Heresy within Christianity

[Paul Christensen]

So, in other words you are prepared to throw out what the Bible reveals and ignore what is recorded and instead present a 2020 AD human logical understanding to justify your point of view.

Has heresy written all over your posts.

As regards to your request for me to provide you with an explanation of how cities came into being during the time of Cain, I will not, as I do not
believe that any explanation of how the cities developed over time, does not add to the purpose of the the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis.

Shalom

It looks like you'd rather criticise my post instead of actually giving your own answer to the questions.

So, in your efforts to persuade a person to receive Christ as Saviour and they get stuck on the question about the cities and where Cain got his wife, you will just sidestep their questions as if their enquiry is not that important. But what if they brush you off because you won't answer their questions? Haven't you lost a potential soul for Christ because you don't think that questions like this that unsaved people ask are important? They would get the impression that they are no more important to you than just a bum on a church seat instead of a precious soul who needs Christ.

 

[aspen]

You are right, and the DNA record shows that we all came from the same parents, are of one race, the human race, are all related, and that differences in people are genetic and not racial. There is no black or white, but we are all a shade of brown, and the amount of melanin in the skin is the genetic adaptation according to the particular environment people lived in.

In actual fact, evolution is totally responsible for racism, because it divides humanity into 'superior' and "inferior' races, according to stages of human evolution. Having humanity come from two original parents destroys racism because we are all the same race, created in the image of God.

really? So how do you categorize these early species? And were they simply hiding in the Garden? If you want to pretend they were offspring of Cain, how did their DNA come from his?

• Homo habilis (“handy” man)
• Homo erectus (“upright man”)
• Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal)
• The Denisovans.
• Homo floresiensis (the “hobbit”)
• Homo naledi (“star man”)

 

[Paul Christensen]

really? So how do you categorize these early species? And were they simply hiding in the Garden? If you want to pretend they were offspring of Cain, how did their DNA come from his?

• Homo habilis (“handy” man)
• Homo erectus (“upright man”)
• Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal)
• The Denisovans.
• Homo floresiensis (the “hobbit”)
• Homo naledi (“star man”)

All that is part of the fairy tale. We have people who are very similar to the neanderthal man right now, and this is because of genetic differences and not evolution. These men are as human as you and me and are of exactly the same race.

There is absolutely no evidence of any "inferior" mutations of human beings. Any so called examples is a shin bone found somewhere in Africa, a jaw bone found somewhere else, and a couple of finger bones; and not certainty that these could be human, but evolution sciences put them all together and say this is an early example of the transition between ape and human. Also, every complete example of an early transitional creature has been exposed as a total fraud.

Also, the genetic code of an ape, is totally different to that of a human, and there is no way that the genetic code of an ape can be added to in order to form a human. Genetic studies have proved that genetic codes can be lost, resulting in different types of the same organism, but there has been no examples of the genetic code of an organism having additions that formed it into a higher organism. So the whole notion of the gradual development of human beings from apes is a total fiction and unscientific.

 

[Yehren]

The text itself says they aren't literal days. No mornings and evenings can be without a sun. So there's no point in denying the obvious.

That's man's thinking.

By definition, it's true. Morning is when the sun appears and evening is when it sets. If you have to redefine words to make your argument, that's a very good clue that something is wrong with it.

So, you are putting yourself against the Holy Spirit and are doubting the authority of the Bible.

 

[Yehren]

All that is part of the fairy tale.

We have abundant evidence of these humans, in some cases, their DNA, which shows them to have been very different from anatomically modern humans. No point in denying the facts.

Would you like to learn more about that?

Also, the genetic code of an ape, is totally different to that of a human

No. In fact, chimpanzees and humans are genetically more like each other, than either is similar to other apes. You've been very much misled on that.

And there are numerous examples of transitional forms between earlier apes and humans. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise cites them as being among the "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to learn why?

 

[Paul Christensen]

The text itself says they aren't literal days. No mornings and evenings can be without a sun. So there's no point in denying the obvious.



By definition, it's true. Morning is when the sun appears and evening is when it sets. If you have to redefine words to make your argument, that's a very good clue that something is wrong with it.

So, you are putting yourself against the Holy Spirit and are doubting the authority of the Bible.

What you are doing is evaluating what the Holy Spirit has said according to your own thinking. If the Holy Spirit has said that day 1, 2, and 3 are the same 24hr days as 4, 5, and 6, then they are the same, whether the sun and moon existed on the first three days or not. The Holy Spirit has definitely said, "first day", "second day", "third day", "fourth day", "fifth day", "sixth day", "seventh day".

The Holy Spirit has said it this way so that we have a seven day week. Where do you think the seven day week came from? Is there anywhere where they have a 10 day week, or a 100 day week? It is clear that God set things up so we have six days of work and one day of rest. That's why He created the world and the cosmos in six days and had the seventh day as a day of rest, instead of just creating the whole lot in an instant of time, as He is quite capable of doing.

 

[Yehren]

What you are doing, is evaluating what the Holy Spirit has said, according to your new YE doctrines.

As you now see, the text itself tells you that the "days" of creation are figurative, not literal days.

 

[Paul Christensen]

We have abundant evidence of these humans, in some cases, their DNA, which shows them to have been very different from anatomically modern humans. No point in denying the facts.

Would you like to learn more about that?



No. In fact, chimpanzees and humans are genetically more like each other, than either is similar to other apes. You've been very much misled on that.

And there are numerous examples of transitional forms between earlier apes and humans. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise cites them as being among the "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to learn why?

You can argue this for ever amen, but I have seen enough genetic evidence that proves that evolution is a fairy tale and those who are dogmatic about are deceived to the point where they are blinded to anything else. It is factual that evolution scientists have cobbled together fragments of bones as the basis of their evidence, and have totally ignored and discredited any evidence that does not fit with their dogmaticism.

In fact, I know the Person who inspired the Bible, and I believe Him because He was there to see it all and He has given us a record of it. I trust Him fully, and I totally reject anything that anyone says to the contrary, because they are just men who weren't there and who are just guessing.

So all you can do now is to continue to repeat what you have said before and which I have already rejected. Anyway, my continued involvement with countering your views is for the silent majority who read these posts and are able to make up their own minds about it.

I think that people like you in the church who are teaching evolution to church young people, are causing them to doubt the authority of the Bible, and are responsible for the Millennials and Generation Z young people deserting the church in droves, because their attitude is that if church leaders and teachers don't believe the Bible than why should they, and so they turn to atheism where "anything goes" according to how they decide to live their own lives without having a God to account to for the way they are living and conducting themselves.

 

[Paul Christensen]

What you are doing, is evaluating what the Holy Spirit has said, according to your new YE doctrines.

As you now see, the text itself tells you that the "days" of creation are figurative, not literal days.

You are just repeating yourself, and what Augustine was supposed to have said. Calvin says that there were many documents produced which had the name of Ambrose and Augustine on them, but they were forgeries. So how can we distinguish what Augustine actually said, and what someone else said in his name? That's the trouble with believing the words of man instead of just accepting the literal Scripture.

So, if you can answer this question: Where did our seven day week come from, and that each day is 24 hours? I know because of the rotation of the earth, a day is 24 hrs, but why not have an 8, 9, or 10 day week. Why not have a 30 day week instead of months? Who decided on the seven day week, when one works for six days and has a day of rest on the seventh?

 

[101G]

Well, you tell me! Is the Holy Spirit lying when He says that there were three 24hr days consisting of evening and morning before He put the sun in place and lit it up? I guess that God, being all-powerful, can actually do things that we can't understand - and so, we just have to take His word for it. When Job and his friends tried to work things out, wondering what God was doing, God said, "Were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth, or put the stars in the sky?" That's God's answer to those who question His word when He says that He does things that we can't understand and try to explain through our limited human logic.

first thanks for the reply, second, the Holy Spirit don't lie. third the Holy Ghost never said the first three days was 24hrs. an evening and a moring has nothing to do with a 24hr. period of Solar time.
show in scripture where the Holy Ghost said DAY #1, #2, and #3, are 24hrs? no, the scriptures don't say that, you ASSUMED that, by looking at phrase "evening and the morning", which is only 12 hrs at night. but the Holy Ghost, who is the Lord Jesus cannot lie as said right, ok lets hear what he has to say about the DAY.
listen, John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world". so the LIGHT of this world which is called a "DAY" which is only 12 hrs. and Notice in Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night". NOW Paul listen real good is there any light at night? NO, God called the LIGHT DAY, and the Lord Jesus said, "Are there not twelve hours in the day", and notice what else he said, "the light of this world". now Paul do the sun, our solar star, do it shine at NIGHT (all over the world at the same time?), of course not. NIGHT IS NOT CALLED DAY. never was. our Lord Jesus who cannot lie said it was 12 hrs in a DAY. and NIGHT IS NEVER CALLED "DAY"..... not in this WORLD. so Paul you're missing 12 hrs. in each one of your so-called solar days of 24hr. .



And the evening and the morning were the first day and not 24hr. READ John 11:9 again.

so when one add up your so-called 6 days of creation of 24hr, is nothing but,...

day 1 = 12hrs.
day 2 = 12hrs
day 3 = 12hrs.
day 4 = 12hrs
day 5 = 12hrs.
day 6 = 12hrs
that's only 72hrs or only three days.

so you're missing 3 more days, (if 24hr.), see your ERROR now. you "assumed" that a day is 24hr. see God called the LIGHT "DAY", and if you used the Light of this world according to God is only 12hrs. or you calling the Lord Jesus a liar. your choice. just from this a day in creation is not a 24hr solar day.

the term evening and morining are only a marker of the beginning of a creation syatem, and its end, for us to understand what he did. LIGHT here is KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING. it's the Hebrew word,H216 אוֹר 'owr (ore) n-f.
1. illumination.
2. (concretely) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.).
[from H215]
KJV: bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.
Root(s): H215

illumination here is to understand, VS luminous, as a body as the sun and the moon. for the term "Lights" on the fourth day is
H3974 מָאוֹר ma'owr (maw-ore') n-m.
מָאֹר ma'or (maw-ore')
מְאוֹרָה m'owrah (meh-o-raw') [feminine]
מְאֹרָה m'orah (meh-o-raw')
1. (properly) a luminous body or luminary.
2. (abstractly) light (as an element).
3. (figuratively) brightness, i.e.cheerfulness.
4. (specifically) a chandelier.
[from H215]
KJV: bright, light.

so the Sun was made to "DIVIDE" the ... DAY 12hrs. from the Night 12hr. a DAY consist of only 12hr. we call a solar day 24hr. NOT "GOD". for the Light of this world only have 12hrs to a DAY. he called the LIGHT "DAY", NOT 24hr. "WITH" darkness. no. only 12 hrs is called day.

see you "assumed" and you assumed wrong. now if the phrase would have said, "evening and the evening" is one day, NO, it didn't. or "Morning and the Morning" is one DAY, NO he did not say that. but with "evening and the morning" you only have 12 hours of DARKNESS, NO LIGHT, which is called "DAY"... (BINGO), see your error now. or did you hear the Lord Jesus himself? John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world".
darkness/night is not a DAY, no LIGHT. understand now. so that 24hrs false notion must go back out the door.

PICJAG.

 

[Dcopymope]

What you are doing, is evaluating what the Holy Spirit has said, according to your new YE doctrines.

As you now see, the text itself tells you that the "days" of creation are figurative, not literal days.

Quite the contrary actually, this is why falsehoods need to be corrected, because it will inevitably snow ball into many more falsehoods because the Bible is all connected from beginning to end. The confusion about the days being literal 24 hour days actually started in part with the misconception of exactly when the lights in the heavens were created in the first place.

The first day:

(Genesis 1:1-5) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. {3} And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. {4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. {5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

This is claimed by some to be Jesus since he is quoted as being the "light of the world". This of course only works when taking scripture out of its context. At no point does Jesus ever state that he was referring to himself being the light in any physical sense. He was declaring himself the light of the world in a spiritual sense. In other words, he declared himself "the truth", or the source of "the truth" as it relates to spiritual matters. But what about God the Father? It is stated that he is light in a physical, perceivable sense, so he could be a candidate as the source of light on the first day. However, the problem is that its not God himself that "moves upon the face of the deep", its his spirit, the holy spirit, which has never been described as an actual perceivable source of light, so this excludes God as the "light". The only candidate left is the lights he made in the heavens, the sun and moon. For some reason its widely assumed that it occurred on the fourth day, so lets compare and contrast the two verses and get down to the bottom of this.

The fourth day:

(Genesis 1:14-19) "¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

The key difference between the two are the words in bold. The former says "let there be light, and there was light", meaning it didn't exist before, which again, also means it cannot be referring to God as the light source since God is not a creation, he is from time immemorial. The latter however says "let there be light in the firmament". In other words, God is not saying the light didn't exist at all until the fourth day, he just didn't let it shine through our atmosphere until the fourth day. Before the fourth day there was nothing but darkness on the face of the deep, simply because the light he created was blocked from shining on earth. In conclusion, the occam's razor, straight forward explanation of the creation of light is that it was already present on the first day, along with the earth, which was without form and void. When the creation account is truly understood, of when things were and were not created, it begins to only make sense when the creation event is interpreted as occurring in literal six 24 hour days.

 

[Paul Christensen]

first thanks for the reply, second, the Holy Spirit don't lie. third the Holy Ghost never said the first three days was 24hrs. an evening and a moring has nothing to do with a 24hr. period of Solar time.
show in scripture where the Holy Ghost said DAY #1, #2, and #3, are 24hrs? no, the scriptures don't say that, you ASSUMED that, by looking at phrase "evening and the morning", which is only 12 hrs at night. but the Holy Ghost, who is the Lord Jesus cannot lie as said right, ok lets hear what he has to say about the DAY.
listen, John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world". so the LIGHT of this world which is called a "DAY" which is only 12 hrs. and Notice in Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night". NOW Paul listen real good is there any light at night? NO, God called the LIGHT DAY, and the Lord Jesus said, "Are there not twelve hours in the day", and notice what else he said, "the light of this world". now Paul do the sun, our solar star, do it shine at NIGHT? of course not. NIGHT IS NOT CALLED DAY. never was. our Lord Jesus who cannot lie said it was 12 hrs in a DAY. and NIGHT IS NEVER CALLED "DAY"..... not in this WORLD. so Paul you're missing 12 hrs. in each one of your so-called solar days of 24hr. .



And the evening and the morning were the first day and not 24hr. READ John 11:9 again.

so when one add up your so-called 6 days of creation of 24hr, is nothing but,...

day 1 = 12hrs.
day 2 = 12hrs
day 3 = 12hrs.
day 4 = 12hrs
day 5 = 12hrs.
day 6 = 12hrs
that's only 72hrs or only three days.

so you're missing 3 more days, (if 24hr.), see your ERROR now. you "assumed" that a day is 24hr. see God called the LIGHT "DAY", and if you used the Light of this world according to God is only 12hrs. or you calling the Lord Jesus a lier. your choice. just from this a day in creation is not a 24hr solar day.

the term evening and morining are only a marker of the beginning of a creation syatem, and its end, for us to understand what he did. LIGHT here is KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING. it's the Hebrew word,H216 אוֹר 'owr (ore) n-f.
1. illumination.
2. (concretely) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.).
[from H215]
KJV: bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.
Root(s): H215

illumination here is to understand, VS luminous, as a body as the sun and the moon. for the term "Lights" on the fourth day is
H3974 מָאוֹר ma'owr (maw-ore') n-m.
מָאֹר ma'or (maw-ore')
מְאוֹרָה m'owrah (meh-o-raw') [feminine]
מְאֹרָה m'orah (meh-o-raw')
1. (properly) a luminous body or luminary.
2. (abstractly) light (as an element).
3. (figuratively) brightness, i.e.cheerfulness.
4. (specifically) a chandelier.
[from H215]
KJV: bright, light.

so the Sun was made to "DIVIDE" the ... DAY 12hrs. from the Night 12hr. a DAY consist of only 12hr. we call a solar day 24hr. NOT "GOD". for the Light of this world only have 12hrs to a DAY. he called the LIGHT "DAY", NOT 24hr. "WITH" darkness. no. only 12 hrs is called day.

see you "assumed" and you assumed wrong. now if the phrase would have said, "evening and the evening" is one day, NO, it didn't. or "Morning and the Morning" is one DAY, NO he did not say that. but with "evening and the morning" you only have 12 hours of DARKNESS, NO LIGHT, which is called "DAY"... (BINGO), see your error now. or did you hear the Lord Jesus himself? John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world".
darkness/night is not a DAY, no LIGHT. understand now. so that 24hrs false notion must go back out the door.

PICJAG.

That's an even greater miracle. God created the whole cosmos and world in 6 sets 12 hrs. Wow!!

In every other part of the Bible every reference to a "day" linked with evening and morning is a 24 hour day, and that is consistent with the foremost Hebrew lexicon which definitely says it is a 24hr day! So the average Jewish believer believes that these references are to do with 24hr days. But you are extracting Genesis 1 to say they are 12 hour blocks. No Jewish believer will accept that.

I am absolutely sure that the 6 days of creation were 24 hours a day, and I won't accept anything else. This is what the Holy Spirit tells me through the words of Scripture and I am adamant about it. I believe the Bible, because I know the Person who was there and the only Person who really knows.

 

[101G]

that's the problem you believe men over God. it's written right before your very eyes and you still cannot see it. for the LIE that was told you gives authority of God, he said it best, Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Matthew 15:8 "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Matthew 15:9 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

again, it's written right before your very eyes and you still cannot see it. but God is true and every man a lier,

2 Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2 Thessalonians 2:12 "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I can only bring you to the water, but I cannot make you drink...... (smile). so if i was you, I'll be looking how to compensate for those other 3 "days"

see ya.

PICJAG

 

[Paul Christensen]

Quite the contrary actually, this is why falsehoods need to be corrected, because it will inevitably snow ball into many more falsehoods because the Bible is all connected from beginning to end. The confusion about the days being literal 24 hour days actually started in part with the misconception of exactly when the lights in the heavens were created in the first place.

The first day:

This is claimed by some to be Jesus since he is quoted as being the "light of the world". This of course only works when taking scripture out of its context. At no point does Jesus ever state that he was referring to himself being the light in any physical sense. He was declaring himself the light of the world in a spiritual sense. In other words, he declared himself "the truth", or the source of "the truth" as it relates to spiritual matters. But what about God the Father? It is stated that he is light in a physical, perceivable sense, so he could be a candidate as the source of light on the first day. However, the problem is that its not God himself that "moves upon the face of the deep", its his spirit, the holy spirit, which has never been described as an actual perceivable source of light, so this excludes God as the "light". The only candidate left is the lights he made in the heavens, the sun and moon. For some reason its widely assumed that it occurred on the fourth day, so lets compare and contrast the two verses and get down to the bottom of this.

The fourth day:

The key difference between the two are the words in bold. The former says "let there be light, and there was light", meaning it didn't exist before. The latter however says "let there be light in the firmament". In other words, God is not saying the light didn't exist at all until the fourth day, he just didn't let it shine through our atmosphere until the fourth day. Before the fourth day there was nothing but darkness on the face of the deep, simply because the light he created was blocked from shining on earth. In conclusion, the occam's razor, straight forward explanation of the creation of light is that it was already present on the first day, along with the earth, which was without form and void. When the creation account is truly understood, of when things were and were not created, it begins to only make sense when the creation event is interpreted as occurring in literal six 24 hour days.

The bottom line is that we believe the Bible as it is literally written, and the God who told Moses what to write. We are not neutral in this, and if we keep to the Bible as our foundation, we will not be defeated no matter what those who choose not to believe the Bible throw at us. But if we move away from the Bible and try to argue from a neutral foundation, we have lost our true foundation.

We are totally sure about what we believe. Evolutionists and atheists are not sure, no matter what they try and tell us. Even in the debate threads, I have seen Evolutionists change their stories and said things inconsistent with what they have said previously. I have seen them repeat the same things over and over as if they are trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel to provide counter arguments to try and dislodge me from my implacable believe in the literal Bible.

Some are trying to say that evolution is consistent with the Biblical record. Nonsense! They are nothing like each other. The Biblical record is real, and the evidence is there to prove it without a doubt. Evolutionists try to use the same evidence to disprove the Bible, but the way they present their evidence is not convincing at all.

We use the words, truth, reality, definite, proven, while evolutionists use the words probably, possibly, theoretically, could have. This is because they don't really know. They say that evolution is real, but they cannot prove it beyond doubt. But we are sure about the literal text of the Bible, because as believers filled with the Holy Spirit, we have God in us telling us and teaching us the truth. We know that we know that the Bible is true, and when we remain on that solid foundation, all the twists and turns of conjecture and theory that evolutionists throw at us come to nothing because no matter what they do or say, they will never convince us to convert to their position.

So, when they run out of arguments and know that they are losing, they will resort to abuse, criticism, and try to discredit us on a personal level. Once they do that, they have lost, and they know it.

I have told a couple of hockey pucks if they want me to go away they can put me on ignore, because I am not going to give up firing from the foundation of the literal Bible!

 

[Paul Christensen]

that's the problem you believe men over God. it's written right before your very eyes and you still cannot see it. for the LIE that was told you gives authority of God, he said it best, Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Matthew 15:8 "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Matthew 15:9 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

again, it's written right before your very eyes and you still cannot see it. but God is true and every man a lier,

2 Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2 Thessalonians 2:12 "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I can only bring you to the water, but I cannot make you drink...... (smile). so if i was you, I'll be looking how to compensate for those other 3 "days"

see ya.

PICJAG

The Bible literally says it, I believe it, and that's it. The Holy Spirit inside of me confirmed it, so I am adamant about it and implacable in my belief that all six days were 24hr days. So any argument against it will be like water off a duck's back! So, bring it on!

 

[Dcopymope]

The bottom line is that we believe the Bible as it is literally written, and the God who told Moses what to write. We are not neutral in this, and if we keep to the Bible as our foundation, we will not be defeated no matter what those who choose not to believe the Bible throw at us. But if we move away from the Bible and try to argue from a neutral foundation, we have lost our true foundation.

We are totally sure about what we believe. Evolutionists and atheists are not sure, no matter what they try and tell us. Even in the debate threads, I have seen Evolutionists change their stories and said things inconsistent with what they have said previously. I have seen them repeat the same things over and over as if they are trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel to provide counter arguments to try and dislodge me from my implacable believe in the literal Bible.

Some are trying to say that evolution is consistent with the Biblical record. Nonsense! They are nothing like each other. The Biblical record is real, and the evidence is there to prove it without a doubt. Evolutionists try to use the same evidence to disprove the Bible, but the way they present their evidence is not convincing at all.

We use the words, truth, reality, definite, proven, while evolutionists use the words probably, possibly, theoretically, could have. This is because they don't really know. They say that evolution is real, but they cannot prove it beyond doubt. But we are sure about the literal text of the Bible, because as believers filled with the Holy Spirit, we have God in us telling us and teaching us the truth. We know that we know that the Bible is true, and when we remain on that solid foundation, all the twists and turns of conjecture and theory that evolutionists throw at us come to nothing because no matter what they do or say, they will never convince us to convert to their position.

So, when they run out of arguments and know that they are losing, they will resort to abuse, criticism, and try to discredit us on a personal level. Once they do that, they have lost, and they know it.

I have told a couple of hockey pucks if they want me to go away they can put me on ignore, because I am not going to give up firing from the foundation of the literal Bible!

If evolution is true, be that "theistic" evolution or secular evolution, then God wouldn't have to keep saying "let there be" in the narrative, it would just happen by the magic wand of time and chance. If it is true, then Jesus Christ cannot claim to reconcile unto God that which he never actually created to start with, which henceforth means that Jesus is not our redeemer. This is why I believe evolution will be the foundation for all lies pushed by the "beast" of revelation, mixed in with new age philosophy, Gnosticism, etc. It makes it so much easier for him to replace God and declare himself to be god, or a godlike being. In time, we will see how big of a set up job this all really is, and the "lie" will hit Christianity like a freight train.

 

[Jay Ross]

It looks like you'd rather criticise my post instead of actually giving your own answer to the questions.

So, in your efforts to persuade a person to receive Christ as Saviour and they get stuck on the question about the cities and where Cain got his wife, you will just sidestep their questions as if their enquiry is not that important. But what if they brush you off because you won't answer their questions? Haven't you lost a potential soul for Christ because you don't think that questions like this that unsaved people ask are important? They would get the impression that they are no more important to you than just a bum on a church seat instead of a precious soul who needs Christ.

My experience is to be honest with people and respond where necessary with the truth that I do not know the answer to such a question as you have posed, and then explain how not knowing the answer to the posed question by yourself, has not affected my desire to be in a relationship. with God and that it should not be a defining factor in their decision to enter into a relationship with God.

Now, I thought that being honest with people is a requirement of God's statutes.

Know what I mean.

 

[Paul Christensen]

My experience is to be honest with people and respond where necessary with the truth that I do not know the answer to such a question as you have posed, and then explain how not knowing the answer to the posed question by yourself, has not affected my desire to be in a relationship. with God and that it should not be a defining factor in their decision to enter into a relationship with God.

Now, I thought that being honest with people is a requirement of God's statutes.

Know what I mean.

The problem is that there are two foundations of belief.
1. The literal Bible which was spoken to holy men who wrote it down as a record of what God said to them directly.
2. Man's view of the history of the origin of the world and the cosmos, involving different forms of evolution and some mixture of creation and evolution, that the Bible is just a book made up of legends and myths with a religious significance.

I am firmly on the first foundation and I will not change. But if you are on the second foundation, then there is no way I can get you to change your foundation. We see this in the repeated debates on this forum concerning the issues about the origin of the cosmos, the world and man.

The fact is that the only way that a person can change foundations is for God to do it.
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:1-6).

This shows that those on the foundation of atheism are dead, and because of that no matter what we can do, we can transform a dead person. Atheists are walking dead people with no real purpose in life, where the common saying is "Life is a bitch, and then we're dead". Once physically dead, there is no more for that person.

But the Scripture goes on to say that God raised them off their dead foundation and made them alive in Christ, and then raised them up to be with Christ, seated with Him in heavenly places. This means that an atheist can be shifted off his foundation only by a work of God, and if God doesn't do it, no matter what we say, or present evidence to try and convince him, he will not believe us. And he will continue living his purposeless life and then die and end up in a lonely grave in some corner of a cemetery.

 

[Jay Ross]

The problem is that there are two foundations of belief.
1. The literal Bible which was spoken to holy men who wrote it down as a record of what God said to them directly.
2. Man's view of the history of the origin of the world and the cosmos, involving different forms of evolution and some mixture of creation and evolution, that the Bible is just a book made up of legends and myths with a religious significance.

I am firmly on the first foundation and I will not change. But if you are on the second foundation, then there is no way I can get you to change your foundation. We see this in the repeated debates on this forum concerning the issues about the origin of the cosmos, the world and man.

The fact is that the only way that a person can change foundations is for God to do it.
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:1-6).

This shows that those on the foundation of atheism are dead, and because of that no matter what we can do, we can transform a dead person. Atheists are walking dead people with no real purpose in life, where the common saying is "Life is a bitch, and then we're dead". Once physically dead, there is no more for that person.

But the Scripture goes on to say that God raised them off their dead foundation and made them alive in Christ, and then raised them up to be with Christ, seated with Him in heavenly places. This means that an atheist can be shifted off his foundation only by a work of God, and if God doesn't do it, no matter what we say, or present evidence to try and convince him, he will not believe us. And he will continue living his purposeless life and then die and end up in a lonely grave in some corner of a cemetery.

Paul, I feel so sorry for you in that you only see the Bible as having a literal context in its message because in doing so you are missing much of the Metaphorical content and context of the Scriptures. The OP was raising the question about whether or not we should be considering the state of our own eyes and the basis of our understanding and whether or not is was wrapped around some heresy or other.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Paul, I feel so sorry for you in that you only see the Bible as having a literal context in its message because in doing so you are missing much of the Metaphorical content and context of the Scriptures. The OP was raising the question about whether or not we should be considering the state of our own eyes and the basis of our understanding and whether or not is was wrapped around some heresy or other.

I do have an M.A. in English so I can recognise a metaphor when I see one. But Genesis 1 is straight narrative from Someone who was there and was an eye-witness of the events.

A short lesson in English from an expert (ex-hasbeen; spert=drip under pressure):
That fellow barks like a dog - (simile)
That fellow is a dog in the way he eats - (metaphor)
The dog barks when it sees another dog - (narrative)
That dog is a real pooch! - (synonym)
When a burglar appears a good dog will bark but a bad dog won't - (antonym)

So, let's look at Genesis 1:1:
"God created the heavens and the earth" which figure of speech?
"God took dust from the ground, formed a man and breathed the breath of life into him" which figure of speech?
"Except you repent you will likewise perish" what figure of speech is this (narrative, metaphor, simile, synonym, antonym or direct speech)?

Given the examples of the figures of speech given in the above list, identify any metaphors in Genesis 1, stating the example and explaining why it is a metaphor.