The Con Game

Originally posted by sonship
It is hard to remain aloof and indifferent about the words from the mouth of Jesus. You and googlefudge are pristine examples. One has to take a position.

In my case, yes. My family are all Christian, but none of them believe in astrology, or homeopathy. The same goes for the local politicians.

As for the Gospel preacher, he is sent to speak to those who do not believe. So saying "But you don't understand. I don't believe in any of these things" only qualifies that one to hear our preaching.
I see you didn't really answer the question did you? Do people you know not argue against astrology, homeopathy, politics etc when they know that it is fairy tales and they know the person they are arguing with believes those fairy tales?

If you lived in a country with a lot of Muslims, would you avoid discussing the topic with them? Or is Islam not a fairy tale to you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In my case, yes. My family are all Christian, but none of them believe in astrology, or homeopathy. The same goes for the local politicians.

[b]As for the Gospel preacher, he is sent to speak to those who do not believe. So saying "But you don't understand. I don't believe in any of these things" only qualifies that one to hear our preaching.
I s ...[text shortened]... of Muslims, would you avoid discussing the topic with them? Or is Islam not a fairy tale to you?[/b]

It is not complicated. The words of Christ convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. None of these things want to be heard by fallen man, apart from God bestowing mercy to the hearer.

So some argue to dismiss the need to be shown any of these things.

The nature of the truth of the Jesus Christ is such that it does not matter very much if you win this argument, or the argument you make after this argument.

Now maybe googlefudge wrote something I didn't read. I skimmed over some of his words.

If the NT was a fairy tale he'd more likely treat it like the hundreds of sites where children's fairy tales are talked about where neither he nor you most likely have any presence or any activity. He protests too much, like you.

Originally posted by sonship
It is not complicated. The words of Christ convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. None of these things want to be heard by fallen man, apart from God bestowing mercy to the hearer.

And how is that relevant to what I asked?

So some argue to dismiss the need to be shown any of these things.
Well, I am not one of those that do so for that reason. If you think I am, then you are mistaken.

If the NT was a fairly tail he'd treat it like the hundreds of sites where children's fairy tales are talked about where neither he nor you most likely have no presence or activity.
As I have pointed out, if there are people who believe those fairy tales, then maybe he would not.

What is your opinion of the writings of Buddhism? Would you describe them as fairy tales? If not, why not?
What about the Bhagavad Gita?
Why can't you give an honest answer for a change instead of playing at arm chair psychologist (rather badly).

Originally posted by twhitehead
And how is that relevant to what I asked?

[b]So some argue to dismiss the need to be shown any of these things.
Well, I am not one of those that do so for that reason. If you think I am, then you are mistaken.

If the NT was a fairly tail he'd treat it like the hundreds of sites where children's fairy tales are talked about where neither he n ...[text shortened]... give an honest answer for a change instead of playing at arm chair psychologist (rather badly).

Explain further.

Originally posted by sonship
Explain further.

Be specific. What do you want explained?

Originally posted by sonship
It is not complicated. The words of Christ convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. None of these things want to be heard by fallen man, apart from God bestowing mercy to the hearer.

So some argue to dismiss the need to be shown any of these things.

The nature of the truth of the Jesus Christ is such that it does not matter ver ...[text shortened]... either he nor you most likely have any presence or any activity. He protests too much, like you.

It seems obvious to me that you just skim over much of what I write too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems obvious to me that you just skim over much of what I write too.

Not usually, unless you're diving extensively into Creation Science matters.
Science is man's invention. The Bible is God's revelation.

I pay very close attention to your biblical thinking.
And I think it is mainly in the biblical text where the matter of the age of the earth should be settled by the Christian.

At least it should be first settled in the biblical text before we go off with proofs from the human invention of science.

Originally posted by sonship
Not usually, unless you're diving extensively into Creation Science matters.
Science is man's invention. The Bible is God's revelation.

I pay very close attention to your [b]biblical thinking.
And I think it is mainly in the biblical text where the matter of the age of the earth should be settled by the Christian.

At least it should be[i] ...[text shortened]... ] settled in the biblical text before we go off with proofs from the human invention of science.

Well in that case, it should be easy for us to agree to eliminate the billions and millions of years in favor of a few thousand years of past history. About 6000 years is all we can account for from the teaching of the Holy Bible. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well in that case, it should be easy for us to agree to eliminate the billions and millions of years in favor of a few thousand years of past history. About 6000 years is all we can account for from the teaching of the Holy Bible. 😏

Which proves right there the bible is false.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Which proves right there the bible is false.

There is no other source that we can credibly account for more past history. It is ridiculous for evolutionists to declare something is millions of years old based on assumptions that are probably false. They even admit they may be millions of years off even if their assumptions are right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well in that case, it should be easy for us to agree to eliminate the billions and millions of years in favor of a few thousand years of past history. About 6000 years is all we can account for from the teaching of the Holy Bible. 😏

The time of creation and how long has elapsed since is not determined by "all we can account for" from the Bible.

Neither is the number of stars or number of all people born in the past can be determined this way for that matter.

Originally posted by sonship
The time of creation and how long has elapsed since is not determined by "all we can account for" from the Bible.

Neither is the number of stars or number of all people born in the past can be determined this way for that matter.

The time of creation and how long has elapsed since is not determined by "all we can account for" from the Bible.

But a pretty good approximation has been calculated from the Holy Bible of around 6,000 years that is believed to be accurate to within 500 years. That is a much less margin of error than anything evolutionists keep coming up with, even though their estimates keep changining drastically from the time they began their estimates.

Neither is the number of stars or number of all people born in the past can be determined this way for that matter.

Again, the evolutionists keep changing their estimates. But God's word has always declared they are too numerous for man to count.

indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.

But you have said, 'I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.'"

'As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'"

(Genesis 22:17; 32:12; Jeremiah 33:22 NASB)

Originally posted by RJHinds

But a pretty good approximation has been calculated from the Holy Bible of around 6,000 years that is believed to be accurate to within 500 years. That is a much less margin of error than anything evolutionists keep coming up with, even though their estimates keep changining drastically from the time they began their estimates.

The accounting is done in terms of God's priorities. He leaves out what He chooses to leave out. Just as God left out people in the inspired genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. God had His reasons that some people were skipped over.

And the genealogy goes back to the first man. I would not press that it goes back to the beginning of the creation of the universe.

Again, the evolutionists keep changing their estimates. But God's word has always declared they are too numerous for man to count.

Do you define an evolutionist as anyone who does not hold to Ussher's geneological estimates as a rationale to terminate existence at about 6,000 years ago?

Before the theory of evolution was invented some Hebrew readers understood worlds destroyed before Adam was created. They had no reason to need more time to theorize animals changing.

They simply understood the words of Genesis to mean previous judgment.

IE.

" The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."

[The Book of Light, a.k.a Zohar, written by a student of Akiba ben Joseph who was executed in 135 A.D. The writing of Hazzohar or Zohar is traditionally attributed to his disciple Simeon ben Jochai. ]

While I do not say this is Scripture written above, this reflects Hebrew language scholarship of the end of the first century beginning of the second century. They had no cause to think about 19th Century Geology or Darwinism.

Originally posted by sonship

But a pretty good approximation has been calculated from the Holy Bible of around 6,000 years that is believed to be accurate to within 500 years. That is a much less margin of error than anything evolutionists keep coming up with, even though their estimates keep changining drastically from the time they began their estimates.

The acco ...[text shortened]... nning of the second century. They had no cause to think about 19th Century Geology or Darwinism.

The Holy Bible does not say that worlds were destroyed before Adam. It only refers to the world that Adam was created in at the beginning of creation that was made out of water and which was later destroyed by the flooding of water that occurred during Noah's time.

We are now living in the world after that worldwide flood and it is on the same earth that was created in the beginning.

I believe the Holy Bible reveals that there is approximately 6000 years of human history. What others believe is up to them since God gave them free will also.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible does not say that worlds were destroyed before Adam. It only refers to the world that Adam was created in at the beginning of creation that was made out of water and which was later destroyed by the flooding of water that occurred during Noah's time.

We are now living in the world after that worldwide flood and it is on the same earth that ...[text shortened]... 0 years of human history. What others believe is up to them since God gave them free will also.

Genesis 1:2 furnishes ground to say a previous world was made waste and void in judgment.

And I do agree that Peter is speaking of Genesis 1 and 6 most likely.

But the expressions Peter uses are " ... the world then ..." and " ... the heavens and the earth now ..."

That is just "the world THEN ..." as contrasted to "the heavens and the earth NOW ..."

It does not insist that no world previous before Adam could have been made waste and void having nothing to do with human beings. He just speaks of "the world THEN" and "the heavens and the earth NOW".

The moral impact does not suffer because of this kind of interpretation I present. Peter's passage comes short saying OTHER nonhuman beings and that world under Satan's rule could never have became waste and void before man was created and given this world.