Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you over the flat earth subject but the Bible is so clear about God's act of creation. Jesus quoted from Genesis chapters 1, 2, & 6--9 as literal history. The Apostles were also very abundantly clear on the issue. Romans 1:18-32 is a prophecy about how evolution theory will be responsible for what will bring on God's wrath in the end. This could be seen in how atheists have all but converted to Islam which is going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization. Moral relativism comes with the evolution package and this also contradicts Scripture.
Last but not least. What is the 5th word? Fill in the blank:
"In the beginning God _____ the heavens and the earth."
What is the 5th word?
You do realize that with mutable transmissible genetic information determining structure, function, shape and color (among other things) passed from generation to generation, where the mutations are either (i) inconsequential, (ii) advantageous, or (iii) deleterious, it is physically impossible for evolution not to occur right? It cannot not occur. To stop it would require... err divine intervention or a miracle or such.
Why would God create the evolutionary mechanism (a pretty fantastic tool for sure) and then get angry at it.
The original moral relativism is borne of older religions since they are parochial, generally patriarchal, historical place and time delimited, and generally based on very incomplete knowledge about the world.
Actual morality, ie based on the honesty of individuals collectively deciding how each of them would want to be treated (ie onto them, not onto others) is the morality than can be argued as actual objective morality. Hence, in its current attempt, the Universal declaration of Human Rights - which out-morals Christianity and Islam "morality" by light years. Of course, religions' "morality" appeals to the essential venality in some humans. "Believe in this and you will go to heaven!" Pretty blatant carrot and stick game. Morality borne of the right thing to do because its the right thing to do - not so appealing to your ilk. No glittering prize, special don't-die-when-you-die magic or other such rewards.
Having said that the code of Hammurabi, with the other codes that preceded Christianity and the other major religions, by a millennia or more weren't half bad already.
Thanks for your asinine twisted thinking and ridiculous inferences. Not only will people reading this thread see how wrong and arrogant you are but they will have a good laugh as well.
Also, you seem to be wholly unaware of the changes in textual transmission - there is no 100% preservation.
And the church fathers were already dealt with.
You are just repeating yourself! Blah, blah blah!
That's right, the church fathers already explained a simple basic doctrine that atheists have accused them of not knowing. We're not talking about anything tricky here. Its not just a word that needs special interpretation. Now râqîyaʻ required special interpretation and had no equivalent in Greek or Latin. But the word is understood after years of scholarly analysis and the Strong's provides us a full definition of râqîyaʻ and it does not mean solid sky. Now I can dig into this more and I already know I can elaborate on this further. Augustine knew the sky was not solid and that is fact. So there is more to this and if I were you I could not be arrogant about this issue because the last thing you want to do is get hammered on the issue after talking so much crap. My first phase of my research was to establish the shape of the earth as it says in the Bible. I have done that successfully from top modern scholarship harmonized with ancient scholarship. When both modern and ancient scholars agree then that means the issue is settled.
06-20-2018, 02:08 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughboy
That's right, the church fathers already explained a simple basic doctrine that atheists have accused them of not knowing. We're not talking about anything tricky here. Its not just a word that needs special interpretation. Now râqîyaʻ required special interpretation and had no equivalent in Greek or Latin. But the word is understood after years of scholarly analysis and the Strong's provides us a full definition of râqîyaʻ and it does not mean solid sky. Now I can dig into this more and I already know I can elaborate on this further. Augustine knew the sky was not solid and that is fact. So there is more to this and if I were you I could not be arrogant about this issue because the last thing you want to do is get hammered on the issue after talking so much crap. My first phase of my research was to establish the shape of the earth as it says in the Bible. I have done that successfully from top modern scholarship harmonized with ancient scholarship. When both modern and ancient scholars agree then that means the issue is settled.
You do realize that with mutable transmissible genetic information determining structure, function, shape and color (among other things) passed from generation to generation, where the mutations are either (i) inconsequential, (ii) advantageous, or (iii) deleterious, it is physically impossible for evolution not to occur right? It cannot not occur. To stop it would require... err divine intervention or a miracle or such.
Why would God create the evolutionary mechanism (a pretty fantastic tool for sure) and then get angry at it.
The original moral relativism is borne of older religions since they are parochial, generally patriarchal, historical place and time delimited, and generally based on very incomplete knowledge about the world.
Actual morality, ie based on the honesty of individuals collectively deciding how each of them would want to be treated (ie onto them, not onto others) is the morality than can be argued as actual objective morality. Hence, in its current attempt, the Universal declaration of Human Rights - which out-morals Christianity and Islam "morality" by light years. Of course, religions' "morality" appeals to the essential venality in some humans. "Believe in this and you will go to heaven!" Pretty blatant carrot and stick game. Morality borne of the right thing to do because its the right thing to do - not so appealing to your ilk. No glittering prize, special don't-die-when-you-die magic or other such rewards.
Having said that the code of Hammurabi, with the other codes that preceded Christianity and the other major religions, by a millennia or more weren't half bad already.
Understand what bible believers believe. We trace all people right back to the sons of Adam and Eve who they themselves spoke with God, and they themselves carried the Oral Torah knowledge handed down from generation to generation, and this is why you find the prophesies and concepts of Adam and Eve in so many religion. Why there is a holy mother with a holy child, where there is 3 standing as one.
It is all the common links with so many religion that show that they all came from the same source.
There is zero historical basis for the assumption that all religions are One. This lie has been refuted time and time again. You cannot produce one single document proving it. Oh, but you will go to so and so online who provides nothing but commentary <---let the word sink it---but does not provide a real Source Document which is the basis on which all reputable and responsible historians draw their commentary from. Without directly quoting from those Source Documents the commentary is rendered meaningless. And since every single reputable historian of ancient antiquity in the world laughs at this belief that every nation had a Jesus Christ and mother Mary etc., it is not even worth my time to discuss the issue here.
As for these liberal scholars and their obsession of spreading confusion among Christians (which we all know is politically motivated), the Bible is very clear about the heaven (sky) and heavens (beyond the sky of the earth) as there are many heavens (as Genesis 1:1 states from the start). Now this word firmament used in the old English and borrowed from the Latin seems to be a focal point for atheists to try and poke holes where there really is none. For one, the model atheists have described is confined to the conjecture that the earth is flat. But we know the earth is not flat as Scripture clearly says (Job 26:10, Psalm 18:15; 89:11, Prov.8:31, Ecc.1:6, Isa.40:22) and well understood by ancient Jews and Christians. We also know the earth is held up by nothing at all (Job 26:7). So with these two factors in mind--the globular shape of earth, and its suspension in space--the model given by Mike Heiser and Paul H.Seely and other dubious characters who impugn the Scriptures in the same exact manner the Third Reich did when they took over the German church shortly before they replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf and the cross with the swastika--proves the theory purposed by Seely and others is fallacious. So this anarchist approach to theology is an infringement on the polity of the church in which God is the Head.
So without the flat earth and an earth held up by a physical, visible object, the model put forth by Heiser, Seely and other anarchists does not work. Its a conjecture....a theological conjecture...that, like all conjectures, must hold to the model or collapse due to the pieces of the model not fitting right with the conjecture assumed. Also, this theological conjecture put forth by these Antifa style scholars goes by the Starting Assumption that Wellhausen was right. Now Wellhausen was an atheist who did not believe God. His theory which involves the evolution of religion (Documentary Assumption) teaches that all ancient antiquity is authentic except for that written by a Jew. This kind of antisemitism inspired Hitler along with other Darwinian philosophers who's bigotry and arrogance now inspires Heiser and Seely among other liberal scholars who have no share in God's kingdom (Eph.1:6-10).
Last edited by Ploughboy; 06-20-2018 at 04:03 PM..
There is zero historical basis for the assumption that all religions are One. This lie has been refuted time and time again. You cannot produce one single document proving it. Oh, but you will go to so and so online who provides nothing but commentary <---let the word sink it---but does not provide a real Source Document which is the basis on which all reputable and responsible historians draw their commentary from. Without directly quoting from those Source Documents the commentary is rendered meaningless. And since every single reputable historian of ancient antiquity in the world laughs at this belief that every nation had a Jesus Christ and mother Mary etc., it is not even worth my time to discuss the issue here.
As for these liberal scholars and their obsession of spreading confusion among Christians (which we all know is politically motivated), the Bible is very clear about the heaven (sky) and heavens (beyond the sky of the earth) as there are many heavens (as Genesis 1:1 states from the start). Now this word firmament used in the old English and borrowed from the Latin seems to be a focal point for atheists to try and poke holes where there really is none. For one, the model atheists have described is confined to the conjecture that the earth is flat. But we know the earth is not flat as Scripture clearly says (Job 26:10, Psalm 18:15; 89:11, Prov.8:31, Ecc.1:6, Isa.40:22) and well understood by ancient Jews and Christians. We also know the earth is held up by nothing at all (Job 26:7). So with these two factors in mind--the globular shape of earth, and its suspension in space--the model given by Mike Heiser and Paul H.Seely and other dubious characters who impugn the Scriptures in the same exact manner the Third Reich did when they took over the German church shortly before they replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf and the cross with the swastika. So this anarchist approach to theology is an infringement on the polity of the church in which God is the Head.
So without the flat earth and an earth held up by a physical, visible object, the model put forth by Heiser, Seely and other anarchists does not work. Its a conjecture....a theological conjecture...that, like all conjectures, must hold to the model or collapse due to the pieces of the model not fitting right with the conjecture assumed. Also, this theological conjecture put forth by these Antifa style scholars goes by the Starting Assumption that Wellhausen was right. Now Wellhausen was an atheist who did not believe God. His theory which involves the evolution of religion (Documentary Assumption) teaches that all ancient antiquity is authentic except for that written by a Jew. This kind of antisemitism inspired Hitler along with other Darwinian philosophers who's bigotry and arrogance now inspires Heiser and Seely among other liberal scholars who have no share in God's kingdom (Eph.1:6-10).
Can you also blend in ghengis khan, the birthers, the Ghost Dance and the opium wars into your cocktail? In other words all you are doing is lumping as many people groups and ideas that you don't like in an attempt to make some sort of point.
It is all the common links with so many religion that show that they all came from the same source..
Some of the Biblical views are clearly shared with other ancient nations. But even the Romans acknowledge the Jewish religion as unique in the ancient world which is one reason why they allowed them to continue worshiping their God. Though many of the conjectures thrown in my modern liberals like Dan Brown, Mike Heiser and Paul H.Seely (among others) is not something agreeable by historians ancient or modern. In most cases, where the Jews in both testaments are accused of borrowing from the pagan, history proves that it was the pagans who actually borrowed from the Jews. And where their are similarities is where your point comes in. For the promise of human salvation goes back to our first parents.
Can you also blend in ghengis khan, the birthers, the Ghost Dance and the opium wars into your cocktail? In other words all you are doing is lumping as many people groups and ideas that you don't like in an attempt to make some sort of point.
Hum How so? Everything I said here is absolutely historically verifiable. I know of no reputable historian who would deny any of this.
There is zero historical basis for the assumption that all religions are One. This lie has been refuted time and time again. You cannot produce one single document proving it. Oh, but you will go to so and so online who provides nothing but commentary <---let the word sink it---but does not provide a real Source Document which is the basis on which all reputable and responsible historians draw their commentary from. Without directly quoting from those Source Documents the commentary is rendered meaningless. And since every single reputable historian of ancient antiquity in the world laughs at this belief that every nation had a Jesus Christ and mother Mary etc., it is not even worth my time to discuss the issue here.
As for these liberal scholars and their obsession of spreading confusion among Christians (which we all know is politically motivated), the Bible is very clear about the heaven (sky) and heavens (beyond the sky of the earth) as there are many heavens (as Genesis 1:1 states from the start). Now this word firmament used in the old English and borrowed from the Latin seems to be a focal point for atheists to try and poke holes where there really is none. For one, the model atheists have described is confined to the conjecture that the earth is flat. But we know the earth is not flat as Scripture clearly says (Job 26:10, Psalm 18:15; 89:11, Prov.8:31, Ecc.1:6, Isa.40:22) and well understood by ancient Jews and Christian. We also know the earth is held up by nothing at all (Job 26:7). So with these two factors in mind--the globular shape of earth, and its suspension in space), the model given by Mike Heiser and Paul H.Seely and other dubious characters who impugn the Scriptures in the same exact manner the Third Reich did when they took over the German church shortly before they replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf and the cross with the swastika. So this anarchist approach to theology is an infringement on the polity of the church in which God is the Head.
So without the flat earth and an earth held up by a physical, visible object, the model put forth by Heiser, Seely and other anarchists does not work. Its a conjecture....a theological conjecture...that, like all conjectures, must hold to the model or collapse due to the pieces of the model not fitting right with the conjecture assumed. Also, this theological conjecture put forth by these Antifa style scholars goes by the Starting Assumption that Wellhausen was right. Now Wellhausen was an atheist who did not believe God. His theory which involves the evolution of religion (Documentary Assumption) teaches that all ancient antiquity is authentic except for that written by a Jew. This kind of antisemitism inspired Hitler along with other Darwinian philosophers who's bigotry and arrogance now inspires Heiser and Seely among other liberal scholars who have no share in God's kingdom (Eph.1:6-10).
I didn't say all religions were one, I said that most all religions come from the same source, that there is enough common links between the major religions to show that somebody influenced the others, and I am saying that all people came from Noah, and whether you go to Egypt of Babylon, you going to find the same common concepts that link most religions.
Well, I guess we gonna have to disagree. I swear, I have read your stuff a bunch of times, most of which I don't understand, I can't even figure out how you believe, are you an Atheist?
You speak like you got all this figured out huh.
Ever read the Two Babylons?
By the way, I haven't met or read any historians who aren't flawed, but if all the historians believed in the same truth, the world will still not believe historical fact. You could present historical fact to anyone associated with Christianity and they just aint gonna believe it.
I didn't say all religions were one, I said that most all religions come from the same source, that there is enough common links between the major religions to show that somebody influenced the others, and I am saying that all people came from Noah, and whether you go to Egypt of Babylon, you going to find the same common concepts that link most religions.
True. Though my point here in this discussion is that the shape of the earth was not one of those things shared in common. Maybe long before the world fell into idolatry they knew the earth was round as Isaiah 40:41 suggests. But we have no historical record that I know of which shows us a round earth account before the OT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
Well, I guess we gonna have to disagree. I swear, I have read your stuff a bunch of times, most of which I don't understand, I can't even figure out how you believe, are you an Atheist?
I'm not sure why you would assume that when I've been here refuting atheistic skepticism. I've defending the validity of Scripture from sneak attacks from atheists who only seek to be clever. The root of all this flat earth nonsense goes back to Wellhausen's assumption that all religion evolved and the Jews did not preserve Scripture (yet he believed all other nations did).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
You speak like you got all this figured out huh.
I certainly don't know everything. Though bear in mine that I am not new at this and have been doing research for 15 years straight. I was on internet forums long before there was Facebook. So debating these issues is not new to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
Ever read the Two Babylons?
I'm not sure what you mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
By the way, I haven't met or read any historians who aren't flawed, but if all the historians believed in the same truth, the world will still not believe historical fact. You could present historical fact to anyone associated with Christianity and they just aint gonna believe it.
You will never find an academician, whether it is a scientist, theologian, historian or whatever, who is perfect and made no mistakes. They have all made mistakes. But notice I use the word reputable when referring to historians. An historian with a good name earns by being correct enough times where his information is accepted as national academia. Or at least that's how it used to go. Today I question if there are any reputable academics anywhere. Our education has sank so low most professors are refuted by high school dropouts. Our nation needs to get back to sensible education against and stop with the alternative this and that and revisionist history etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How so? Everything I said here is absolutely historically verifiable. I know of no reputable historian who would deny any of this.
