Christian Readers discussion

It's great, in fact it's preferable, to back up our claims about what Scripture says with actual Scripture. Of course we should do that, and we should expect and demand it of others as well.

But...some use Scripture in ways that are less than honest, or at the very least less than clarifying and illuminating.

Let me explain.

Those who have some Biblical knowledge, whether our understanding and belief is correct or incorrect, have filters, lenses, through which we see in Scripture what we expect to see. What we already believe is there. What we were taught to see.

This means, for example, if I'm having a conversation with a Mormon and that Mormon quotes a passage of Scripture, I read that passage, understand it as I understand it, and agree.

I then provide a passage of Scripture for the Mormon. He reads it, understands it as he understands it, and agrees.

Are we in actual agreement about what these passages say? Not necessarily. And in the case of me vs a Mormon, most likely not.

And, if I am not confident or knowledgeable enough to explain the passage to the Mormon as I understand it, and support that explanation with additional scripture, if all I can do is copy and paste Scripture passages, it will be very hard for each of us to even correctly understand each other's position, much less say anything at all that addresses the errors of Mormonism.

It's perfectly fine to not simply want men giving their views and opinions without backing it up with Scripture. But conversations and teachings about Biblical ideas and what the Bible actually says, becomes very difficult if one refuses to listen or hear anything other than Biblical passages.

This tactic is also used by some, typically cult members, to promote passages they believe support their view, while disregarding and ignoring all the passages on that topic that contradict their view and opinion.

It may not have been intentional, but this is why the phrasing of the question in another thread, "Please list the Scriptures that lead you to believe the earth is OLD ." doesn't really work.

I'll explain.

The passages of scripture that OEC feel support OE theory are the same passages of scripture that YEC feel support YE theory. The issue is interpretation of those passages. And for that more is needed than simply referencing or quoting Scripture.

The question, as asked, is a setup. Rather the question that should have been asked is, "How do OEC reconcile that with Scripture" or "How is OE theory consistent with Scripture"?

A question that asked for an explanation, but one that gives Scriptural support.

Otherwise all you get are people quoting Scripture at each other, each reading that Scripture through their own lens, interpreting it as they interpret it, without any way to hear, much less understand or even dispute, the other position.

Yes, often Catholics, Charismatics, fundamentalists, and cults will use the same words and verses with very different meanings.
Often a long conversation is required... few seem willing to do this.

Rod wrote: "Yes, often Catholics, Charismatics, fundamentalists, and cults will use the same words and verses with very different meanings.
Often a long conversation is required... few seem willing to do this."

Agreed. I used to deal with a Mormon who would quote verse after verse after verse asserting that works are required for salvation. But of course ignoring all those that clearly say otherwise.

A fun verse that I've been challenging (as I read scripture more carefully than ever).

Genesis 2
5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,

I've heard many people assume that it never rained till Noah's flood. But that's not exactly what scripture says. We need to read carefully.

Rod wrote: "I've heard many people assume that it never rained till Noah's flood. But that's not exactly what scripture says. We need to read carefully. "

Agreed.

There is also a common understanding/assumption that there was no physical death prior to the Fall, but that's not really necessarily the case.

Exhibit B

This exchange:

"Can you prove from the bible that the earth is young? No you can’t. It’s an assumption you enter the scriptures with. You are so small minded that you cannot really read your bible. I feel sorry for you."

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

"Jesus said... Matthew 4:4 - "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God ."

Thanks for JUDGMENTAL OPINION ... I will continue to AGREE WITH JESUS !"

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Notice the use of Scripture here. It's not used to address what the other commenter asked, it's used as a tactic to avoid it.

Did Jesus really mean here that when asking people to provide scripture " that lead you to believe the earth is OLD", you should not admit that you cannot prove from the bible that the earth is young? Or demonstrate how you feel you can? Or that you shouldn't hold yourself to the same standard you're asking of others? Because doing so would mean you don't "live by" "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God ."

Somehow, I doubt it.

Rather, this verse here is ripped out of context to not only avoid and deflect, but to judge and insult.

While asking others to provide scripture "that lead you to believe the earth is OLD", and when challenged to do the same regarding a young earth" the response is, in essence, "I believe Jesus!".

Well, that's handy, isn't it? We Christians could use that as an answer to pretty much anything. So could Mormons. And JWs. And tons of other people. Including OECs. If that's a valid response to a question, then it's a valid response to the question in reverse - the one the OP asked.

Would it clarify anything? Bring any sort of understanding? Doubtful.

Let's look at that verse in context:

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him."

Matthew 4:1:11

Acts 17:11 - "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."
_________________________________

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Robert wrote: "Acts 17:11 - "These were
more noble
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and
searched the scriptures daily
, whether those things were so."
..."

Thanks for giving me more material to work with! I'll put this on the list :D

Robert wrote: "BEFORE the Fall... God said EVERYTHING was VERY GOOD.

I am curious, where does God ever describe DEATH as "very good"?

Genesis 1:31 - "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
"

Off topic, but I admit that's my fault (and Rob's).

Feel free to start a thread on that one, should be an interesting discussion.

Robert wrote: "You're welcome. In light of that, please quote any Bible verse that CLEARLY leads one to believe in an old earth.

Also, explain why no one in the first 1,800 years of Christianity missed the Bible verses that you are going to quote."

Go pee in your own pool for that one, Robert.

Robert wrote: "You must have LIMITED exposure to cults. I have NEVER heard a cult member just QUOTE the Bible without ADDING all kinds of personal commentary and private interpretation..."

I've spent over a decade debating theology with Muslims, Mormons and JWs, as well as assorted others, on a daily basis.

My exposure to cults is not at all limited.

That is how I am already well familiar with many of the dishonest tactics you habitually employ. Your behavior is distressingly similar.

Yes, some individuals do quote the Bible without commentary. Of course what they believe it says and what it actually says, tends to be significantly different. Their own interpretation is certainly there, although not always stated.

"...as if the Word of God CANNOT stand on its own!"

It can, taken as a whole. However many unfortunately enjoy picking and choosing parts, ripping them out of context, ignoring other parts that illuminate the topic, and then think they've proven it means something it doesn't actually mean.

Kinda like you do sometimes :D

Well said.

Some verses cannot actually stand on their own : scripture must be read and understood as a whole.

Luke 14
26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

We must quote many verses to then attempt to explain this verse. We may even have to "Gulp!?" Give our opinion and experience to explain this issue.

Very few people are willing to sit for 80 hours while Robert reads them the entire bible (while emphasizing and interpreting the text with his personal inflections and body language). Unless he's planning on reading it as a robot with cold indifference.

Acts 17:11 - "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."
_________________________________

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This isn't a right and wrong issue of scripture Robert. Once again, you are missing the point with your arrogance and lack of understanding.

God's word is HUGE. And seldom fully understood. (Except by you and your simple unbiased interpretation of course)

Acts 17:11 - "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."
_________________________________

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Robert wrote: "HAHAHAHAHA... this coming from someone who is DECEPTIVE and AVOIDS quoting the Bible to address the questions..."

I'm done with your lies and deception, Robert. Doesn't mean I won't still point them out. But I'm done thinking you even remotely care about being honest.

"...but rather quotes the Bible like the CULTS do... as a DIVERSION to discredit the Word of God..."

That fits you, Robert, at least using God's Word as a diversion. I've already proven that.

I have never discredited the Word of God. Just another of your false accusations because I have the audacity to stand against you and your dishonest tactics.

You won't derail this thread. Everything from now on that you post will be saved until I have time to address it as an example of what NOT to do.

Exhibit C

Asserting, claiming, attempting to make it appear as, someone said something they did not say. Includes misquoting.

This is another dishonest and deceptive tactic. Sometimes it's used to try to discredit someone, and damage their reputation, sometimes it's used to set up a Strawman argument, and address what someone did not say, while avoiding what they actually did say.

Example: (EDIT TO ADD - I'm striking out this example, because on re-read I see I likely misunderstood what Robert meant here. In that, I don't think he was claiming I said "NOT offering any Bible verses is NOT valid Bible study!", I think he meant that not offering any Bible verses isn't valid Bible study. Which, while not a dispute of my statement - if he meant it as one - it's also not an erroneous claim about what I said. However, as I do have other examples where he did make such false accusations, I'll leave the rest of the post.
Note to Robert: See, when you make an error - fess up!)

"Robert wrote: "My question was intended to see if there is ANY Bible passage that leads people to old earth opinions."

I think I've already pointed out that claim isn't credible.

"So far, my conclusion is RIGHT... there are NONE (neither you nor Rod have offered any)... "

Since you'd already come to your conclusion it's a mystery why you think anyone would bother.

I sure wouldn't, because:

1. You've already made up your mind.
2. You are not actually curious.
3. Ripping verses out of context isn't valid Biblical study.
4. You've already demonstrated to me that attempting to assist you in any way is a complete waste of time.
5. It's not an issue I think is worth debating among Christians. Discussion, sure, curiosity to understand another point of view, sure. Debate, no.

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." ~ origins of quote disputed."

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Response:

"Alexandra wrote: "3. Ripping verses out of context isn't valid Biblical study..."

LOL!!!!!!!

NOT offering any Bible verses is NOT valid Bible study! ROFL!!!! "

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Do you see it?

I said, "Ripping verses out of context isn't valid Biblical study."

Robert pretends to think I said, "NOT offering any Bible verses is NOT valid Bible study"

That's dishonest, and it's a very common tactic used by usually cult members and adherents of false religions, but sadly we see here even some who claim to be Christians resort to it.

Christians should never resort to such dishonest tactics. It damages our credibility, our witness, our reputation, and the reputation of our fellow brothers and sisters, not to mention Scripture and our Savior.

WE stand on the truth. The truth doesn't need to be defended with lies or deception or dishonest methods. The false religions need to do this because their religions are not true and cannot stand under scrutiny.

Robert wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "I think I've already pointed out that claim isn't credible..."

My response: Alexandra is doing exactly what she falsely claims I am doing...

Alexandra wrote: "Asserting, claimin..."

See my previous response to you.

Exhibit C-b

Here is another example:

I said:

"I'm familiar with the fact that many Christians use the term "pagan" to mean unbeliever, but also with the fact that Paganism is a specific category of religious belief.

So, I'm not sure which meaning you're intending, but I can agree Robert's beliefs have some serious issues, as does his attitude. ;) "

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Robert responded:

"Alexandra wrote: "So, I'm not sure which meaning you're intending, but I can agree Robert's beliefs have some serious issues, as does his attitude. ;) ,..."

LOL!!!!!! Believing the Bible is defined by you to be "having serious issues!"

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

It's clear to see I did not say what Robert claims I said.

Christians have no business with such dishonest tactics. Lying is a sin, and even non-Christians know such trickery is not in line with Christian morals and values.

Exhibit C-c

Steve says (quoting Augustine, and in part), "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; "

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Robert responds, ""Steve wrote: "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; ..."

LOL! Stephen says the Bible is DISGRACEFUL... Moses KNEW creation was SIX DAYS..."

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Not only is that not What Steve said, what Steve did say was a quote from Augustine, not what he himself was saying.

Exhibit D

This one is a bit of a tip. Example:

"I was honestly ASKING old earthers to tell me the verses that led them to believe in old earth fables."

Can you spot the problem here?

In "honestly" asking people who believe differently a question about those beliefs, a disparaging remark is included.

This doesn't suggest the question is honest curiosity, and is likely to cause those that do believe this to feel dismissed and insulted. Not really a good way to inspire people to actually answer.

Another example: I spent a significant amount of time discussing and debating theology with Mormons. I do consider Mormonism a cult, and certainly it is a false religion. However if I asked a Mormon something like:

"Tell me what your cult teaches about Salvation."

It's unlikely they'd take that as an honest question, or feel very motivated to give me an answer, at least not an honest one.

The person who asked the question I quoted defended it by saying,

"Declaring TRUTH is always right."

Humm. Certainly I think we should be wise in deciding what to say and how to say it. Sure, we should be truthful, but that doesn't mean we need to speak every true thing all the time, in all situations, and right up front.

Declaring yourself already hostile to a position, and already contemptuous of those who hold it, really isn't the way to ask a question and think you'll actually get an answer.

Exhibit E

Continuing to make a claim after others have challenged it, without demonstrating it's actually true.

Example:

In this thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Robert continues to state he is "convinced" of something:

"I am completely convinced that old earth beliefs are the result of the vast acceptance of evolution and NOT anything contained in the Bible."

Even after being informed multiple times, and by two different people, that it is incorrect.

Here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

And there are more.

Once challenged, the person has two legitimate and honest responses. First they can accept the correction. Or, secondly they can refute the correction by providing evidence that they are correct and the challengers are not. Well, there's a third option - acknowledging the challenge, admitting not having enough information to either prove or disprove, decide it's not worth the trouble to do so, and simply accept it's a challenged fact and stop repeating it.

Ignoring the challenge as if it did not exist is just a tactic to avoid dealing with a fact that is inconvenient or doesn't serve the agenda. Something someone would not do if their agenda is the truth.

Here Robert only serves to make himself appear foolish, as he's been repeatedly corrected that what he had thought is incorrect, yet fails to acknowledge it or address it, and continues to repeat the same error.

This damages his credibility. For if someone refuses to correct themselves when stating something that is incorrect that is noticed, how much else are they stating that is incorrect that the audience doesn't spot or doesn't have knowledge about to be able to know what is correct and what is incorrect.

Exhibit F

Failing to answer an honest and valid question.

Robert asserted, "Jesus wants ALL believers to LIVE BY EVERY Word from God... this includes Genesis..."

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

He was then asked,

"How does one live by the fact that God created the world in seven days? How is it applicable in day to day life?"

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

His response:

"David wrote: "How does one live by the fact that God created the world in seven days? How is it applicable in day to day life? ..."

Are you saying that Jesus is WRONG to say...

Matthew 4:4 - "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.""

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Clearly not an answer to the question asked. And, unsurprisingly, David noticed. He replied,

"You haven't answered my question, though. In response, you can't live "by" something that is descriptive, not prescriptive-with some exception vis-a-vis Jesus' own life- so your point is moot. For instance, one wouldn't live "by" the breadth of the temple of Solomon or the 10 plagues. Sure, they showcase God's wisdom and power, but they're not necessarily "words that proceed out of the mouth of God," are they?"

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

To which Robert responded,

"Sorry David... but I BELIEVE Jesus...

Matthew 4:4 - "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Certainly there are times it's warranted to ignore or disregard questions. Questions are often used to simply deflect away from a point (as Robert's question here actually is), or some other disingenuous purpose. However it doesn't look good when an honest and valid question is asked and not answered. At least an honest "I don't know" or "I can't really explain it" or something. Otherwise it looks shady - as Robert's deflationary "question" here does. It appears to be avoidance of a question where the answer doesn't serve the agenda, or would require admitting a fact one doesn't want to admit.

His second response makes his intentional avoidance of the question even more obvious.

Likely he cannot answer, doesn't really have an answer, and, if honest, would simply admit it.

David pushes the issue:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

And finally Robert does give an answer, of a sort:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Exhibit G

False accusations.

First, accusations of lying. A lie not simply stating something that is untrue. It is something someone knows is untrue when they state it, doing so with the intent to deceive.

Which means even if someone states something that is demonstrably false, it does not mean that person has lied, nor can it be proven they lied simply because what they stated can be shown to be untrue. You have to be able to prove they knew it to be untrue at the time they stated it.

As Christians I think we should be very careful about making accusations of lying, particularly when engaged in theological discussions. It's a judgement, and not a kind one. And particularly uncharitable if the person is simply mistaken or come to an erroneous conclusion. It's definitely going to put any possibility of a productive conversation to an end.

And then we have opinions. Opinions can be wrong, but if one states their opinion about something they're not lying, because lying would require not that their opinion was incorrect, but that their opinion was actually something else.

Here I state an opinion:

"I think it's entirely possible he's one of those fringe types that believe English translations are inerrant."

Notice the use of the words, "I think". I am obviously not asserting anything is a fact, or actually true, I am stating an opinion about something I think is possible.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Robert responds,

"Alexandra wrote: "I think it's entirely possible he's one of those fringe types that believe English translations are inerrant..."

Yet another LIE!"

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

He made an accusation, one that is obviously false, and a claim of fact he should be able to actually back up, but of course cannot. I merely stated my opinion.

Now, certainly he could have told me my opinion was incorrect, but chose instead to make a false accusation against me.

Here's a Two For One Deal

Robert accuses me of lying and claims I said something I did not say.

"Alexandra wrote: "Regardless, I did respond to your OP, contrary to your false assertion. :D ..."

My response: YET ANOTHER LIE... here is the OP to which you ADMITTED you did NOT respond to...

I requested Scripture... you offered OPINIONS... that is NOT a valid response to the request."

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

You can see that even in the portion Robert quoted in his post, I said I did respond to his OP, and certainly not "ADMITTED you did NOT respond to" it.

I'm not sure what there he's calling a "lie", but either way, I did respond to it, I proved I responded to it, and I did not "admit" to not responding to it, as he accuses.

Here are the relevant posts:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Rod wrote: "Very few people are willing to sit for 80 hours while Robert reads them the entire bible (while emphasizing and interpreting the text with his personal inflections and body language). Unless he's planning on reading it as a robot with cold indifference. "

Shudder. Neither of those things sounds appealing.

Rod wrote: "This isn't a right and wrong issue of scripture Robert. Once again, you are missing the point with your arrogance and lack of understanding.

God's word is HUGE. And seldom fully understood. (Except by you and your simple unbiased interpretation of course)"

Pssst, Robert doesn't believe in interpretation. He just simply reads it and comprehends it all perfectly. ;)

As my hermeneutics prof once said as she described this problem Robert seems to have, “Everyone comes to the bible with a greasy spoon. To deny that is to live in self denial.”

Also, none exist to prove your position Robert. This is the problem. You are self deceived individual.

Steve wrote: "As my hermeneutics prof once said as she described this problem Robert seems to have, “Everyone comes to the bible with a greasy spoon. To deny that is to live in self denial.”"

True, everyone has a lens through which they filter what they read through. Sometimes it's a Biblical lens, gained from good, solid Biblical teaching, preaching and study. Sometimes it's not, and is full of errors, wrong teaching, reading into the text, biases, using something else other than Scripture to interpret Scripture, etc.

And often it's a bit of both, as we learn more and become more knowledgeable, discard thoughts we learn were in error, etc.

If you are honest, you will have a hard time proving that early Christians did believe YEC. As a matter of fact a clear reading of the already sources indicate a presumably of an ancient earth. These sources are both from early Christians and rabbinic writings. It’s very clear that there has always been a wide spectrum of belief on the issue, and that YEC is a relatively new concept within Judeo-Christian circles.

This is why Augustine said that a Christian who was YEC was an embarrassment to the faith and should be quiet on the topic.

Robert wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "I'm not sure what there he's calling a "lie", but either way, I did respond to it, I proved I responded to it, and I did not "admit" to not responding to it, as he accuses..."

My..."

Please see my previous response to you.

Robert wrote: "Why did all believers for the first 1,800 years of Christianity believe the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old?
"

You have your own thread for that topic, please use it.

Thank you.

(That is how you ask nicely :D)

Robert wrote: "I don't believe in Alexandra's eisegetical opinions"

I haven't given any "eisegetical opinions".

"...of what she WANTS the Bible to say..."

Nor have I said anything about "wanting" it to say anything. I have affirmed I accept ALL the essential doctrines of Christianity, as well as affirming what Scripture says.

Somehow, that's just simply not good enough for you. But I am way beyond caring what you think at this point. You think I am a heretic because I do not approve of your behavior or your attitude. That is simply laughable.

What I think of you does not have anything to do with my status as a fellow Christian.

"no private interpretations needed."

No one said anything about "private interpretations". But I will take that as meaning you believe any interpretation of Scripture is a "private interpretation" and therefore you are affirming I am correct in that you do not believe in Biblical interpretation, you believe you simply read and comprehend perfectly.

Which, is what I said.

If that isn't what you mean, then the impression is due to your multiple problems communicating.

You should work on that.

Alexandria, I think I love you. You are like the Wonder Woman of the Bible!

Steve wrote: "This is why Augustine said that a Christian who was YEC was an embarrassment to the faith and should be quiet on the topic...."

Quotes from Augustine (who said old earthers are unbelievers...

"“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” (from Augustine. The City of God)
__

"Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation." (from Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

Sweetarge wrote: "Alexandria, I think I love you. You are like the Wonder Woman of the Bible!"

hugs!

Robert wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "I haven't given any "eisegetical opinions"...."

Here is yet another such opinion. "

No, it's a statement of fact. One you cannot refute.

I have an example already of where you confuse an opinion for a claim of fact. And here you confuse a statement of fact as an opinion.

I'll add "fact" and "opinion" to the growing list of English words you clearly do not understand.

Perhaps a remedial English class is in order. Bet you can find one in your area, or maybe even online.

Robert wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "No, it's a statement of fact. One you cannot refute...."

Yet another OPINION... without substance."

The fact that you re-assert this accusation, while ignoring the fact that I have already responded to it, and not addressing my response, is simply another deflection tactic. Commonly employed by false teachers. Those standing upon the Truth have no need of such tactics, and those who love the truth would not engage in them.

Go pee in your own pool, Robert.

I am done with this thread. All they offer is name calling and ad hominem attacks...
___________________________

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_ca...

Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent.

Robert wrote: "LOL!!!! Now there is maturity for you! "

Aw, you didn't like my verbiage, what a pity.

Robert wrote: "I am done with this thread. All they offer is name calling and ad hominem attacks...
___________________________

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_ca...

Name calling is abusive..."

Yay! You've learned about ad hominem attacks! And I hadn't even gotten to that lesson yet. *So proud*

Would that mean you'll now stop employing this tactic? Or, is this a "do as I say, not as I do" double standard?

Since you are a Christian, I assumed that you treated others the same way you wanted to be treated.

Sound familiar, Robert? It should (view spoiler)[https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... (hide spoiler)]

Well, now that he is gone, maybe we can discuss the right use of the scriptures in contexts such as this...

Steve wrote: "Well, now that he is gone, maybe we can discuss the right use of the scriptures in contexts such as this..."

Sure! I still have a lot of material to go through. Particularly common logical fallacies. There are many things I've learned regarding dishonest tactics, as well as using Scripture with those that either rejected Scripture as untrue or unreliable, and those that claimed to accept Scripture yet had false beliefs.

I'm sure others here probably have things to add on the topic as well.

What role does context, history and extraordinary criticism play in the correct handling and application of scripture?

Wow, I've never seen anyone exhaust Robert. Well done.

But did we really accomplish anything? I'm not convinced. I'm not even sure I learned anything. But I have been at this for decades.

Honestly, I can't imagine Robert ever doing successful ministry with anyone who disagrees with him (even on the slightest detail).

Rod wrote: "Wow, I've never seen anyone exhaust Robert. Well done..."

My response: I am not exhausted... I am just avoiding being trampled on!

Oh YOU must be the very pearl that shouldn’t be trampled by swine I suppose....

Robert, is your god a Jesus looking god? Or does your god look like a book?

Rod wrote: "Wow, I've never seen anyone exhaust Robert. Well done."

*bows*

"But did we really accomplish anything?"

I don't believe Christians involved in ministry should be allowed to engage in dishonest tactics and contemptuous attitudes without Christian rebuke.

So, at the very least, it can be seen that some Christians will not stand silent and tolerate such things.

As I said before, if it were simply a matter of one guy spewing in one tiny corner of GR I likely would have just ignored him and advised others to do the same. But as a Director of a Christian Ministry I felt it was a very, very serious matter.

Beyond that, likely not. Other than perhaps, maybe, a period of more peaceful discussion here.

"Honestly, I can't imagine Robert ever doing successful ministry with anyone who disagrees with him (even on the slightest detail). "

Agreed. He's shown how he reacts to even those that are in theological agreement with him.

I love chatting with Mormon missionaries... but I know longer desire a scriptural bashing or a win. I prefer to leave them with a haunting thought that will fester over time.

I've had Mormon women tell me that they would be happy and blessed to be Joseph Smith's 39th wife. Indeed, a scriptural and theological study may not be the answer to their immediate problem. (Although the answer IS in scripture. You can't read the bible without the Holy Spirit and common sense.)

Steve wrote: "Robert, is your god a Jesus looking god? Or does your god look like a book?"

I think his god looks like him, which is why he declares me a Pharisee for not liking his tactics. ;)