Then the Bible is false, as shown by the evidence from multiple fields of science.
1 Like
How much time do you have?
Iâve been telling you what it states on multiple threads. You havenât shown any interest in engaging those concepts. And now youâve told us that you want to âForget about the original language yayhoo stuff.â So I donât think you are genuinely interested in what can be learned from the Hebrew text of the scriptures.
1 Like
You donât even know what the doctrine of the infallibility of scripture is: the original monographs and language. Someone is proving themselves to be a yahoo.
Somehow I doubt that @PDPrice or @r_speir will engage this.
(I wonder if they reject the fact that God is outside of time and not bound by it. They donât realize that God is fully capable of âanticipatingâ the fall and limiting lifespan and ecological systems accordingly to fit his will for that creation.)
1 Like
I am always interested in that, just not from an evolutionist.
Do you know what a straw man is? And then itâs not even a real straw man, just a YEC straw man.
So we return to the Genetic Logic Fallacy again.
5 Likes
That too. 
@cwhenderson Getting back to the overall meaning of 2 Peter 3; You are apparently endorsing Millerâs answer that the âearthâ mentioned there simply refers to the âcontinents of landâ.
Letâs run with that! Peter goes on to say that these âcontinents of landâ were utterly deluged and destroyed. Would that not then teach a global flood ?
Perhaps not. Perhaps you would like to say that âearthâ in the passage is the most narrow possible reference: only that small sliver of land with which the ancient Jewish people happened to be familiar. The local, surrounding lands.
So letâs say thatâs the correct reading. This means Peter is giving us a dire warning about scoffers in the last days who would be willingly ignorant of the fact that the mesopotamian/levant region came out of the water originally (billions of years prior), and they would be willingly ignorant of the fact that there was once a local flood in Mesopotamia. And somehow, this is connected with a broader refusal to believe in Jesus Christ.
If all that makes sense to you, then I suppose go for it. But to me, it seems like a disconnected pile of gibberish read that way.
Isnât it a crazy coincidence, though, that if I just take Peter to mean that scoffers would deny Godâs account of creation, including the fact that He supernaturally created the planet out of water, as it says in genesis 1; and they would deny the fact that God flooded the whole planet with water; (in other words, they deny the Biblical worldview founded in Genesis), using the philosophy of uniformitarianism (âall things continue as they haveâ) leading to a belief in evolutionâŚand this results in a complete rejection of the Gospel and of the belief in Jesusâ 2nd comingâ
IF I just read it that way, then suddenly it not only makes sense but it also perfectly describes the progress of history in the past 200 years.
Ok, thinking here. That is real good. I have never even considered that. Why have I never caught that meaning? Your argument is very sound here. Why would Peter speak of the creation of the entire planet on one hand, then only infer a partial Flood on the other. Thanks and taking notes.
1 Like
You need to review what I explained to you in both the Hebrew text of Genesis and the Greek text of 2Peter 3. Pay particular attention to ERETZ and the contrasting of KOSMOS and GE. Until you do that, you will continue to thrash about.
Your lack of background in the fundamentals of exegesis doom you to these perpetual facepalms.
3 Likes
@AllenWitmerMiller rather than playing your game, I am going to keep pushing you on the things you are trying to bury and ignore. My previous ignored comments to you:
More strawmaning. This is sad. Nobody claimed that God is guilty of engineering suffering for his amusement.
You did. You just said that âvery goodâ means âexactly as intendedâ, and you believe God said that in reference to a world of millions of years of death, disease and suffering prior to Adam and Eveâs sin, correct?
Why did you put heretic in quotes? (I wonder if youâll be too embarrassed to ignore this yet again?)
Did God âengineerâ the plan of salvation of history including Christâs torture and death on the cross?
Yes, as a response to manâs action in the garden of eden. Not because God desired to have Jesus Christ tortured, in general. If mankind had not sinned , no sacrifice would have been needed. As somebody who claims to be a minister, itâs highly embarrassing that I would need to explain that to you.
Pandas are omnivores; they do eat meat.
1 Like
Oh my. Please look up Uniformitarianismâeven on Wikipediaâand cease the traditional Young Earth Creationist misrepresentation of it. I do understand how you got this wrong. I was heavily influenced by the botched Uniformitarianism descriptions in The Genesis Flood (1962, Henry Morris & John Whitcomb Jr.) and it took me years to overcome that confusion.
2 Likes
@AllenWitmerMiller rather than playing your game, I am going to keep pushing you on the things you are trying to bury and ignore. My previous ignored comments to you:
More strawmaning. This is sad. Nobody claimed that God is guilty of engineering suffering for his amusement.
You did. You just said that âvery goodâ means âexactly as intendedâ, and you believe God said that in reference to a world of millions of years of death, disease and suffering prior to Adam and Eveâs sin, correct?
Why did you put heretic in quotes? (I wonder if youâll be too embarrassed to ignore this yet again?)
Did God âengineerâ the plan of salvation of history including Christâs torture and death on the cross?
Yes, as a response to manâs action in the garden of eden. Not because God desired to have Jesus Christ tortured, in general. If mankind had not sinned , no sacrifice would have been needed. As somebody who claims to be a minister, itâs highly embarrassing that I would need to explain that to you.
Not according to Science magazine.
Pandas are one of the worldâs most fascinating vegetarians. Their digestive systems evolved to process meat, yet they eat nothing but bambooâall day, every day. A new study reveals how these animals survive on a diet that should kill them.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/how-pandas-survive-their-bamboo-only-diet
@PDPrice, I rarely moderate with a heavy handâbut your repeated copy-and-pastes of your previous posts while you pretend they havenât been addressed is a violation of forum rules.
Consider yourself warned.
Youâre a moderator now? I donât see a badge. In any case, you may warn all you want, but Iâm not pretending. Anybody can go back and check. You have ignored these comments repeatedly.
Yet you have declared yourself to be an old Earth / young life Creationist who accepts the 4.5 BY age of the planet. Not very consistent in what you say, eh?
Oh you are so wrong. You donât listen well apparently. I have never nor will I ever disavow a 6 day creation.