Search results

That isn't what it says, b47! Christ IS the seed of Abraham! He is THE seed. I say it again, you have no concept at all of what "the Body of Christ" means or what it is. You have no idea of what it means to "put on Christ" and you haven't any idea what it means when Paul declares... Galatians...

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. B57 has no concept at all of what "the Body of Christ" means or what it is. He has no idea of what it means to "put on Christ". He...

The more of his silliness I read, the more I notice that he is willing to direct whatever hostility toward the scriptures is necessary in order to maintain the atheistic worldview (i.e. Big Bang Cosmology and Darwinism). He isn't three inches away from divorcing himself from Genesis altogether...

This passage, which is incredibly lengthy in comparison to what b57 usually quotes, is still ripped from its context! Well, actually, that isn't quite accurate. The passage itself gives the context, its just that b57 ignores that context. Peter is talking about Israel, which is made undeniably...

By the way, iouae's complete lack of even acknowledging my argument in the above post as well as what I presented in post #364, is his tacit admission that he has not only lost this debate but that he isn't interested in either debating nor in being persuaded an inch away from the wacky beliefs...

Welcome to my ignore list.

That post was a lie. You're a liar! You knew that post was 100% B.S. when you wrote it. What the hell are you even doing here? What am I doing here?! Good bye!

Did I understand this argument correctly? You're saying that the refraction of light would have occurred before the flood and thus rainbows would have existed before the flood, therefore its reasonable to think that Neanderthals and Homo habilis lived on Earth before Genesis chapter one? Or is...

This doesn't really effect your point because what you said is generally true but, just for the sake of accuracy, epiphytes (e.g. Orchids) and broyophytes (e.g. mosses) do actually absorb water (and other nutrients) from the air.

Come on! Give me a break, will ya? There is no amount of relative motion that can create the differences in Z values within what is essentially same celestial object! There is a .0362 difference between two of the Z values in that image I posted. That's a difference of something like 500,000...

Something akin to the relationship between 'cube' and 'cubic', right? I've learned that 'aion' is where we get the English word 'eon' from. In fact, it seems to be the very same word that's just been transliterated. I've also learned that 'aionios' (or any of the words related to 'aion') does...

I agree. Aion is a word related to aionios (G166) but are you suggesting that they are synonyms? If not, and your translation is correct, why didn't Paul use 'aion' instead of 'aionios'?

Liar.

The red shift = distance theory is actually still just that, a theory. There are several anomalous red shifts that would seem to suggest that it isn't as iron clad an idea as you would like to think it is. What? No, I am not talking about the expansion of the universe. I'm talking about God...

Which word in the Greek means "age"?

No, what I'd like is for you to respond to the point I made and stop deflecting the discussion over to something else.

So, in so far as translating this phrase goes, I find myself in agreement with Idolater here. What good does it do to translate something into a language if it doesn't make sense to the people who use that language every day? I'm reminded of "word" being used as a translation for "logos" in John...

All interpretations based on your doctrine. That's backward. We don't conform the bible to our doctrine but our doctrine to the plain reading of scripture. The point being made, not only in Genesis but also in the Exodus passages, is that God created everything that exists in six days. John...

That doesn't sound all that "conservative" to me. You're basically suggesting that Paul was using sort of loose language and that the phrase is effectively a figure of speech. I don't mean to suggest that I reject the idea of figures of speech being used in the bible but the conservative in me...

Yes, yes, of course, not the original autographs but we do have the text of scripture in the original languages, which was my point.