Hillary,
The reason why you can't answer the questions on D. Kelly's Book is because you have not read the book as you so tried to decieve others into thinking. I call you a liar because you are one and you are demonstrating it.
tootles,
jr
space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.
by aChristian 251 Replies latest jw friends
-
clash_city_rockers
-
hillary_step
Clash,
Here we have it, a 'fundmentalist'in action.
You have proved yourself unable to attend to the issues that I raised in my note to you. In fact you have not even tried to do so. So what course is left to you? Yes, the cheapest one, libel.
I have also told you that I will answer your questions when you have the decency to respond to the points that I made in my note which pre-ceded yours.
Calling me a 'liar', is a cowardly way of diverting attention from your own bankrupt defense of a childish theology.
You call me a 'liar'. I can change this assessment by answering your questions as soon as you attend to the issues that I raised that led to your slanderous comment.
I call you a 'hypocrite' and add to this the word 'cowardly', however I suspect that this assessment cannot be changed.
HS
-
clash_city_rockers
You know of course you could put me away by just answering the question I posed and proved that you really read D. Kelly's book.
If your not a liar then prove it.
What is the framework hypothises?
what chapter from the book is the issue tackled?
Who is it's chief proponate? -
hillary_step
Grow Up Clash -- HS
-
clash_city_rockers
Hillary in his apologetic genus posts:
Grow Up Clash -- HS
Response: Evolution apologetics at its best. Wow your ready to take on Josh McDowell. -
hillary_step
Clash,
I kick myself that I wasted valuable time even reading your posts.
I often felt that AlanF came down a little too hard on the Fundamentalists on this Board. Now, I well understand his lack of patience.
After proving yourself consistently unable to follow the reasoning of a simple, logical debate, and finding yourself cornered by rudimentary theology you take the cowards way out and start slinging mud around hoping that some might stick.
You make another mistake in thinking that I am concerned about what you or others might think of me on this Board. I do not need this Board to validate my existence, my education, or my opinions. I have a life outside this screen, it is the real one.
My reputation as an honest poster stands for itself, I wish I could say the same for yours. You may not choose to call me 'honest', but rest assured, better men than you have.
Your posts on this thread for example, show a slow but consistent descent from bluster to buffoonary. Cut and paste, cut and run.
As a scholar sir, you are an abject failure. As a Christian, one can only hope for better things.
HS
-
aChristian
Clash,
Everyone here who has discussed anything with you seems to have concluded there is little point in doing so. For both your powers of reading comprehension and your willingness to listen to the views of others seem to be extremely limited. So, I will try to keep this response brief.
You wrote: You interpret the scriptures in light of unbelieving presuppositions of science from unbelievers. ... You failed in the anologia fide (scripture interprets scripture) a rule in biblical exegeses. ... 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 [face] of the EARTH ALL living things”?
I'll answer your question, Clash, even though I believe I have already done so. And I'll do so by having scripture interpret scripture. I believe phrases such as "the face of all the earth” in the Genesis flood account should be translated as "the face of all the land," as in the "land" in which Noah then lived. The Hebrew word Moses used in his account of Noah's flood, which is translated there as "earth," giving you the idea that Genesis was referring to our whole planet, is translated elsewhere in his writings as "land." The translators of the NAS, in an apparent effort to deal with this controversy, have translated the Hebrew word in question as "land" several times in the flood account. (Gen. 6:1,7; 7:4,23) The fact is, you can find literally hundreds of examples of Moses' use of the Hebrew word for "earth" being translated as "land" in the KJV by opening your Strong's concordance to the words "earth" and "land."
The Hebrew word in question is numbered by Strong's as 776. You will see that the Hebrew word for "earth" used by Moses in the flood account is actually translated much more often as "land" in his writings than it is as "earth." For instance Moses used this same word when he wrote that, "the famine was severe in all the earth." (Gen. 41:57 NAS) Now, most other translations here have Moses saying that the famine was severe in all the "land," or words to that effect. But the Hebrew clearly shows that Moses wrote just what the NAS says he did. That "the famine was severe in all the earth," at least if we are going to translate the Hebrew word which Moses used for "earth" in his description of the flood in a totally consistant manner. So, if we follow your logic, Clash, Moses wrote not just of an earth wide flood but also of an earth wide famine. Maybe you believe that is what Moses meant, Clash. But few Bible translators agree with you.
I wrote: 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. ... Paul was in those passages actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings. ... See [my post in] this thread, a few posts down from the top:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17102&site=3You wrote: What does Paul mean in 1 Tim 2:11-15? ... Go to 1 Tim 3:1-13 and you’ll see the requirements for the office of elder or deacon. No women allowed.
I discussed both of those passages at length in the post I directed you to, which you obviously did not bother to read. You may do so now if you like.
You wrote: A(as in apostate or anti) Christian
Clash, I think a Christian is a person who believes that Jesus died for his sins and does his best to live his life as a follower of Jesus Christ. I believe a Christian is still a Christian even if he misunderstands some parts of the scriptures. For that reason, though I think some of your understandings are mistaken, I accept you as a Christian. It's too bad you don't feel that way about those who understand some things differently than you.
You wrote: Are you saying that this hall of fame cult buster is a cult leader too?
Only if he was as close minded and as judgmental of those who disagreed with his personal interpretations of the scriptures as you seem to be.
-
Faithful2Jah
Clashy: I noticed you ignored my questions about a global flood, just as you did with those of someone else early on in this thread. I can only take that to mean that you can't answer such questions. To me that means that your interpretations of Genesis might just be wrong. Since they can't be defended. And one more thing. Your calling Hillary a liar was a very unclassy thing to do. And I think very unchristian. When AC picked on your spelling and grammar he oppologized and asked your forgiveness. Are you gonna now do the same to Hillary? Or is that only something "anti-Christians" like AC do? I haven't yet made upmy mind if I think the flood was local or global. But if I had to do so based on the "Christian" conduct of this debate's participants I sure wouldn't come down on your side.
-
clash_city_rockers
Up until fairly modern times, people in western countries have basically believed that the Bible was God's Word, and, by and large, believed what it said.
This was certainly true for views of ancient history, with the majority of both scientists and theologians believing in a literal Creation, the Fall, and the Flood. Now, however, the tables are turned, and Christians are hard pressed to find a denomination, seminary, or even a church, which holds to a consistently literal view of Genesis. Many Christian “Scholars” consider such a stand to be “unscholarly,” and rush to reinterpret Genesis to agree with secular scientific views.
Historically, this compromise started in the early 1800's, with the denial of the Global Flood. But this doctrine doesn't stand by itself. If the Flood did not cover the world, then it did not lay down the world's sedimentary rock, and therefore this rock must have been laid down slowly over long periods of time. Thus the Biblical doctrine of the young earth was abandoned. The fossils in these "old" sediments could only be interpreted as having lived over the same vast ages, and could not have been created as Genesis records. Thus the Biblical doctrine of creation died. The trickle-down effect continues today, with more and more doctrines being denied or re-stated.
But there is hardly a doctrine in Scripture more clearly stated than that of the Global Flood. In Chapters 6-10 of Genesis, the words and phrases used to describe the Flood can be interpreted in no other legitimate way.
Of course, some of the words, such as “all flesh died” (7:21 ) might be interpreted as meaning all living things within the local area, as modern “scholars” claim, but when a word can have more than one meaning, the context must define its true meaning. And in Genesis 6-10, the context is one of a global flood! Over thirty times, words and phrases of global scope appear. In each case, the primary meaning is one of totality, but when they are all together, the meaning is crystal clear.
Compare this clear teaching with the teachings of Christ and the New Testament writers, and the conclusion is inescapable! Trying to salvage the local flood idea makes nonsense out of New Testament doctrine. For example: The local flood theory implies that the Indians in North America, the natives in Africa, the Scandinavians, the Chinese, etc., were not affected by the flood. They escaped God's judgment on sin. If so, what could Christ possibly have meant when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of “all” men (Matthew 24:37-79) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come. Scripture does not stand if the flood was not global.
The time has come for Christian “scholars” to swallow their intellectual pride and return to a belief in Scripture all of it. How much better to receive the approval of our Lord than that of secular colleagues.
When Christians come back to Scripture, they not only will find it doctrinally whole, they will find it scientifically satisfying—far more scientific than the secular view with which they now compromise.
luv, hugs, and snuggles
jr -
GWEEDO
Clash,
of course I read them I spent good money on them
Why?Why waste your money on books you have no business reading?
Why not just save your money and go buy more guns 'n' ammo?