AChristian writes:
“I believe that the Bible itself only teaches that the land of Noah was completely flooded with water, covering the highest hills in his land and destroying all life in his land that was outside the ark. I have plainly stated my case for this understanding on page 2 of this thread. Because this understanding of the Genesis flood account does not conflict with either the original language of scripture or the facts of science… In this thread I have defended my understanding of the Genesis flood account against all critics. I have shown how it is not in conflict with either modern science or the text of scripture itself. I have challenged you to defend your belief that the flood of Noah's day was global.”
Response: Sorry but you did not exegete any passage from Genesis in your apologetics of secular evolution. You commit the same errors that the WT commits when you try to explain scripture. That is you interpret the scriptures in light of unbelieving presuppositions of science from unbelievers. The proper way to exegete the scriptures it to interpret science in light of scripture (the bible being a priori). You failed in the anologia fide (scripture interprets scripture) a rule in biblical exegeses. Your explanation of Genesis reviles that you have a pre-commitment to the lie of evolution and the local flood. But the your posts reveal something more sinister and that is you deny original sin and the fall, this will affect how you see the Saving Work of Jesus Christ. My challenge to you is to explain from the TEXT of SCRIPTURE ALONE (sola scriptura) the meaning of Genesis 7:3,4. What did Moses, the author of Genesis, mean in terms such as “the species alive on the face of ALL the earth” and “I will destroy from the of the EARTH ALL living things”? What does Moses (scripture alone) mean?
Another tension is since evolution is a fairly new doctrine (150 years), are you saying according to your beliefs that the Christian Church got it all wrong the Genesis account for well over 1800 years until your buddy, Chuck Darwin and friends corrected the church with his new doctrine. Sounds a bit like the old Chuck Russell routine to me. You know, your guys’ old classic line “Christianity sucks lest start a counter church psuedo Christian cult like JW’s or Secular Evolutionists or Mormonism you know some slick deal that will deceive people and keep them in their rebellion against God thus assuring their spot in hell with Chuck Russell, Chuck Darwin, and Joe Smith.
AChristian Posted more of his rebel yell with:
“In it he shows how the words written by the apostle Paul, which are understood by fundamentalists to say that women are not allowed to hold positions of authority in Christian Churches, did not actually reflect the apostle Paul's own beliefs. And how Paul was in those passages actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings.”
Response: look I’ll let the bible refute you. What does Paul mean in 1 Tim 2:11-15? The passage obviously sound like Paul in contrast to your false claim does not allow women to hold any office of church authority over man. I didn’t make it up Paul did. Just look at the passage. I contrast to your other claim Paul is not quoting anybody in this passage. Go to 1 Tim 3:1-13 and you’ll see the requirements for the office of elder or deacon. No women allowed. Remember, don’t get pissed at me Paul wrote this letter.
Achristian showing that his integrity has not changed since the WT days Post in my response to my invitation to check out the answers in Genesis gig in his town writes:
“No, thanks. I've already checked out "Answers in Genesis." I know it well. It is an organization that promotes pseudo science and is often less than honest in their presentation of "evidence." Maybe they have honorable intentions. They are evidently trying to defend what they believe the Bible is saying any way they can.”
Response: Poisoning the well does not deal with the issues this is still the same kind of WT tactic uses to avoid the black eye of being refuted. You made the charge of us Christians doing “pseudo science”. So aChristian, what is the standard of real science? What by your standard of true science would constitute fake science? Please explain the ball is on your court.
You did say one thing that is correct “God doesn’t need our defense of him”. Your right he doesn’t need my defense nor yours the scriptures alone with out your help or the help science is all that is needed to defend the Lord.
Hillary who does book reports posts:
“You suggested that we read a book written by Kelly. I have read this book and I might say that I found it fairly typical of the gifted amateurs who play this game by building castles on other peoples air. On a web-site Kelly was recently questioned about his views. I have taken the answers to two of these questions as I feel that they may speak for the pre-conceived motivation with which he and many other YEC approach this albeit difficult subject.”
Response: I hope your claim to have read this book is true. If so then good for you very rarely that an EX-JW will read book written by Reformed Evangelicals. I have to admit I do have my doubts that you have really have read this book. In fact I’m going to charge you with being a liar and say that you have not read this book. Your defense to prove that you really read this Douglass Kelly’s book and not just make another senseless inane slanderous claim is to tell me, since I read the book to;
1. What is the framework hypothesis?
2. What chapters of the book the framework hypothesis is mentioned?
3. Who according to the book is the chief proponent of the framework hypothesis?
Do take it personally I use this method also on JWs who come to the door.
To Island Woman,
Look women have an important role in the kingdom of God. The older women teach the younger women and children. They do diaconal duties, though not serving in the office in any official capacity. Raising their kids assisting in their covenant household. I don’t have a problem with some of your observations in scripture. I am not promoting the kind of bible believing Christianity that is moralistic or legalistic or mean or anything like that. I just want to promote a strong doctrinal bible believing Christianity that has a high view of prepositional nature of scripture. Just because the offices of church leadership are closed to women does diminished the equality that women have in the Kingdom of God.
A(as in apostate or anti) Christian spreads more of his venom as he slanders in response to JAH, writes:
“Fundamentalists usually pay no mind to questions like yours. For they say that God could have done it somehow… In this way also the Young Earth Creationists certainly do resemble a cult.”
Response: Your answer only demonstrates you low view of scripture and even lower view of the Providence of God. Plus your definition of cult is arbratrary. About 4/5 of all the protestant churches in the Grand Rapids directory believe in literal creation are they cults too.
Did you know that the legendary King of the Cult Busters, the late Walter Martin you know that man that gave you guys fits when you where JW’s in the 70’s and 80’s, well he too believed in a literal 6 day creation and world wide flood. Are you saying that this hall of fame cult buster is a cult leader too?
It’s a nice day to start again, it’s a nice day for a white wedding,
Love,
Billy Idol
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1556617143/reader/2/102-1779833-7576113#reader-link
