[_ Old Earth _] 300,000 year old fossils of Homo Sapiens found

[Cygnus]

It make more sense then science so called.

I have to agree. Typically when a christian sees the movie...they wonder why this version of science has been hidden from us.

 

[Edward]

Because I know what figures of speech are. I doubt there is any serious scholar that would disagree with what I have stated.

So, you taking what some man said over scripture? How can you be sure that it's a figure of speech? A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord. That's no figure of speech. How can you be so certain that it's only a figure of speech?

Not with any certainty.

Sure you can through the genealogies.

Because you are basing it on unsupported assumptions, which makes your math highly speculative.

What do you mean, unsupported assumptions? The scripture is unsupported? The scripture is the support. And it's not my math, either. It's the Lord's math. It was His statement. So you disagree with the Lord/scripture? So if I'm wrong then how am I wrong and what makes you think that it's wrong, a figure of speech (meaning what, if not what He said?)

I believe everything in Scripture. This has nothing to do with edifying or tearing people down. Bad theology is bad theology and it needs to be dealt with.

Everything? Even 1 Corinthians 14:33? Parables with implied meanings that are not immediately clear are easily identified as parables because it will either say it is a parable or there's ambiguity with it, like no names of people and so forth. Other scriptures are very clear what is being said. It's not bad theology to read and understand. It's bad theology to try to make something out of it that isn't. So if heaven being outside of the time domain of earth isn't illustrated in 2nd Peter 3...then what is?

2 Peter 3:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.../

He's explaining why Christ hasn't come again, when He keeps saying, soon, soon...to the scoffers, and relates how that God saying soon, and yet it could still be a couple thousand more years before He comes (back then). The context of the entire chapter make this very clear. So I don't know where you get that my theology or my understanding is wrong (and must be dealt with...lol) because it isn't.

If I'm so far out in left field as to be a blind man, then how about helping a poor confused Brother out and explaining in detail just how I am wrong in my understanding of this passage of scripture. With your support. God's not the author of confusion Brother, so presumably it will be a succinct explanation.

 

[Free]

So, you taking what some man said over scripture? How can you be sure that it's a figure of speech? A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord. That's no figure of speech. How can you be so certain that it's only a figure of speech?

Good grief, Edward. You presume too much, particularly that you are right and everyone else is "taking what some man said over Scripture." I strongly suggest you Google what figures of speech are. "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord," is known as a simile, a figure of speech which is not meant to be taken literally. This is basic stuff.

Sure you can through the genealogies.

Again, as I pointed out already, there are known gaps in the genealogies. They were never meant to be used as a timeline.

What do you mean, unsupported assumptions? The scripture is unsupported? The scripture is the support. And it's not my math, either. It's the Lord's math. It was His statement. So you disagree with the Lord/scripture? So if I'm wrong then how am I wrong and what makes you think that it's wrong, a figure of speech (meaning what, if not what He said?)

You are assuming that the genealogies are complete; you are assuming the genealogies are meant to be used to determine a timeline; you are assuming that one day is equal to one thousand years; you are assuming that the six days in Genesis somehow equate to a timeline in the thousands of years. All of that is unsupported. This is not "the Lord's math," it is not "His statement."

Everything? Even 1 Corinthians 14:33? Parables with implied meanings that are not immediately clear are easily identified as parables because it will either say it is a parable or there's ambiguity with it, like no names of people and so forth. Other scriptures are very clear what is being said. It's not bad theology to read and understand.

Reading does not mean one has understood.

It's bad theology to try to make something out of it that isn't.

And that is exactly my point.

So if heaven being outside of the time domain of earth isn't illustrated in 2nd Peter 3...then what is?

2 Peter 3:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.../

He's explaining why Christ hasn't come again, when He keeps saying, soon, soon...to the scoffers, and relates how that God saying soon, and yet it could still be a couple thousand more years before He comes (back then). The context of the entire chapter make this very clear. So I don't know where you get that my theology or my understanding is wrong (and must be dealt with...lol) because it isn't.

If I'm so far out in left field as to be a blind man, then how about helping a poor confused Brother out and explaining in detail just how I am wrong in my understanding of this passage of scripture. With your support. God's not the author of confusion Brother, so presumably it will be a succinct explanation.

Your theology is wrong--"No, I did the math on that myself. I already explained it 6 days...6 thousand years."--because you are making certain unwarranted assumptions.

Here you have conveniently left out verse 9: "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (ESV)

The whole point of verses 8 and 9 are an answer to verse 4--that God's timing is not the same as ours; that though he appears to be slow his plan is in effect and the end will come at some point; that time is nothing to God because he is eternal.

 

[Jim Parker]

If you say so Jim.

No, that's what you said is so.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes, I take it literally. The body and blood of Christ sustains eternal life and I feed on His word and deed that feeds me.

I believe that there is no place in scripture that says His body and blood is his "word and deed."
However, Jesus and Paul identified other things as Jesus' body and blood.

Mat 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Mar 14:22-24 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many."

Luk 22:19-20 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co 11:23-27 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken[fn] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

So Jesus and Paul identified the bread and wine of the Eucharist as the Body and blood of the LORD. The next generation of believers and the one after it took that teaching to heart.

Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states; “They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,..”

Ignatius was taught by the John, the beloved disciple of Christ and, in this statement, he affirms the teaching of the apostles and Christ that the bread is Christ’s body.

Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century in his “The First Apology of Justin”, in Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. In it he reports what he was taught as a new Christian by the church. That would mean that the teaching he received was already established in the church. It is part of the teaching of the apostles who taught what they learned from Jesus. It is God’s inspired teaching to the church by His Son, through the apostles to the church.

“And this food is called among us Eujcaristiva [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; ”and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; ”and gave it to them alone.”

Further early references:

IRENAEUS, Against Heresies (175-185 AD)
Book IV; Chapter XVIII.—Concerning Sacrifices and Oblations, and Those Who Truly Offer Them.

4…………..But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”


5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Chapter XXXIII.—Whosoever Confesses that One God is the Author of Both Testaments, and Diligently Reads the Scriptures in Company with the Presbyters of the Church, is a True Spiritual Disciple; And He Will Rightly Understand and Interpret All that the Prophets Have Declared Respecting Christ and the Liberty of the New Testament.

2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. Or how can he be good who draws away men that do not belong to him from him who made them, and calls them into his own kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? And why did He acknowledge Himself to be the Son of man, if He had not gone through that birth which belongs to a human being? How, too, could He forgive us those sins for which we are answerable to our Maker and God? And how, again, supposing that He was not flesh, but was a man merely in appearance, could He have been crucified, and could blood and water have issued from His pierced side? What body, moreover, was it that those who buried Him consigned to the tomb? And what was that which rose again from the dead?

BOOK V,

Chapter. II When Christ Visited Us in His Grace, He Did Not Come to What Did Not Belong to Him: Also, by Shedding His True Blood for Us, and Exhibiting to Us His True Flesh in the Eucharist, He Conferred Upon Our Flesh the Capacity of Salvation.

2 “He (Jesus) has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.”

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?—even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.

I don't know who came up with the tradition of the LORD's body and blood being His words and His deeds. Is that tradition unique to your denomination?


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

It make more sense then science so called.

Only if you assume that all the "so-called" scientists are engaged in a giant, multi generational, secret conspiracy to disprove the Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 account of creation and they have all (thousands upon thousands of them) been dishonest.

Do you have some evidence for that?

 

[Jim Parker]

I strongly suggest you Google what figures of speech are. "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord," is known as a simile, a figure of speech which is not meant to be taken literally. This is basic stuff.

Exactly
And if not, then what shall we do with Psa 90:4?
"For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past, (24 hours)
And like a watch in the night." (4 hours)
So a thousand years is like yesterday. which is 24 hours
and a thousand years is like a watch in the night which would be 4 hours. (or 6000 years for a full day)
So which is it?
Is a day to the LORD one thousand years or is it six thousand years?
Better get it right or the timeline will be totally different and we'll have to make new charts and PowerPoint presentations to astound and amaze the folks in the pews.
OH NO!!!

 

[Free]

Exactly
And if not, then what shall we do with Psa 90:4?
"For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past, (24 hours)
And like a watch in the night." (4 hours)
So a thousand years is like yesterday. which is 24 hours
and a thousand years is like a watch in the night which would be 4 hours. (or 6000 years for a full day)
So which is it?
Is a day to the LORD one thousand years or is it six thousand years?
Better get it right or the timeline will be totally different and we'll have to make new charts and PowerPoint presentations to astound and amaze the folks in the pews.
OH NO!!!

Or consider:

Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. (ESV)

Are to understand that then that all the cattle on the 1001+ hills do not belong to God, nor those that aren't on hills at all?

Figures of speech, Edward, figures of speech.

 

[Edward]

Or consider:

Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. (ESV)

Are to understand that then that all the cattle on the 1001+ hills do not belong to God, nor those that aren't on hills at all?

Figures of speech, Edward, figures of speech.

Not good enough. Based on what scriptures?

 

[Free]

Not good enough. Based on what scriptures?

2

 

[Douglas Summers]

Only if you assume that all the "so-called" scientists are engaged in a giant, multi generational, secret conspiracy to disprove the Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 account of creation and they have all (thousands upon thousands of them) been dishonest.

Do you have some evidence for that?

They are men void of God. Out of this whole creation, there are very few Christian scientist. And those that are do not agree with evolution. I believe The Spirit that confirms or denies what I learn. I do not learn by my own thought or self will, but by the the Spirit I was born again with. That is my evidence, Christ in me. That is all I have or need Jim. That is my fellowship and life with His Spirit.

 

[Jim Parker]

They are men void of God.

YOu know them all?

Out of this whole creation, there are very few Christian scientist.

YOu know them all?

And those that are do not agree with evolution.

You know them all?

I believe The Spirit that confirms or denies what I learn.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.
Your belief proves absolutely nothing.

I do not learn by my own thought or self will, but by the the Spirit I was born again with.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

That is my evidence, Christ in me.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

That is all I have or need Jim.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

That is my fellowship and life with His Spirit.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

Boiled down to the essence, you have basically said that what you believe is right and whoever disagrees is wrong.
While I don't doubt for a moment that you sincerely believe what you believe the Holy Spirit has taught you, that's not very convincing to anyone who sincere3ly believes the Holy Spirit led them elsewhere.



iakov the fool

 

[Douglas Summers]

YOu know them all?

YOu know them all?

You know them all?

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.
Your belief proves absolutely nothing.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

Boiled down to the essence, you have basically said that what you believe is right and whoever disagrees is wrong.
While I don't doubt for a moment that you sincerely believe what you believe the Holy Spirit has taught you, that's not very convincing to anyone who sincere3ly believes the Holy Spirit led them elsewhere.
I can not answer your questions Jim, you know too much, more than I do?



iakov the fool

YOu know them all?

YOu know them all?

You know them all?

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.
Your belief proves absolutely nothing.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

You and everybody else in this and every other Christian forum with the plethora of conflicting views.

Boiled down to the essence, you have basically said that what you believe is right and whoever disagrees is wrong.
While I don't doubt for a moment that you sincerely believe what you believe the Holy Spirit has taught you, that's not very convincing to anyone who sincere3ly believes the Holy Spirit led them elsewhere.



iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

you didn't post anything......ooops??

 

[Douglas Summers]

you didn't post anything......ooops??

Expand post #53.

 

[Jim Parker]

Expand post #53.

ok