[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[KV-44-v1]

That explains a lot of your posts here.

Hmmm, yes it does.

racist basis of YE creationism.

Youve never shown YEC to have any basis other than the Bible. You just cherry picked a few humans who may or may have Not been racist (most likely the latter) and made believe that they were the "founders of YEC".

But you also assert that SDA made YEC. So if Ellen and other SDA was not racist (you BELIEEEVE sda made YEC) then how did YEC have "racist foundations"?? You author confusion.
x2 mind in all your ways....

 

[KV-44-v1]

Of course they were. I showed you that none of the "races" that Henry Morris was blathering about, were genetic races as he claims. You asked if they were races, and I showed you that in humans, race is just a cultural construct with no genetic or biological reality.


You thought you could make points by insisting on a "yes or no." The old "have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no." game. Instead I showed you that one of the founders of YE creationism merely assumed there is a genetic race of humans who are intellectually and spiritually inferior to the rest of us, and bound to be our servants.

It's all racist garbage. There are no biological human races. And again, I realize that many if not most YE creationists today reject the racist basis of YE creationism.

Did you know that writing about something does NOT mean defending, promoting, or believing sonething? You probably don't.
You write about YEC a lot. Does that mean you defend that truth?
#k2kevolutionaryignorance

 

[Barbarian]

Did you know that writing about something does NOT mean defending, promoting, or believing sonething?

I write about YE creationism, for example, without promoting it. However, YE creationist co-founder Henry Morris was asserting the supposed genetic inferiority of black people. He wrote:

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

Morris is not writing about the views of others. He's asserting that black people are genetically inferior.

You probably don't.

See above. Read it again, and learn.

 

[Barbarian]

Youve never shown YEC to have any basis other than the Bible.

As you have seen, their new doctrines are based on the visions of a SDA "prophetess."

https://media4.egwwritings.org/pdf/en_GVEGW.pdf

At the same time, Fundamental Belief 18 affirms that “her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth
which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.”6 Therefore, her statements on creation and the origin of life raise crucial questions on important topics such as the nature and scope of inspiration, the relationship between the writings of Ellen G. White and the Bible, proper hermeneutics, and the authority of inspired writings over
against science.

These issues and their implications, I believe, are crucial not only for our understanding of Ellen G. White and her statements on creation and evolution, but also for our understanding of the biblical position on creation and related issues.

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=jats

 

[Barbarian]

But you also assert that SDA made YEC. So if Ellen and other SDA was not racist (you BELIEEEVE sda made YEC) then how did YEC have "racist foundations"??

Most SDAs opposed the racial beliefs of many evangelicals of the time, such as Henry Morris, William Tinkel, and Bob Jones. You may be correct that racism was added to White's "prophesies" by evangelicals such as Morris to make them more acceptable to their followers.

It's significant that the great evangelist Billy Graham rejected both racism and YE creationism. Which strengthens your argument that it's a latter add-on after evangelicals adopted it from the SDA. I'll do some further looking, but it seems you are correct as to when racism became part of YE creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

How would they know about Jesus if "there was no NT" at the time? you just shot your argument in the back!

The apostles and their successors. Each church was headed by an apostle, or some successor chosen by him. And there were numerous writings at the time. There was no NT at that time; it was an open question which of those writings were inspired. Some of them at the time would seem very strange to us today. All sorts of heresies existed and there was no NT canon.

 

[follower]

How would they know about Jesus if "there was no NT" at the time? you just shot your argument in the back!

They indeed and in truth seem very very far from theTORAH and from the Gospel , and have for some time since reading their own words, their own posts;

but - as Jesus and the followers of Jesus see, The Torah, Prophets and Psalms all talk about Jesus, expecially MOSES! So even without a NT..... followers of Jesus receive Truth in and from Scripture.

 

[Barbarian]

They indeed and in truth seem very very far from theTORAH and from the Gospel

The Gospel at that time was not yet compiled. There were a lot of different epistles out there, most of which didn't make it into the NT, when it was finally collected.

They indeed and in truth seem very very far from theTORAH and from the Gospel , and have for some time since reading their own words, their own posts;

but - as Jesus and the followers of Jesus see, The Torah, Prophets and Psalms all talk about Jesus, expecially MOSES! So even without a NT..... followers of Jesus receive Truth in and from Scripture.

Right. Even in the absence of a NT (which was yet to be), His people knew.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It really doesn't matter who you regard as a Christian.

Doesn't matter to whom? You? If it doesn't matter to you, then why are you throwing such a fit about the fact that I do not call some people "Christians"?

God decides.

God decides what? What are you saying God decides, here?

The fact is, every person whose vocabulary includes the noun, "Christian", decides to which (if any) persons he or she is going to apply the word, "Christian" ("He/she is a Christian", "They are Christians"), and decides to which (if any) persons he or she is going to refrain from applying the word, "Christian" ("He/she is not a Christian", "They are not Christians", "I do not grant that he/she is a Christian", etc.). Like it or not, you are no exception to this fact; every person whom you call "Christian", it is because you have decided to call them "Christian"; and, every person (if any) whom you refrain from calling "Christian", it is because you have decided to refrain from calling them "Christian". It would be utter madness to deny these obvious facts.

What you're angry about is the fact that you don't get to do others' deciding for them as to whom they are going to call "Christian", and as to whom they are going to refrain from calling "Christian".

Hint: it wasn't by Scripture. The NT didn't even exist in at the time.

By your phrase, "the time", are you referring to the late 3rd Century? Did you really just assert that the New Testament was not written before the late 3rd Century?

 

[Barbarian]

It really doesn't matter who you regard as a Christian.

Doesn't matter to whom?

God. Christians. Among others.

God decides what?

Who is a Christian. Which, BTW, is not the same thing as who will be saved.

The fact is, every person whose vocabulary includes the noun, "Christian", decides to which (if any) persons he or she is going to apply the word, "Christian" ("He/she is a Christian", "They are Christians"), and decides to which (if any) persons he or she is going to refrain from applying the word, "Christian" ("He/she is not a Christian", "They are not Christians", "I do not grant that he/she is a Christian", etc.).

You're just pointing out that everyone has an opinion. Guess how much that matters. What you're angry about here, is you aren't the one who gets to decide. Set your pride aside and let it be God's way.

By your phrase, "the time", are you referring to the late 3rd Century?

That was one of the later persecutions, yes. The NT canon was not established by then.
For the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no entirely agreed-upon canon. Some of Paul's letters and the four Gospels whose authorship were attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were read publicly in certain churches. The earliest record of attempt at compiling a canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely.[9] After the council of Nicaea in year 325, Roman Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to put together accepted Christian Scriptures that would be displayed in churches. However, nothing is known if Eusebius was successful in completing the task.

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A lot of "Christian" Bibles of the time included Gnostic and even stranger material.

Gnosticism held that the physical realm was evil, and Jesus Christ either had a limited humanity or was not a physical human at all and a mere ghost or phantasm. A sort of proto-gnosticism was already arising within Christianity during the time of Paul and the other apostles. The Apostle John argues against it in his second epistle

How Did Gnosticism Influence Early Christianity?

Gnosticism arose during the 1st century CE among early Jewish and Christian groups, and became the leading theological rival to Christianity.

www.thecollector.com

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I thought you claimed to be a Christian.

What do you mean? You thought I claimed to be what you would call "a Christian", OR, you thought I claimed to be what I would call "a Christian"?

Do you know how, during the great persecutions, Christians were able to identify each other?

Like I already said -- and you well know I already said it -- I do not know that by your word "Christians" you are even referring to Christians. So, do you want to just continue mindlessly repeating your parrot routine, over, and over, and over...?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It really doesn't matter who you regard as a Christian.

Ah, I see it wasn't just a typo the first time around; you really are ignorant of something as elementary as the difference between "who" and "whom".

You continue in your tantrum over the fact that I don't call some people, "Christians". Which is you, in your colossal cognitive dissonance, admitting that the fact that I don't call some people, "Christians" really does matter to you.

The NT canon was not established by then.

Was the New Testament already written by Diocletian's lifetime? Yes or No?

If by your phrase, "the NT canon", you are not simply referring to the New Testament, then you're simply blowing more smoke, and trying to run away from yet another fact to which you know you cannot respond rationally. If by your phrase, "the NT canon", you are simply referring to the New Testament, then you have no reason nor excuse for calling the NT "the NT canon", instead of calling it "the NT".

By your phrase, "the NT canon", are you just referring to the NT, that is, to the 27 books that are the NT? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

What you're angry about here, is you aren't the one who gets to decide.

What you are angry about is the fact that I (rather than you) am, indeed, the one who gets to decide which persons I call "Christian", and which persons I do not call "Christian".

Set your pride aside and let it be God's way.

Set your pride aside and stop mistaking yourself for God.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked Barbarian:

Did you really just assert that the New Testament was not written before the late 3rd Century?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Was the New Testament written before the late 3rd Century? Yes or No?

 

[Barbarian]

What do you mean? You thought I claimed to be what you would call "a Christian", OR, you thought I claimed to be what I would call "a Christian"?

Is it possible that English is not your first language?

 

[Barbarian]

Was the New Testament written before the late 3rd Century? Yes or No?

The NT canon was not established by then.
For the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no entirely agreed-upon canon. Some of Paul's letters and the four Gospels whose authorship were attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were read publicly in certain churches. The earliest record of attempt at compiling a canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely.[9] After the council of Nicaea in year 325, Roman Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to put together accepted Christian Scriptures that would be displayed in churches. However, nothing is known if Eusebius was successful in completing the task.
Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

There were lots of documents with various epistles circulating among Christian communities. Some of them were pretty weird and none of them were universally accepted as the word of God by Christians at the time.

The final determination, which eliminated gnostic, Docetist, and other heresies came later. Some books that were accepted by most church leaders as canon did not make the final cut. It's not as simple as you seem to have been taught to believe.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

There was no NT at that time;

To what time are you referring by your phrase, "that time"?

Were the 27 books that are the New Testament already written at the time you are referring to as "that time"? Yes or No?

it was an open question which of those writings were inspired.

Insofar as a person questions whether or not one or more of the God-inspired writings that are the Bible is God-inspires, such a person is not a Christian.

The Gospel at that time was not yet compiled.

To which one of the four Gospels are you referring by your phrase, "the Gospel": Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?

To what time are you referring by your phrase, "that time"?

By "compiled" do you mean written? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Is it possible that English is not your first language?

Says the "scholar" who is ignorant of something as elementary as the difference between "who" and "whom":

It really doesn't matter who you regard as a Christian.

It really doesn't matter who you regard as a Christian.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked Barbarian:

Was the New Testament written before the late 3rd Century? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Either the New Testament was written before the late 3rd Century, or it was not. Your stonewalling against answering this Yes/No question is you advertising that you refuse to conduct yourself in good faith.

Was the New Testament written before the late 3rd Century? YES or NO?

Have fun continuing on with your present stonewalling against, and failure to have answered this question, Barbarian.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked Barbarian:

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Either the New Testament was written before the late 3rd Century, or it was not. Your stonewalling against answering this Yes/No question is you advertising that you refuse to conduct yourself in good faith.

Was the New Testament written before the late 3rd Century? YES or NO?

Have fun continuing to stonewall against this question, Barbarian.

Barbarian, until you have stated either that

1) YES, the New Testament was written before the late 3rd Century, or that

2) NO, the New Testament was not written before the late 3rd Century,

you will continue in your present stonewalling against, and failure to have answered this question:

Was the New Testament written before the late 3rd Century? YES or NO?