Choking Christians .......Matt.23:24

[Foreigner]

As this famous Catholic named Galileo put it: "The purpose of revelation [ the correct "One" True Interpretation of Holy Scripture ] is to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

-- Hmmm... if I remember correctly, didn't the Catholic church have a major issue with Galileo? The whole 'telling the truth that conflicted with their doctrine' thing....

Your original statement was this:

"Unfortunately for most "Bible Alone" believers who are motivated by a deep love for the Lord want to hear His word. Many read the Bible , having learned the forms of the letters , but not the forms of the Books. As a result they are unable to understand what they are reading."

-- As I have said, you simply have no qualifications to make this blanket assumption. Period.

If we use your standard to make a blanket statement like that, I could say with just as much authority that most priests in the Catholic church choose to molest children in their parish, preferably boys.

 

[Strat]

"Bible Alone" believer.....thats a new one to me.

 

[winc]

here we go again with pseudo science dogmatism - there is no up or down in space or God's world and humans without batting an eyelid are walking at various angles and even upside down - btw I believe in the literal interprertation of Genesis and it is no problem to me - winc

as regards no scientist accepting the six days of creation,your saying so does not make it so for it just is not so - see and read the book "in six days" by John F Ashton PhD - winc

 

[neophyte]

as regards no scientist accepting the six days of creation,your saying so does not make it so for it just is not so - see and read the book "in six days" by John F Ashton PhD - winc

When Luke wrote his Gospel he also helped his readers correctly understand the intent of various sayings by identifying their literary form. Read Luke 14:7-11

Why does Luke introduce Jesus " advice " as a parable ?

 

[veteran]

Source?

All we can go on is the evidence that is before us. Not one credible geologist or earth scientist believes in a 6 day creation. Then there are the experts who study ancient literature.....all of them believe the creation story in Genesis is a common retelling of creation of the culture during the time period it belongs to.

I happen to believe it is inspired by God and that perhaps it was an account of a mystical vision by Moses, but I could be wrong. The real question is, why do you care? Is the story less inspired if it is not a literal account? Who would want to demand such a modern standard for an ancient piece of writing? Are you really going to argue with God about it, if He tells you that it is just a story about His sovereignty?

Most importantly, believing in a literal account of the Genesis Creation account, despite the evidence against such an interpretation, has nothing to do with our salvation. If you say it does, you may be guilty of adding to the requirements of salvation.

I don't believe the 6-day theory, but I definitely do believe God created all things in the beginning, like Genesis 1:1 says. I am very much a creationist. The creation account given in Genesis is a literal account, and geological science and the fossil record agrees with it. Many simply are not aware of just how it agrees because of following traditions men have attached to it. I covered it Biblically and scientifically how on this forum, but the administrators erased it when doing site remodeling.

Evolution theory is an old pagan theory. The idea of progressive evolution is what occult paganism is about, but that will only be discovered by one who takes time to trace what pagan religions have believed through their history, something I went through when I was younger before I came to Christ Jesus.

The most ancient written record of the creation is in the Babylonian Tablets, written back in the Sumerian histories, but it is an anti-account, a false account from paganism, since that's where the first pagan religion began per this world's history.

 

[winc]

in an instant on each of 6 x 24hr days out of nothing God created everything very good[complete] = no millions of years of evolution necessary or possible - winc

 

[veteran]

in an instant on each of 6 x 24hr days out of nothing God created everything very good[complete] = no millions of years of evolution necessary or possible - winc

I see you're determined to push the falsehood that anything other than what you believe on the creation means evolution theory.

Evolution is a falsehood, in any form or fashion, period.

Yet God's original creation of Gen.1:1 is still not just 6,000 years old.

 

[winc]

I see you're determined to push the falsehood that anything other than what you believe on the creation means evolution theory.

Evolution is a falsehood, in any form or fashion, period.

Yet God's original creation of Gen.1:1 is still not just 6,000 years old.

the Bible says so and the majority of reliable dating methods show thousands not millions of years including the lack of sufficient moon dust - winc

 

[veteran]

the Bible says so and the majority of reliable dating methods show thousands not millions of years including the lack of sufficient moon dust - winc

If you ever get past the "without form, and void" mistranslation, which should read 'a waste and an undistinguishable ruin' per Hebrew tohuw va bohuw (see your Strong's Exahustive Concordance for Gen.1:2), then you might begin to understand how God's original creation was very ancient, much, much older than a mere 6,000 years ago, and that has absolutely nothing... to do with any theory of evolution.

It's this specific matter that Peter was talking about in 2 Pet.3 that many are 'WILLINGLY' ignorant of, how the "world that then was" was of old, and destroyed by water (not the flood of Noah's days, but back at the time of Satan's original rebellion against God).

Brethren can delude themselves about that still if they so choose, even as the "Young Creationists" have with going out in the world today looking for live dinosaurs.

 

[winc]

If you ever get past the "without form, and void" mistranslation, which should read 'a waste and an undistinguishable ruin' per Hebrew tohuw va bohuw (see your Strong's Exahustive Concordance for Gen.1:2), then you might begin to understand how God's original creation was very ancient, much, much older than a mere 6,000 years ago, and that has absolutely nothing... to do with any theory of evolution.

It's this specific matter that Peter was talking about in 2 Pet.3 that many are 'WILLINGLY' ignorant of, how the "world that then was" was of old, and destroyed by water (not the flood of Noah's days, but back at the time of Satan's original rebellion against God).

Brethren can delude themselves about that still if they so choose, even as the "Young Creationists" have with going out in the world today looking for live dinosaurs.

live Dinosaurs exist to this day in the islands off Indonesia,They are known as Komodo dragons - no Dinosaurs existed before the 19th century,not as Dinosaurs anyway - winc

 

[veteran]

live Dinosaurs exist to this day in the islands off Indonesia,They are known as Komodo dragons - no Dinosaurs existed before the 19th century,not as Dinosaurs anyway - winc

Like I said, brethren can delude theirselves about the world that then was.

 

[winc]

Like I said, brethren can delude theirselves about the world that then was.

Like I said, brethren can delude theirselves about the world that then was.

unfortunately it is not Gospel and so I am not at all interested in what you say or said - stick with reliable theology and science - come home now - winc