a person, because the Mosaic law forbade those practices.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 12:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Paul wrote prodigiously.
I was talking about biographical information for future posterity. Paul wrote letters to settle doctrinal disputes, primarily. However, Paul obviously felt that Jesus' return was imminent (though he seemed to change his mind in his later writings), as did the Gospel writers that quoted Jesus as saying that He would return before their generation would pass away.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 2:17 pm to AUveritas
quote:
Paul obviously felt that Jesus' return was imminent
There were Koine Greek ways to say a person was going to “return” or “come back” or “come again.” Paul not once in his letters uses those words to describe the future coming of Jesus. He writes a great deal of Jesus “coming” and “revealing” and “arrival”.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 2:30 pm to Squirrelmeister
1 Thesselonians 4:15
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
I think it's safe to say that Paul's use of "we" would include himself. He obviously felt that Jesus would return in his lifetime.
In 1 Corinthians 7:26–31, Paul advises against marriage and major life changes, arguing that "the time is short" and "this world in its present form is passing away," indicating a belief that the end was near.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
I think it's safe to say that Paul's use of "we" would include himself. He obviously felt that Jesus would return in his lifetime.
In 1 Corinthians 7:26–31, Paul advises against marriage and major life changes, arguing that "the time is short" and "this world in its present form is passing away," indicating a belief that the end was near.
This post was edited on 3/15/26 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 3/15/26 at 3:23 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
you are spiritually dead.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 3:51 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I strongly disagree with your conclusions, but credit where credit is due, your knowledge about this stuff is impressive.
There were Koine Greek ways to say a person was going to “return” or “come back” or “come again.” Paul not once in his letters uses those words to describe the future coming of Jesus. He writes a great deal of Jesus “coming” and “revealing” and “arrival”.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 6:43 pm to AUveritas
quote:
1 Thesselonians 4:15
quote:
1 Corinthians 7:26–31
quote:
I think it's safe to say that Paul's use of "we" would include himself. He obviously felt that Jesus would return in his lifetime.
100% agree Paul believed they were in the last days and Jesus was going to come, resurrect the dead, surge the living and the dead, and remake heaven and earth… all before Paul and his disciples would experience death.
The part I’m trying to point out, the part you missed, is that the future coming of Jesus to do all that would be the first time as Jesus on earth. Paul believed Yahweh became incarnate and was killed in heaven by the archons and only then did he earn the name “Jesus”. Paul had no knowledge of any historical events or even mythical tales of a Jesus on earth as we have them in the gospels .
Posted on 3/15/26 at 8:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I strongly disagree with your conclusions
It’s ok to disagree.
quote:
but credit where credit is due, your knowledge about this stuff is impressive.
Hey thanks, I appreciate it. Your knowledge of the scriptures and of science is remarkable as well. You seem to be a pious religious adherent while rejecting the myths and allegories within the Bible while not only acknowledging scientific facts and promoting them accurately and correctly.
I myself am a student of the sciences. I do love to study history and religion as well, and for my religious studies and knowledge about the origins of Christianity I have to credit Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier (both Jesus-mythicists) but honorable mention to Dr. Robert Heiser (Christian) and Dr. Margaret Barker (Methodist preacher). I also should mention my very favorite religious podcast called “Dragons in Genesis” by a guy named Jason Foux from - of all places - Houma, La.
Posted on 3/16/26 at 9:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I'm not ignoring it at all. I just don't see that verse as a trump card where God is handing over all ultimate truth to fallible interpretations of natural phenomena.
.... and you are ignoring it.
Ironically, you are ignoring it while simultaneously acknowledging "God explicitly stated the truth in the Bible."
quote:You aren't seeking to understand what is being said there, but instead are using those verses as evidence that God didn't really mean a day as a day in Genesis 1, while strangely not disputing when a day means a day in the rest of the Bible.
Likewise "i put a lot into this one verse" as well:
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
"i put a lot into this one verse" too:
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
You ironically discount both while simultaneously acknowledging "God explicitly stated the truth in the Bible."
When the same author wrote, that all the male children should be circumcised at 8 days old (Gen 17:12), do you believe God was communicating 8,000 years, or an innumerable number of days? How about when the men of Shechem were circumcised and after 3 days, the sons of Jacob attacked the city (Gen 34:25), does that mean they waited 3,000 years, or an innumerable number of days? I could go on and on.
It seems to me that you are selectively using those verses to mean that creation couldn't have taken 6, 24-hour days, because God is outside of time, but when God communicates clear chronology and time everywhere else in the Bible, the context means what it means.
You are putting a lot into those verses; you are putting a lot of your own beliefs into those verses, rather than drawing your understanding from them.
quote:Is your contention that God doesn't perform miracles because it breaks His covenant, or that He broke His covenant with a fast creation because He didn't explain why He did it?
Instead, you hinge your belief on God repeatedly breaking his covenant as to natural law, and doing it for no stated reason. That stands in complete contrast to other described miracles. In those instances, the Bible states the reason for the miracle.
It can't be the first one, because He performed miracles all throughout the biblical record. It also can't be the second one, because He explained why He created the way He did: for His own glory. God didn't have to make a special justification for creating the world differently than what you expect.
In addition, I've already explained to you that God was not talking about the observable "laws" like gravity or anything like that, but was speaking to upholding all creation by His providential care. The Jews would not have read that verse in light of modern scientific definitions of laws. Otherwise, God would be in violation of His covenant every time He interjects Himself in creation through supernatural and miraculous acts, like walking on water. That, again, is you importing your own beliefs into the text.
quote:Again, your understanding of the passage in Jeremiah is giving you a false understanding of what the Scriptures teach and what I believe about them.
God repeatedly breaking his covenant would also render physics, chemistry, and other scientific fields unusable. You don't really understand that, and I guess will instead assume more magical intervention ... further abrogating the covenant for no stated reason. All so you can believe >14.4 billion years was compressed into 144 hours, breaking God's covenant, for no reason whatsoever.
I don't believe that verse is teaching that God limited Himself to "natural" means that He, Himself, created. I also don't believe it teaches that supernatural intervention in creation "render[s] physics, chemistry, and other scientific fields unusable". What you are doing here is conflating observational science with historical science. This is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism that is obvious in the "facts" that you mislabeled as such later in your post. If God upholds the world in a uniform and consistent way generally (which I believe He does), then we can certainly use science in a way to understand the world in many ways. What is impacted by God's intervention supernaturally in creation is our understanding of things that happened in the past. Those scientific fields you mentioned are not unusable, but are going to yield different results for historical events based on the underlying assumptions they utilize.
quote:Stratification, ice core data, and tree rings, assume relative consistency in the past that matches what we observe occurring today. No, it's not a fact that the strata speaks to vast time expanses. It's a fact that scientists what assume uniformity throughout all history interpret those things as speaking to vast time expanses.
Paleozoic => Cenozoic stratification, each strata with its own epoch-peculiar species, speaks to vast time expanses. Strata immediately prior to the K-Pg boundary (Asteroid Impact) are loaded with dinosaur fossils. After the K-Pg ... no dinosaurs. Man does not enter the fossil record for another 65.5 million years. You don't understand the nature of that separation or the redundancy of it's verification, but you should try. Likewise for ice core data, or even tree rings.
quote:Yes, it's quite beautiful, and I believe it is an evidence of rapid sedimentation of a lot of earth in a short time during the great flood.
The Tepees Hills in the Painted Desert Each band represents a different ancient environment . Each is a snapshot of changing climate, hydrology, and chemistry over millions of years during the Late Triassic when the region was a lush, tropical lowland rather than a desert.
quote:Again, you're speaking about observable rates and assuming the rates have always been constant. When you do the math based on such assumptions, you'll get long ages. If those assumptions are incorrect, and a major geologic catastrophe reformed the planet in a quick way, those assumptions go out the window.
Loads of marine fossils have been found >28,000ft up Mt Everest. That's not because of some 29,000ft flood (which would obviously not result in eons of marine fossils). Rather the Everest fossils are present because the land now forming Everest was once seafloor between the Eurasian and Indian plates. As those plates collided, the ocean floor was buckled and forced upward, eventually forming the Himalayas, and taking the ocean fossils with it. Himalayan marine fossils date to periods as far back as 400 Million years. The youngest date to the mid-Cenozoic
The Eurasian plate is moving north at about 2 cm per year, while the Indian plate is currently moving northeast at about 5 cm per year. The slow-motion collision raises the Himalayas about 0.5-1.0 cm/year. Those are known facts, Foo. You do the math.
Posted on 3/16/26 at 11:40 am to FooManChoo
quote:He was addressing acts by man, thus relating to days for man, not God.
When the same author wrote, that all the male children should be circumcised at 8 days old
Shechem were circumcised and after 3 days
quote:There is no "strangely" to it. Creation was set in terms of God's time, not man's.
while strangely not disputing when a day means a day in the rest of the Bible.
quote:So we both have elements in which verses seem to contradict our belief.
I don't believe that verse is teaching that God limited Himself to "natural" means that He, Himself, created.
In your case, your interpretation also contradicts natural law, with the basis being God's covenant was not a covenant.
In my case, there is no contradiction with natural law. There is no contradiction with God's covenant, and there are multiple Biblical explanations provided as to what time means for God vs man.
quote:No, as I've explained to you in multiple posts. My contention is when God chose to perform miracles there was always an explanation issued. Always! ... Except for the occasion when man was set to inhabit Earth <150hrs after Earth's formation, if one believes that, or the occasion of mystical instantaneous speciation, etc.
Is your contention that God doesn't perform miracles
quote:You are referring to your belief as if it is fact. It is not.
I've already explained to you that God was not talking about the observable "laws" ...
quote:To believe that, one has to assume the beauty and consistency of math, physics, chemistry, etc are not natural laws set forth by God, and are not referenced in the Bible. I do not believe that for a second.
... like gravity or anything like that, but was speaking to upholding all creation by His providential care.
quote:Explain the fossils on Everest.
If those assumptions are incorrect, and a major geologic catastrophe reformed the planet in a quick way, those assumptions go out the window.
... But a word of caution before you do.
Even if you assume the volume of the oceans was temporarily increased multi-fold to account for a 29,000ft increase in sea level, even if you somehow assume that would not ruin every pool of fresh water on the planet, the receding waters would not result in fish fossils on mountaintops. As the waters receded, fish would simply swim within the remaining water, just as they do with the ebb and flow of tides. They'd not be somehow stuck to the steep slopes of a mountain, and with different species stranded accordant to stratified layers descending the Himalayas.
This post was edited on 3/16/26 at 11:43 am
Posted on 3/16/26 at 11:55 am to AUveritas
quote:I am not. The Scripture is absolutely authoritative because it derives its authority from God, Himself, since His words are authoritative due to the one speaking them. The Bible is God's word, and therefore should be honored and respected precisely because of the one from which it comes.
You have absolutely made an idol out of Scripture.
If you leave your kids at home with a list of do's and don't's, it wouldn't make sense for a younger child to claim that the oldest child is making an idol out of the list when they seek to obey the commands of their parents by enforcing that list with the younger children.
quote:He didn't. He inspired (meaning He sent His Spirit to give them the truth) men to write them down.
Ig God wrote them Himself and dropped them from Heaven.
quote:The Scriptures speak of this all the time. The fact that it's said to be breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16) and that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) means that if it's God's word and revelation, it cannot be wrong. If you want a full biblical argument for why it's inerrant, I can do that, but I'm already writing enough. Suffice it to say, there are many Scripture proofs to support this teaching.
It makes no claim of inerrancy. And, as you said yourself, any mention of Scripture refers only to the OT.
In regard to the NT, Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). I could say more about this, but there's a reason why the Church has recognized that the NT writings are "Scripture", and that they share the same characteristics as the OT. Paul's teaching to Timothy is not about specific writings, but about the category of what is Scripture, by the way, which would include any additional Scriptures that would be written in the future.
quote:Not in the way you're claiming. Different churches had different writings that they used for true doctrine (the canon) and for helpful teaching and encouragement (other writings). It's why the early canon lists don't include the myriad of other teachings that were circulating, like the Didache.
Not in the way you're claiming. Different churches used different Scriptures.
quote:No, you're wrong. Jerome even alludes to this in his prefaces to the deuterocanonical books in his Latin Vulgate translation that was the standard for the Church for a long time.
Wrong again. They were treated as Scripture.
quote:There is no universally-accepted canon, you mean. The canon is whatever God intended when He completed it through inspiration. I'm speaking to what the canon is at its core, not who has accepted it, necessarily, though there is overlap with those two things.
There was no universal canon. It's why the Catholics, Orthodox and Copts still have different canons.
quote:I beg to differ. For example, here is the introduction to the Gospel of Luke:
That's just patently false. There was nothing written down initially because Paul and other Christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetime. They didn't see a need to write things down until it started to seem they could be wrong
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke wrote to provide an orderly account of the eyewitness testimony that was provided to Theophilus.
quote:This speaks to what Scripture is as a category, not the specific writings.
Again, this references only the OT. Also, nowhere do you see inerrancy referenced.
I already explained how these refer to inerrancy, but again, if you want a more complete argument, I'm happy to provide it. So far, I'm the only one providing justification for their statements. Perhaps you should start proving your own assertions.
Page 31 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News