Peyton Manning's faith

[MikeVol44]

1. I'm a believer and will say point blank, you won't get that 6K-8K age of the Earth mythical statement from me.

2. Clearly, you're fishing for someone to beat down.
A pity actually, as it puts you on the level of those you wish to beat down. Just saying.

But let me play a little. I never did buy that 6K-8K timeline, even as a newbie. Not sure how it started but I always had the belief that when it came to creation, the Bible told "what" God did. It didn't tell "how' or "when." When I saw what I believed to be pseudo math (1day = 1K years) and realized it was a figurative statement meant for the audience of that time, I was done with it. This comes back to what I said in another post, westerners tend to read the Bible in bits and pieces instead of a whole. Meaning whatever book or work is being studied, what it says is within that work's parameters. Example, if it's Exodus, that's what you study. If it's some letter Paul wrote, that's what you study. In other words you're reading within its intended context. Providing you can override your church affiliation indoctrination.
Otherwise you will fall prey to the patchwork pre-conceptualizations that verse jumping, mixing, concept cooking that lead to beliefs that indeed have no basis in fact or even the actual message of the verse itself. So I concluded long ago the Earth is far older than 6K-8k years. The Bible doesn't say otherwise.

Amazingly, those who won't budge on the pseudo years miss out on the unfolding revelation of today's wonderful scientific discoveries. Example, Genesis says God said let there be be light. There's your big bang and even the doubter Stephen Hawkings says the universe came from nothing. Which is what the Bible also claims. Ok He divides the waters and cause dry land to appear. There's your plate tectonics. And so on.

As our robotic probes venture ever further from Earth, the wonders they reveal is literally verifying so much of what the Bible says. But when you shut your mind behind the door preconceived dogma, you can't see the testimony of nature proclaiming God or much else.

Couple of Scriptures for you to check out:

Genesis 1:31 - 2:2 with Exodus 20:11...These two Scriptures are irrefutable grammatical evidence that the "Days" of Genesis 1 are identical with the 7 day week in both Moses' time (Exodus 20:11) and in our present day week.

Now the verse you quote to say that 1 day = 1000 years comes from II Peter 3 in the New Testament--and indeed carries the same idea that the Psalmist wrote about in Psalm 90:4: For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

A watch in the night is equivalent to 3 hours.

The point being made is: God is not bound by our concepts of time--He inhabits eternity, but God has communicated to us in terms that we can literally understand.

If you will closely examine--as you correctly have spoken concerning the need to determine the CONTEXT--the CONTEXT of 2 Peter chapter 3, verse 8, you will, without doubt, be able to see that Peter is using this terminology to EXPLAIN the PATIENCE of the LORD God in calling all men everywhere to repentance and eternal life.

The God of Heaven, the Creator of the Universe and all that is in it--endlessly pleads with sinful man to repent.

Also--Peter validates the world-wide flood of Genesis 6-8 by reminding his readers that the World was created by the Word of God (Hebrews 11:3) from the water and that the ancient world was also destroyed by the water of the flood. II Peter 3:5-6.

Back up to II Peter 2 to get Peter's warnings that there will be false prophets and teachers among us--and that the LORD God will certainly judge the world for its unbelief and iniquity--just like he did during Noah's time with the flood.

But, coming back to II Peter chapter 3--

Examine how man reacts to the patience and forbearance of God. Man twists the facts about God's patience and actually MOCKS God for His virtue in being patient.

Peter warns them about their insolence--and even refutes one primary presupposition of the evolutionary naturalists of our day: Uniformitariasm--which says that all natural phenomena have operated uniformly since the beginning of the earth.

Peter flat out refutes this theory in his statements made in II Peter 3:5-7.

Then, Peter launches into an explanation of the patience and forbearance of God in verses 8-9 of the chapter,

explaining that the LORD's work is not slow (as man may deem slow), but that the LORD God's virtue of patience actually works for the benefit of man and gives him AMPLE time to repent--just like Noah preached for over 100 years to his society to repent and enter the Ark--into which only 8 souls were delivered from God's wrath while God patiently waited for more to repent over 100 years (I Peter 3:20)!

It's amazing that so many people fail to rightly explain the Word of Truth here.

Therefore, in conclusion--II Peter 3:8 in NO WAY is an attempt to comment and explain the literal 24 hours DAYS mentioned in Genesis 1-2; but is used to explain the patience and forbearance of God in pleading with man to repent.

I, personally, and so thankful for His patience with me in my life. Aren't you? eace2:

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Ok. Who created the nothing?

Either Stephen Hawkings or the villain from the Neverending Story. :dance2:

And that's how you deal with nitpickers who nit and pick unendingly just for the heck of it.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Consider Gen 2:4 which refers to all 6 creative days as one...

The Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Couple of Scriptures for you to check out:

Genesis 1:31 - 2:2 with Exodus 20:11...These two Scriptures are irrefutable grammatical evidence that the "Days" of Genesis 1 are identical with the 7 day week in both Moses' time (Exodus 20:11) and in our present day week.

Now the verse you quote to say that 1 day = 1000 years comes from II Peter 3 in the New Testament--and indeed carries the same idea that the Psalmist wrote about in Psalm 90:4: For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

A watch in the night is equivalent to 3 hours.

The point being made is: God is not bound by our concepts of time--He inhabits eternity, but God has communicated to us in terms that we can literally understand.

If you will closely examine--as you correctly have spoken concerning the need to determine the CONTEXT--the CONTEXT of 2 Peter chapter 3, verse 8, you will, without doubt, be able to see that Peter is using this terminology to EXPLAIN the PATIENCE of the LORD God in calling all men everywhere to repentance and eternal life.

The God of Heaven, the Creator of the Universe and all that is in it--endlessly pleads with sinful man to repent.

Also--Peter validates the world-wide flood of Genesis 6-8 by reminding his readers that the World was created by the Word of God (Hebrews 11:3) from the water and that the ancient world was also destroyed by the water of the flood. II Peter 3:5-6.

Back up to II Peter 2 to get Peter's warnings that there will be false prophets and teachers among us--and that the LORD God will certainly judge the world for its unbelief and iniquity--just like he did during Noah's time with the flood.

But, coming back to II Peter chapter 3--

Examine how man reacts to the patience and forbearance of God. Man twists the facts about God's patience and actually MOCKS God's patience.

Peter warns them about their insolence--and even refutes one primary presupposition of the evolutionary naturalists of our day: Uniformitariasm--which says that all natural phenomena have operated uniformly since the beginning of the earth.

Peter flat out refutes this theory in his statements made in II Peter 3:5-7.

Then, Peter launches into an explanation of the patience and forbearance of God in verses 8-9 of the chapter,

explaining that the LORD's work is not slow (as man may deem slow), but that the LORD God's virtue of patience actually works for the benefit of man and gives him AMPLE time to repent--just like Noah preached for over 100 years to his society to repent and enter the Ark--into which only 8 souls were delivered from God's wrath while God patiently waited for more to repent over 100 years (I Peter 3:20)!

It's amazing that so many people fail to rightly explain the Word of Truth here.

Therefore, in conclusion--II Peter 3:8 in NO WAY is an attempt to comment and explain the literal 24 hours DAYS mentioned in Genesis 1-2; but is used to explain the patience and forbearance of God in pleading with man to repent.

I, personally, and so thankful for His patience with me in my life. Aren't you? eace2:

Been through all those arguments, once advocated them. So won't go through it again. I will tell you a little more about the context business, though. Psalms wasn't all the work of David. And even if it was, Psalms is merely what we'd call hymns today. In other words, they are artistic works. Very much like Christian hymns writers and composers. Thus do not in the strictest sense qualify as Scripture. Nor does the Song of Solomon.

In any case, it appears you're a believer, so am I. Having gone through inter-denominational wars of words in the past, I found them all for naught except to create animosity among people who should be brothers in Christ. So I decline to get into any tit for tat on that issue. All it will do is make non-believers snicker yet again at "those Christians."

 

[omghulkhands]

Definitely no more than 6 - 8,000 years old! And, if you think that "alleged" geological strata serve proof that the earth's crust is the result of long ages--or that any method we humans use to determine age (such as Carbon-14, or Pb/Ur ratio)--you're misguided.

If you want some modern day proof of that--just go and study the aftermath of Mount St. Helens--where you have the formation of strata that Geologists used to claim could only form over millions of year forming in less than 30 days!

Evolutionary "science" is a joke--and is the GREATEST LIE ever imposed on the human race! From Nebraska man to the Piltdown man to the Biology textbooks I studied at UTC where a "scientist" lied about and altered the pictures of a chick embryo's similarities with a human embryo--the history of evolutionary "theory" is laughable!

And, my friend, one of the first rules of science is that an event must be reproducible to be confirmed as valid. Nothing in evolutionary "theory" has ever been able to be reproduced--NOTHING! In fact, the aforementioned events of Mt. St. Helens actually disproves the "scientific theory" of long geological ages.

Also--take a little trip down to Lumpkin, GA to examine Providence Canyon State Park to have your theory of geological ages proven in the Grand Canyon blown completely to "smithereenies..."

Evolution's scientific "validation" is a history of lies and intentional scams. In fact, Evolution is a more like a religion that takes more faith to believe than the Bible.

And remember--Science is nothing more than the power to observe our world and draw conclusions from our observations. Humans have a LONG-standing history of being WRONG when we depend on our ability to observe.

A couple of "simple-minded" points for you to think about:

1) The Law of Entropy (the Universe is a closed system, according to scientists at MIT) governs our planet--and you especially enjoy its applications this time of year and in the summer because your heat pump operates on this Law.

It simply states that energy doesn't run "uphill" any more than water or sewage will run against gravitational pull without an external force acting upon it. Chemically stated--the energy of the products for any chemical reaction must occupy a LOWER energy state than the energy of the reactants--or the reaction will NEVER happen unless a catalyst or outside energy is infused to make it happen (calculated delta G must be negative for any reaction to be "spontaneous." Spontaneous DOES NOT EQUAL instantaneous).

Therefore, the energy of ANY system cannot go from a lower state to a more complex and higher energy state! Now, chew on that scientifically for a while. And,

2) The 1st Law of Thermodynamics that states that matter (and therefore energy) may neither be created or destroyed.

In fact, Einstein won a Nobel prize for coming up with the relationship of E = mc (squared) where E= energy; m = mass; and c = the speed of light.

Einstein therefore said that the Energy of any object is more directly related to the speed of light than the mass of the object--and that equation is the basis for Nuclear Science.

The Bible does in fact, in Genesis 1:3-4, state that God created Light on the first day!

Isaiah 40:22 states that the earth is shaped like a circle--just how did the prophet know that (he wrote somewhere around 700-600 B.C.)--he didn't have a telescope and the ability to observe the planet from space...

Read Job 38--and pray tell, please attempt to scientifically explain the pleiades--the star cluster that is closer together than it should be after all the "alleged" evolutionary years of the earth's existence.

Please don't read any hostility in my writings here, but as someone who has degrees in both Chemistry and Pharmacy--I simply cannot be silent when anyone attempts to use science in an attempt to prove the age of the earth!

Now, go ahead and make your case--but you still have to examine and explain the aforementioned data I have given you. eace2:

So you have a degree in chemistry and you believe carbon dating and half-life are poppycock based on some alleged data garnished this one time at the site of a volcanic eruption?

 

[MikeVol44]

MikeVol44-

You made several very interesting points I had not really considered before as a christian.

However, I don't interpret the Genesis account of creation as 6 literal 24 hour days that occurred some 6,000-8,000 years ago...

Scientist may or may not be correct but even if the universe is billions of years old I see no conflict with the bible.

I understand where you are coming from--but I may point out that if the Bible isn't true and and accurate about the first 7 days of Creation--then it isn't believable ANYWHERE! No one may simply pick and choose what they want to believe and disbelieve in the Scripture.

I know as Americans that we THINK that we have that right, but not from God's perspective. I would encourage you to do some more studying on this subject.

The actual issue boils down to whether man may use the observations of "science" to interpret the Bible. I say no, you cannot. If anyone believes in an "Old Earth"--as in being millions of years old--then they say "yes, they can." I respectfully disagree and have attempted to explain why I disagree. In fact, the actual "Science" is on my side--once you dare to really EXAMINE all the data.

John MacArthur's book "The Battle for the Beginning" is an excellent starting point. Also, check out his website at gty.org.

You may also want to consider the website: The Institute for Creation Research for more information. Henry Morris has an excellent textbook called "The Genesis Record" where many evolutionary claims are debunked.

Also--Hank Hannegraaf has written some excellent works:

1) The FACE that demonstrates the farce of Evolution; and
2) Fatalflaws.

I would ask you to examine Jesus' comments to his religious generation from the Gospel of John, Chapter 5, verses 31-46. Jesus actually told them, "If you do not believe Moses' writings, how will you believe My words?"

Also, closely examine John 5:38-39 & Luke 24:27-45 to see that the complete OT was written to reveal Jesus as the Promised Seed of the Woman in Genesis 3:15.

That's the cool thing about the Bible--It was written in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents by 40 different authors over 1500 years--and has ONE central theme--that the historical Person known as Jesus of Nazareth is the Promised Seed of the Woman, the Seed of Abraham, the Blessed Redeemer, the Word of God, and only begotten of the Father (God), full of Grace and Truth!

Concerning the millions of years--there is no compromise here--either the evolutionists are true, or the Bible is True! There is no room for riding the fence. The Bible's genealogies have never been disproven--in fact, nothing in the Bible has EVER been disproven.

The Genealogies declare that the world-wide flood happened around year 1656--1656 years after Adam was Created. And that the time from Adam to Joseph's death in Egypt took only around 2369 years.

You may examine Genesis 5 and Genesis 11--as well as Genesis 37-48 to work that out. :hi:

 

[MikeVol44]

So you have a degree in chemistry and you believe carbon dating and half-life are poppycock based on some alleged data garnished this one time at the site of a volcanic eruption?

yeah, you sure can--if you dare to study what the geologists claim--and the BASIS for why they claim that there are millions of years involved in geological ages.

The facts are this: if you use those same presuppositions when you study the geological strata produce from one volcanic explosion--you find our that what we have LITERALLY SEEN with our own eyes--that ACTUALLY happened in a period of 30 days--the Geologists, with their Carbon dating, and other stuff--will say happened over millions of years! Madness!

Also--you can see "bends" in the geological strata in sections of strata less than 100 yds long that argue against "millions of years" for formation.

The information is all out there if you care to examine and research it for yourself--and it's not very hard to find, either--if you are willing. eace2:

 

[Jxn Vol]

Either Stephen Hawkings or the villain from the Neverending Story. :dance2:

And that's how you deal with nitpickers who nit and pick unendingly just for the heck of it.

Just proving a point. You can call it nit picking. Nice use of sarcasm. Still have to plug a creator in somewhere. Hawking, Neverending villain, or God.

 

[MikeVol44]

Been through all those arguments, once advocated them. So won't go through it again. I will tell you a little more about the context business, though. Psalms wasn't all the work of David. And even if it was, Psalms is merely what we'd call hymns today. In other words, they are artistic works. Very much like Christian hymns writers and composers. Thus do not in the strictest sense qualify as Scripture. Nor does the Song of Solomon.

In any case, it appears you're a believer, so am I. Having gone through inter-denominational wars of words in the past, I found them all for naught except to create animosity among people who should be brothers in Christ. So I decline to get into any tit for tat on that issue. All it will do is make non-believers snicker yet again at "those Christians."

I understand completely--and am not in the least trying to be argumentative or berate you. However, take the Psalm quote I mentioned out of the equation--and the literal, and grammatical rules still apply to II Peter 2 & 3.

Peter is clearly using figurative language in II Peter 3:8 to demonstrate the patience and forbearance of God in CONTEXT of the verses. I just used the Psalm quote to point out that Peter's view is not foreign to the Old Testament--regardless of whether it's a song or a proverb. And--he is in no way attempting to disprove the 6 literal, 24hr periods mention in both Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

Also--II Peter 1:20-21 also states that we are not allowed to interpret the Bible any way we desire. There is one way to interpret it because it is an OBJECTIVE record of TRUTH.

Finally--they may snicker all they want to at the truth--but the real issue is whether or not they will come to repent and put their FAITH & TRUST in the LORD Jesus--and message may only be the conclusion of literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation of the objective truth of the Scripture. eace2:

 

[volprof]

I understand where you are coming from--but I may point out that if the Bible isn't true and and accurate about the first 7 days of Creation--then it isn't believable ANYWHERE! No one may simply pick and choose what they want to believe and disbelieve in the Scripture.

I know as Americans that we THINK that we have that right, but not from God's perspective. I would encourage you to do some more studying on this subject.

The actual issue boils down to whether man may use the observations of "science" to interpret the Bible. I say no, you cannot. If anyone believes in an "Old Earth"--as in being millions of years old--then they say "yes, they can." I respectfully disagree and have attempted to explain why I disagree. In fact, the actual "Science" is on my side--once you dare to really EXAMINE all the data.

John MacArthur's book "The Battle for the Beginning" is an excellent starting point. Also, check out his website at gty.org.

You may also want to consider the website: The Institute for Creation Research for more information. Henry Morris has an excellent textbook called "The Genesis Record" where many evolutionary claims are debunked.

Also--Hank Hannegraaf has written some excellent works:

1) The FACE that demonstrates the farce of Evolution; and
2) Fatalflaws.

I would ask you to examine Jesus' comments to his religious generation from the Gospel of John, Chapter 5, verses 31-46. Jesus actually told them, "If you do not believe Moses' writings, how will you believe My words?"

Also, closely examine John 5:38-39 & Luke 24:27-45 to see that the complete OT was written to reveal Jesus as the Promised Seed of the Woman in Genesis 3:15.

That's the cool thing about the Bible--It was written in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents by 40 different authors over 1500 years--and has ONE central theme--that the historical Person known as Jesus of Nazareth is the Promised Seed of the Woman, the Seed of Abraham, the Blessed Redeemer, the Word of God, and only begotten of the Father (God), full of Grace and Truth!

Concerning the millions of years--there is no compromise here--either the evolutionists are true, or the Bible is True! There is no room for riding the fence. The Bible's genealogies have never been disproven--in fact, nothing in the Bible has EVER been disproven.

The Genealogies declare that the world-wide flood happened around year 1656--1656 years after Adam was Created. And that the time from Adam to Joseph's death in Egypt took only around 2369 years.

You may examine Genesis 5 and Genesis 11--as well as Genesis 37-48 to work that out. :hi:

Have you ever considered that what was written about Jesus was written with a knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures in mind? I remember when I was 15 or 16 and went to high school one day selling a similar argument as yours (when I was a believer). My Geography teacher just looked at me, and basically just asked the same thing of me that I just asked of you. I was dumbfounded and didn't know how to respond. And that was the beginning of the end for me, although the end wouldn't officially be consummated for some years later.

Regardless, the prospect that the New Testament writers wrote about Jesus's life with the Old Testament in mind doesn't disprove his teachings or his godhood. So, don't take that as my point here.

 

[vols_fan_68]

Ok. Who created the nothing?

Who created god?

 

[volprof]

I understand completely--and am not in the least trying to be argumentative or berate you. However, take the Psalm quote I mentioned out of the equation--and the literal, and grammatical rules still apply to II Peter 2 & 3.

Peter is clearly using figurative language in II Peter 3:8 to demonstrate the patience and forbearance of God in CONTEXT of the verses. I just used the Psalm quote to point out that Peter's view is not foreign to the Old Testament--regardless of whether it's a song or a proverb. And--he is in no way attempting to disprove the 6 literal, 24hr periods mention in both Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

Also--II Peter 1:20-21 also states that we are not allowed to interpret the Bible any way we desire. There is one way to interpret it because it is an OBJECTIVE record of TRUTH.

Finally--they may snicker all they want to at the truth--but the real issue is whether or not they will come to repent and put their FAITH & TRUST in the LORD Jesus--and message may only be the conclusion of literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation of the objective truth of the Scripture. eace2:

I'm still trying to decipher if you really believe what you're saying or just a crafty troll. You all but admit that figurative language can be used in one part of the Bible but that we are to interpret it (the Bible and its essential message/happenings/events) as literal and not figurative. Any time figurative language is used it opens up interpretation. Furthermore, any literary scholar (such as myself) worth his or her weight will tell you that the idea that any piece of writing can be objective is completely untenable. Language doesn't work that way. Rather, language constructs our realities. It's all in Saussure. Are you can look at Derrida for the ultimate debunking of language and how it works. Of course, neither of these men were apostles or biblical scribes, so take their word with a grain of salt.

 

[MikeVol44]

Have you ever considered that what was written about Jesus was written with a knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures in mind? I remember when I was 15 or 16 and went to high school one day selling a similar argument as yours (when I was a believer). My Geography teacher just looked at me, and basically just asked the same thing of me that I just asked of you. I was dumbfounded and didn't know how to respond. And that was the beginning of the end for me, although the end wouldn't officially be consummated for some years later.

Regardless, the prospect that the New Testament writers wrote about Jesus's life with the Old Testament in mind doesn't disprove his teachings or his godhood. So, don't take that as my point here.

Sure I have taken that in mind--your Geography teacher accused you of circular reasoning--but the fact is--your Geography teacher could not explain away that a man claiming to be God in the flesh--a literal man, Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilled every OT prophecy written about Messiah--and that they were written at least 600-1500 years before he appeared.

The point being--there was, regardless of WHEN it was written about--a man named Jesus--born of a VIRGIN, born in Bethlehem--who died as a criminal on a Roman cross--who was buried, who was resurrected from the dead 3 days later. Also--almost every writer of the New Testament DIED from preaching this same message--I would ask both you and your Geography teacher--why would men--multiple men--claiming to be eyewitnesses--give up everything just to advance a lie?

Would you? :hi:

 

[TheGoodStuff]

MikeVol-

I appreciate your comments however still curious of your interpretation of Gen 2:4 (previous post you may have missed) which refers to all 6 creative days as one.

 

[MikeVol44]

I'm still trying to decipher if you really believe what you're saying or just a crafty troll. You all but admit that figurative language can be used in one part of the Bible but that we are to interpret it (the Bible and its essential message/happenings/events) as literal and not figurative. Any time figurative language is used it opens up interpretation. Furthermore, any literary scholar (such as myself) worth his or her weight will tell you that the idea that any piece of writing can be objective is completely untenable. Language doesn't work that way. Rather, language constructs our realities. It's all in Saussure. Are you can look at Derrida for the ultimate debunking of language and how it works. Of course, neither of these men were apostles or biblical scribes, so take their word with a grain of salt.

I'm sorry, my friend, but language is NOT subjective. Language--in order to communicate an idea or concept, MUST be attached to concrete (objective) meaning.

The point being--CONTEXT--determines whether the text should be interpreted literally or figuratively. For example--poetry uses literal words attached to objective concepts in order to communicate subjective emotions.

When the Bible describes the LORD God as being a ROCK, or My HIGH TOWER--the author is using words that represent literal, physical, objective things to communicate anthropomorphic truth.

And to answer your questions--YES! I am certainly NO TROLL--I believe EVERYTHING that I've written on here to be literally TRUE. And the objective basis upon which I make those claims is the FACT that Jesus of Nazareth was a literal, physical, man--the ONLY GOD-MAN--who really, literally, physically lived and walked this earth some 2,000 years ago.

Please just examine your statements to me: How can you know or believe anything if the words you use to communicate with do not have literal, objective meanings? It's just madness to believe otherwise.

I mean, just why do we have language if not to communicate literal, physical, objective realities? Even the men who have scrolled pictures on the walls of caves used their pictures to represent literal, physical, objective things of this world--like horses, men, bows and arrows, trees, chariots, etc..etc..etc...:hi:

 

[Jxn Vol]

Who created god?

God

 

[Remy]

Can you imagine all the total condemnations and counseling about going to Hell would take place if Peyton Manning came out as a very solid strong supporter and believer and claimed membership in the Lutheran Church (pick any Christian denomination other than Baptist, CoC, or Roman Catholic to fill in that same blank)? Peyton never to be considered a dummy by anybody has chosen to keep his faith and views of it private ... for very good reason IMO.

 

[volprof]

Sure I have taken that in mind--your Geography teacher accused you of circular reasoning--but the fact is--your Geography teacher could not explain away that a man claiming to be God in the flesh--a literal man, Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilled every OT prophecy written about Messiah--and that they were written at least 600-1500 years before he appeared.

The point being--there was, regardless of WHEN it was written about--a man named Jesus--born of a VIRGIN, born in Bethlehem--who died as a criminal on a Roman cross--who was buried, who was resurrected from the dead 3 days later. Also--almost every writer of the New Testament DIED from preaching this same message--I would ask both you and your Geography teacher--why would men--multiple men--claiming to be eyewitnesses--give up everything just to advance a lie?

Would you? :hi:

So you basically just out-circular reasoned us, huh? I'll say again: have you ever considered that the events the NT claims happened to Jesus were written with OT prophecy in mind? Given that our historical records on Jesus are ambiguous (outside of the Bible, which I don't consider an historical record due to obvious biases), I don't think you can say with certainty that Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies. Of course, you can retort that you can't say with certainty that he didn't. Touche.

As far as the men and women willing to die because of their beliefs, there's no good answer for that. Jewish nationalism? A culture that propagated religious fanaticism and zealotry? Who knows. But I do know this: there were hundreds of men and women willing to die for Jim Jones in Guyana, and there were dozens of people willing to die because of Heaven's Gate and the Hale-Bopp comet, so let's not act like the actions of those who may or may have not known Jesus were anything exceptional in human history. And it certainly isn't grounds for proving the truth of his existence or his deity.

 

[Other_Guy]

Doesnt really answer the question.

Figured i'd explain why instead of just answering it

 

[volprof]

I'm sorry, my friend, but language is NOT subjective. Language--in order to communicate an idea or concept, MUST be attached to concrete (objective) meaning.

The point being--CONTEXT--determines whether the text should be interpreted literally or figuratively. For example--poetry uses literal words attached to objective concepts in order to communicate subjective emotions.

When the Bible describes the LORD God as being a ROCK, or My HIGH TOWER--the author is using words that represent literal, physical, objective things to communicate anthropomorphic truth.

And to answer your questions--YES! I am certainly NO TROLL--I believe EVERYTHING that I've written on here to be literally TRUE. And the objective basis upon which I make those claims is the FACT that Jesus of Nazareth was a literal, physical, man--the ONLY GOD-MAN--who really, literally, physically lived and walked this earth some 2,000 years ago.

Please just examine your statements to me: How can you know or believe anything if the words you use to communicate with do not have literal, objective meanings? It's just madness to believe otherwise.

I mean, just why do we have language if not to communicate literal, physical, objective realities? Even the men who have scrolled pictures on the walls of caves used their pictures to represent literal, physical, objective things of this world--like horses, men, bows and arrows, trees, chariots, etc..etc..etc...:hi:

"The Lord, your God, is a rock." This can mean that God is like a rock, as you say. It can also mean that he is a literal rock. You say context helps determine interpretation, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that; however, here's your problem: how in the world do you know what the actual historical contexts of scripture are?

 

[MikeVol44]

MikeVol-

I appreciate your comments however still curious of your interpretation of Gen 2:4 (previous post you may have missed) which refers to all 6 creative days as one.

First of all--it's not my interpretation of anything. There are specific rules of grammar and for determining context in language.

Concerning Genesis 2:4--the Hebrew word is yowm--and it may be used to represent a period of time or a literal 24 hour period we use for one day.

The determinant factor is CONTEXT--and adjectives used to modify the noun.

In Genesis 1--you have both adjectives and the time period specified--the evening and the morning--the 1st day, and so forth.

Genesis 2:1-4 is a summation of the events of the last 7 days--

Also--when the Hebrew noun, Yowm, or yom, is used in Scripture--it always refers to a 24 hour period when preceeded by a number to qualify it.

See Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 and compare it with Exodus 20:11.

Genesis 1:5..."evening and the morning, one day.
Genesis 1:8..."...And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."
Genesis 1:13, 19, 23, and verse 31 ALL use specific phrases and numerical adjectives to DEFINE the specific period for YOM in those verses.

Exodus 20:10-11 does the same thing:
but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

How would Moses know anything if the word for days here were not 24 hours periods--as specified for him, just like in Genesis 1 in the Creation.

Now, compare the aforementioned with Genesis 2:4 and the answer to your question becomes OBVIOUS.

Genesis 2:4 says:
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

The subject in the sentence is 'THE ACCOUNT'...every phrase after that is used to modify THE ACCOUNT as the subject. That's why I say that 2:1-4 is a SUMMATION of the previous 7 days of Creation.

Therefore, IN CONTEXT of its usage, the Hebrew word used as a noun for a specific period of time may change dependent on specific adjectives or phrases used to further clarify the context.

In Genesis 2:4--it is used to describe the 7 day period of time in order to modify the subject of the sentence.

This is not being inconsistent, nor is it being selective. Rather, it is following the rules of language.

Furthermore, we may do the same thing with the word trunk. Can you think of all the different meanings for the word trunk? Well, how on earth would you know which meaning should be used to understand what it being said?--context of conversation!

Gotta Fly--time has expired for me on VN today!

God Bless! :hi:

 

[WoodsmanVol]

I understand completely--and am not in the least trying to be argumentative or berate you. However, take the Psalm quote I mentioned out of the equation--and the literal, and grammatical rules still apply to II Peter 2 & 3.

Peter is clearly using figurative language in II Peter 3:8 to demonstrate the patience and forbearance of God in CONTEXT of the verses. I just used the Psalm quote to point out that Peter's view is not foreign to the Old Testament--regardless of whether it's a song or a proverb. And--he is in no way attempting to disprove the 6 literal, 24hr periods mention in both Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

Also--II Peter 1:20-21 also states that we are not allowed to interpret the Bible any way we desire. There is one way to interpret it because it is an OBJECTIVE record of TRUTH.

Finally--they may snicker all they want to at the truth--but the real issue is whether or not they will come to repent and put their FAITH & TRUST in the LORD Jesus--and message may only be the conclusion of literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation of the objective truth of the Scripture. eace2:

What Bible do consider the most accurate translation of the original works?

 

[MikeVol44]

So you basically just out-circular reasoned us, huh? I'll say again: have you ever considered that the events the NT claims happened to Jesus were written with OT prophecy in mind? Given that our historical records on Jesus are ambiguous (outside of the Bible, which I don't consider an historical record due to obvious biases), I don't think you can say with certainty that Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies. Of course, you can retort that you can't say with certainty that he didn't. Touche.

As far as the men and women willing to die because of their beliefs, there's no good answer for that. Jewish nationalism? A culture that propagated religious fanaticism and zealotry? Who knows. But I do know this: there were hundreds of men and women willing to die for Jim Jones in Guyana, and there were dozens of people willing to die because of Heaven's Gate and the Hale-Bopp comet, so let's not act like the actions of those who may or may have not known Jesus were anything exceptional in human history. And it certainly isn't grounds for proving the truth of his existence or his deity.

Gotta run, but just a few things here--I cannot discern whether you are a skeptic or not. One overarching truth of the Bible is that God NEVER attempts to prove His existence for the skeptics--nor is the Bible written to answer all of the questions of the skeptic.

Secondly, no--no one has out-circular reasoned anyone.

Thirdly, the HISTORICAL FACT that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical human being who walked this earth has to be dealt with--No circular reasoning may deny this FACT.

Finally, I'm not quite sure that I understand exactly what you are trying to say--

I have assumed that your Geography teacher was attempting to say that the NT writers contrived not only a person named Jesus, but also studied in detail the prophecies in the OT to make sure that He fit EVERY SINGLE one of them? Is that correct?

By the way--there are over 300 prophecies about Him in the OT--and for the NT writers to independently contrive the same story over the 60 years it took to write the NT seems a little ridiculous--especially since all but one of them paid with their lives--without experiencing ANY MONETARY gain!

They lost ALL--family relationships, money, property, and jobs to proclaim the Gospel of God concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.

And you are right--neither the OT or the NT actually PROVES that God exists--THEY BOTH just DECLARE IT with no attempts to prove the validity of what they are claiming--which is COMPLETELY unlike ANY HUMAN being.

If there's anything that we humans want to do--It's to PROVE that we are right--that's why you and I are having this discussion.

Also--to answer a question from another of your responses--How do I know that God is not a rock?

Have you ever heard of a rock claiming anything? A rock doesn't speak, has no life, it not a person, cannot know anything or feel anything--a rock is just a rock!

Therefore, we may eliminate the conclusion that God is claiming to be a rock--and then examine what exactly God is trying to describe Himself as--He is unmoving, unchangeable, He is timeless, He is constant, He is solid, He can be built upon (unlike unstable sand).

As I write this--I'm staring out of my window at a tree that is over 100 years old--and two millstones made of concrete that my grandfather placed over 60 years ago on both sides of the driveway. They all were here before me and will be here for a long, long time after I have perished.

Hope that helps! Now, gotta really go! I'm sure that I've given you enough to chew on--or to spit out--either way--it is God who has granted to you the choice--CHOOSE wisely! :hi:

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

Definitely no more than 6 - 8,000 years old!:

Really sad you believe this.

How do you explain dinosaurs? They roamed the earth some 200 million years ago. If god created the earth he had to have created the dinosaurs too right? But according to you the earth is only 6000 years old? So are dinosaurs not real? I just dont understand how you can believe everything geologists and scientists claim to be completely false and instead accept as fact something that can never be proven and all evidence says otherwise.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

And where did you learn about the Bible as well? Admittedly it states "the circle of earth" in the NKJV. That sounds amazing until you learn that the NKJV was transcribed in the 1970s. If medieval and Renaissance scientists thought for a second that their versions of the Bible said that the Earth was round, you better bet that's what their science would have confirmed as well. The Church was nothing to be played with back in those days. Read about Copernicus and Gallileo.

I learned through study, which means I (like others) have looked beyond today's interpretations to help understand the scripture. If you would care to scratch even a little below the surface you'll understand why the NKJV was interpreted that way. There are other verses as well, but I'm sure you can do the research.