Better than commentaries that are subject to error, is the wisdom that comes from God and is given to those humble seekers who ask Him for His wisdom and understanding is infallible.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Derf
Well-known member
I gave you reason for why what you had provided doesn’t fit with the Bible, and you dismissed it with a wave of your all-knowing hand. Now you play the victim?
Moses wrote the creation story in Gen 1. Moses wrote Ex 20:11. They are in agreement. If there was an additional catastrophe that destroyed the earth (because that was what you are claiming became formless and void, right?) then the stars that were there then weren’t destroyed just because the earth was, but they were made in the six days of Ex 20:11, and Moses talks of no other six days of creation, no other “very good” creation.
You have to read your theory into an unwilling text to get your theory out of it. Why? To please a science that can’t figure out why things work like they do already. Why are you so committed to a science that reinvents itself regularly, but not so much to what God has revealed that has never been revised?
God wants you to believe in Him and His son Jesus Christ, who affirmed what Moses wrote. Do you? Or will you only believe if you can retell his story?
And you're not doing the same in reverse?
I prefer the NKJV. I use YLT occasionally, but it's by no means the one I rely on, and it's not my "go-to" version for a reason, the NKJV being generally closer to the original meaning of the text than other versions, but it is by no means the "perfect translation," and neither is the YLT.
The problem here, NAA, is that YOU'RE the one making the argument based on a specific translation of the Bible, not us. Wouldn't that make YOU the cult member, and thus a hypocrite?
If you want something more authoritative, I recommend looking at the Hebrew text, which says this:
No, it doesn't, except through your preferred translation. Hypocrite.
The Hebrew doesn't support it at all, let alone "clearly indicates" it.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Also, begging the question is a fallacy.
I have a HUGE problem with the LACK of scripture that you are quoting, and I have a problem with your biased interpretation to support your chosen cult of OEC.
See how that works? Except I meant everything I said that time.
Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon in his later years. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.
Fact: Moses wrote the pentateuch.
Fact: Moses died before before Solomon was born.
Therefore, the Pentateuch existed prior to Ecclesiastes.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Why are you even on TOL, then?
Because you say so?
Again, I request that you make an actual argument and THEN quote the source. So far, you're only citing resources that NO ONE is going to read.
Make the argument, NAA. Don't be lazy.
Says the one who thinks it's his opponents job to make his argument for him.
If you want to convince me, or anyone, for that matter, you have to make the argument yourself. No one will do that for you, and if you can't make the argument, then there's not much point to you being on here.
This is a DISCUSSION board. If you are here to make outlandish, crazy statements merely to get a rise out of the membership and cause trouble, please save yourself the time and leave.
So do I. Can you not have a discussion without making unfounded assertions about your opponents beliefs?
I'm asking that you take the Bible literally, and I'm the cultist?
Well it would be interesting to see how you came to that conclusion, but you won't even make the argument, so how do we know what you're saying is true?
Or maybe you've been blinded yourself, and are instead projecting your blindness onto others because you refuse to acknowledge that you're the one who's blinded?
Again, was there something from these links you keep posting that you wanted to share? Simply posting a link doesn't qualify as making an argument, NAA. You have to actually make the argument first, something you have yet to do.
Such as?
I know I've called you a hypocrite, but that's because you're being a hypocrite.
I've called you blind.
See, here on TOL, the rule is "no name calling without cause. You've given us plenty of reasons to call you names, and not much else.
You have a right to your opinion.
What you DO NOT have a right to do is to troll our forums. As I said above (and as is stated in our "TOL 10 Commandments"), if you are here to make outlandish, crazy statements merely to get a rise out of the membership and cause trouble, please save yourself the time and leave.
If you're not here for that, then all you need to do is make the argument for your position. So far, you haven't done that.
Says the one who called me a cultist.
Hypocrite.
That's nice. Your opinion has been noted, and then the note discarded.
NO ONE CARES unless you can make the argument here!
And you think we're embracing pseudoscience?
PROVE. IT.
So far, you have yet to bring up ANY facts.
If you had brought up facts that we then denied, then sure, you would have a point. But you haven't even brought up any facts to begin with, forget us denying them.
The president of the Flat Earth Society is an atheist.
Most of us here in this discussion (if not all) are Christians. And yes, I'm including you in that "us."
Not once have I attempted to "kick you out of the Kingdom," so to speak, yet at least TWICE you've referred to me and others as cultists.
You shouldn't be, based on the evidence.
If you're not welcome here, it's because you're being a troll.
This board is for discussion of ideas. That includes OEC beliefs. But again, so far, you have yet to present your case for those beliefs.
Good for you.
We don't, because you won't share it.
No, but your worldview (your paradigm of beliefs about the world and the things that happen in life) will be foundationally flawed if you don't.
Because we have a hunger for the truth, and when people who come to our forum spout nothing but opinions and avoid making arguments for those opinions, then resort to casting people out of the kingdom and name calling when people don't agree with them, we tend to get a little defensive.
You've certainly linked to websites, but that doesn't qualify as "explaining WHY you believe that the earth is millions/billions of years old."
We're asking for the reasoning behind YOUR beliefs, not the reasoning behind other people's beliefs who aren't here on this board.
There's not much to go through, if we're being honest here.
Explain. Be specific.
Providing links is not sufficient, especially when those links contain too much information that may or may not be relevant to this discussion.
Right back atcha!
Neither is yours.
Supra.
So let's start over then!
Hi, I'm JudgeRightly, one of TOL's admins. Welcome to the forum!
What do you believe, and why do you believe it? Please be specific, and don't rely on links to other sites.
And I've now explained why multiple times.
Too much information on the page you linked to, no one is going to read a giant wall of text.
We do.
What we DON'T want is to have our time wasted, or to waste our time reading a page of text that has very little to do with what is being discussed.
Look, all we're asking you to do is to quote (preferably using the "[ BOX]" and "[ /BOX]" tags so that it's easier to reply to) from the pages your linking to. Is that so hard for you to do?
I checked. And you were. Here are the three posts where you start insulting YECs. You can check the posts before it for that day, but you won't find any insults directed at you before that point.
|
|
So don't act like you're a victim.
I can guarantee you that unless they were without cause, the reports will be rejected.
So far, there has been plenty of cause.
No thanks. I'll stick to what the Bible says.
Well there's your problem. You're using the ESV.
Bible version aside, what's your point?
No thank you.
Maybe you shouldn't rely on commentaries so much, and instead rely on scripture.
Ever notice when one departs, forms beliefs on he said and she said, from scripture and you don’t agree with them you are immediately labeled a cultist or a heretic ? I thought scripture taught we should be ready to correct each other in love,because He first loved us who were lost sinners when He saved us.
NobodyAtAll
Member
I prefer the most accurate translation of the Bible, which is not the Young's Literal Translation. I don't bow down at the altar of the KJV-Only Cult either since it is also flawed. The only way to arrive at the truth of God's word is thru a careful study of hermeneutics.
NobodyAtAll
Member
So you are deny the scripture:
(Jeremiah 4:23) I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. [ESV]
By denying this scripture, you're stating that God used existing materials instead of creating them from nothing. By reconciling this passage with Genesis 1:2, anyone can see that God was looking at a prior version of the earth and cosmos before He started His creation work. Whether that took seven days or seven eras, I don't know and have not been arguing that.
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth—
(Genesis 1:2) the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, [Young's Literal Translation]
NobodyAtAll
Member
Not my intent. But the King James Only believers are clearly following the false teaching that the TR-Only or KJV-Only are the only reliable bibles. Now I see what false beliefs I'm up against.
NobodyAtAll
Member
No. But comments like the NASB is corrupted is telling.
The software I typically use allows me 50+ bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, not including the ones I have physical copies of.
Hardly. I don't have a specific translation. I've read the KJV, NASB, NIV, et al. Currently, I spend more time reading the ESV and HCSB.
I study hermeneutics and I'm familiar with the work of C. J. Lovik.
You can watch C. J. Lovik's videos on YouTube.
You are ignoring Jeremiah 4:23.
Good for you.
A scroll is not a book, even though we call them books now.
Saying a scroll is a book doesn't make it so.
I wanted fellowship with other Christians. I'm wondering if there's any here.
If the readers here are too lazy to read what I write or quote from, you should delete the word "T-H-E-O-L-O-G-Y" from your logo!!!
I can say the same thing.
Never said or implied.
I only use links because it's difficult for me to type with my epilepsy medication.
Not my intent.
I believe they were founded on the truth of God's word.
Show me where I didn't take the Bible literally? Are YOU calling all OEC cultists? And you call me a hypocrite.
Right Divider
Body part
And yet you quote from the totally crappy ESV.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the KJV.
NobodyAtAll
Member
I don't belong here.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Derf
Well-known member
Why is it denying scripture to see that God can make the earth and heavens or some part of it go back to its first condition. Just like He said would happen to man.
Genesis 3:19 (KJV) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Not if you think you should teach people to disregard what scripture says. But you’ll probably find it hard to figure out where you belong with that attitude.
If, however, you are able to set aside your beliefs in favor of truth, you might enjoy it here.
I disagree. The KJV version is still the most accurate English translation by far. Too many scholars have it wrong and need to humble themselves before God and repent of their error.
The earth was without form and void before God created the lights in the firmament, divided the land from the sea, and created life on earth.
If you had a better understanding of Bible translating, Bible preservation, and Bible versions you would never talk trash about the KJV Bible or those who believe it is God's Word.
Last edited:
I trust the KJV and sense the Holy Spirit’s presence when I read and study it, and no I do not sense God’s presence when I have read and studied MV’s. It really isn’t so much about the translation as with which manu scripts they were translated from. I don’t trust the Greek that Westcott and Hort, who were both occultist, translated from the minority texts Sin/Vac. So since the Holy Spirit convicted me to stay with the KJV should I obey God or listen to men ?
Westcott snd Hort were devout Sinaiticus and Vaticanus-only cultists, and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence at the time. The NASB is heavily influenced by the corrupt W&H Revised Version of 1881. Gleason Archer, mentioned earlier, was one of the original translators of the NASB.
Last edited:
And that would be.... which one, exactly?
Most of us here are NOT KJO. See kgov.com/kjo.
Wrong.
The only way to arrive at the truth of God's word is to study God's word. Hermeneutics are just tools to use.
Using the wrong hermeneutics will result in a poor understanding of His word.
No one is denying any scripture.
In Genesis 1:1, God creates the universe and matter.
In Genesis 1:2, God is hovering over the face of the deep (the waters on the surface of the ball of matter we call Earth).
In Genesis 1:3, God created light.
... And so on.
So we're saying BOTH. God created everything from nothing, and then used the now existing materials to make other things.
Why?
This is why it's important to look at the context of a verse.
Jeremiah 4:23, aside from using nearly the same wording as Genesis 1:2, has very little to do with the events in Genesis 1. Rather, It's using figurative language to warn Israel to repent, or else doom shall befall her.
Sorry, but no.
As I said above, Jeremiah 4 is a warning to Israel that she is doomed for destruction if she does not repent. It has nothing at all to do with anything to do with anything in Genesis.
You keep quoting the YLT, but I've already shown you the Hebrew for what is said. In case you didn't know, original language trumps poor English translation.
Again, aside from marke, I believe, no one here is part of the KJO camp.
I haven't said anything about the NASB yet.
Is that supposed to impress me? (hint: it doesn't)
That's nice.
You SHOULD study the Bible, USING better hermaneutics, rather than just studying hermaneutics.
Who?
Never heard of him, and not interested in being redirected to someone else when the person I'm talking to is on TOL, not YouTube.
Jeremiah 4:23 says pretty much the same thing as Genesis 1:2.
But it has nothing to do with the events of Genesis 1.
So what's your point? And no, me telling you to look at the context of Jeremiah 4:23 is not ignoring it.
Nitpicking doesn't change the fact that Ecclesiastes was written after other books of the Bible were, and that it was written by Solomon later in his life.
There you go casting people out of the Kingdom again. Not only do you not know the hearts of those here, but it's also an ad hominem attack.
Knock it off, or you'll be getting a time out from TOL.
If you had actually been making arguments worth responding to, we wouldn't have an issue with you linking to your sources.
The problem is that you're not even writing anything other than your opinions, and not making any arguments whatsoever, and then linking to a source expecting us to read and understand your nonexistent arguments.
You're not writing enough.
You're not quoting from anything. You're simply posting links and hoping we read them.
Your argument doesn't follow.
How is "us not willing to waste our time reading articles that may or may not support your opinions because you won't make your arguments here in the posts you write" at all relevant to the name of this site?
Your opinions do not qualify as theology. Nor do mine or anyone else's.
What qualifies is the study of God and His word.
No, NAA, you can't.
Post after post of mine directed to you here in this thread has been thoroughly addressing each and every one of the things you have said. I have MADE the arguments, and you have hardly responded to them at all, preferring to instead post links and resort to hand-wavium to dismiss whatever is said to you. You have yet to present one single argument in favor of your beliefs.
Liar.
Here is you doing EXACTLY THAT!
|
|
If it's that much of a burden for you to type, then maybe you shouldn't be on here anyways.
However, if it's not enough of a burden for you to be on here, then you need to take the time and make the arguments yourself. No one cares if you take your time to make a well thought out argument, but NO ONE likes it when their arguments are dismissed out of hand or hand-waved away with a link to some random article on the internet as if that qualifies as a response.
Then stop acting like it is.
What?
What are you responding to?
I asked if you could have a discussion without making unfounded assertions about your opponents' beliefs, because you were making unfounded assertions about your opponents' beliefs.
Stop it.
Everywhere where I have used scripture to make my points.
Specifically Genesis 1.
Nope. I'm not even calling YOU a cultist.
What I AM doing is pointing out your hypocrisy in your posts.
Because you ARE a hypocrite, as I have pointed out many times already.
Last edited:
I think the NKJV has it beat, though there are a few minor issues it has.
What error?
This is a genetic fallacy.
The origin of something has no bearing on its validity.
Say what you want about Wescott and Hort, their Greek New Testament they produced is one of the most accurate and
So what?
Corrupt how?
Corrupt how?
The three Greek textual families agree 98-99% of the time.
Question: Can someone get saved by reading the Wescott-Hort Greek New Testament?
Last edited: