Creation or AntiGenesis? - Chess Forums - Page 2

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#21

tbwp10 wrote:

Kjvav wrote:

There are heresies, and then there are damnable heresies. A heresy is simply an error in doctrine, but a damnable heresy is one so serious that to believe it would preclude you from believing the gospel.

To believe in old earth theology is a damnable heresy, for to believe that God used evolution to bring us about is to deny that there ever was an Adam and therefore that there ever was an Eve. To deny that is to deny the fall and to deny the fall is to deny the Redemption that is provided through Christ's blood sacrificed willingly on our behalf. Without the literal interpretation of Genesis the Gospel falls apart line a leper on a pogo stick.

I'm sure many people have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ and afterwards have been poorly discipled and may even not believe the first three or nine chapters of Genesis, but I would seriously doubt that anyone comes to saving faith in Christ while simultaneously denying the truth of Genesis (or any Scripture).

OEC still believe there was a historical Adam and the Fall. The bottom line and most important is whether someone accepts the atoning work of Jesus's death and resurrection and believes in Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

John 8:47

King James Version

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

You can't purposefully deny the Scriptures and claim to be a child of God. You are kidding yourself.

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#22

Kjvav wrote:

tbwp10 wrote:

Kjvav wrote:

There are heresies, and then there are damnable heresies. A heresy is simply an error in doctrine, but a damnable heresy is one so serious that to believe it would preclude you from believing the gospel.

To believe in old earth theology is a damnable heresy, for to believe that God used evolution to bring us about is to deny that there ever was an Adam and therefore that there ever was an Eve. To deny that is to deny the fall and to deny the fall is to deny the Redemption that is provided through Christ's blood sacrificed willingly on our behalf. Without the literal interpretation of Genesis the Gospel falls apart line a leper on a pogo stick.

I'm sure many people have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ and afterwards have been poorly discipled and may even not believe the first three or nine chapters of Genesis, but I would seriously doubt that anyone comes to saving faith in Christ while simultaneously denying the truth of Genesis (or any Scripture).

OEC still believe there was a historical Adam and the Fall. The bottom line and most important is whether someone accepts the atoning work of Jesus's death and resurrection and believes in Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

John 8:47

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

You can't purposefully deny the Scriptures and claim to be a child of God. You are kidding yourself.

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#23

Riiiight. Yes, we should just disregard Old Testament evangelical scholars who believe in young earth creationism and biblical inerrancy.... like Dr Gordon Johnston who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, and his exceptional article on the subject: "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths"

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#24

Kjvav wrote:

tbwp10 wrote:

Kjvav wrote:

There are heresies, and then there are damnable heresies. A heresy is simply an error in doctrine, but a damnable heresy is one so serious that to believe it would preclude you from believing the gospel.

To believe in old earth theology is a damnable heresy, for to believe that God used evolution to bring us about is to deny that there ever was an Adam and therefore that there ever was an Eve. To deny that is to deny the fall and to deny the fall is to deny the Redemption that is provided through Christ's blood sacrificed willingly on our behalf. Without the literal interpretation of Genesis the Gospel falls apart line a leper on a pogo stick.

I'm sure many people have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ and afterwards have been poorly discipled and may even not believe the first three or nine chapters of Genesis, but I would seriously doubt that anyone comes to saving faith in Christ while simultaneously denying the truth of Genesis (or any Scripture).

OEC still believe there was a historical Adam and the Fall. The bottom line and most important is whether someone accepts the atoning work of Jesus's death and resurrection and believes in Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

John 8:47

King James Version

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

You can't purposefully deny the Scriptures and claim to be a child of God. You are kidding yourself.

I don't deny Scripture. But even so, your statement is not supported by Scripture and your interpretation is wrong. John 8:47 Jesus is referring to His own words. Most of the New Testamemt references to the "word of God" are references to the Gospel; not the Bible, which didn't exist yet. Now what the Bible DOES say is that you can't deny Jesus

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#25

Of course you do. In almost every post you make. You are not a believer.
Every post of yours is denying some aspect of Scripture, and yet you call yourself a believer. It would be laughable if your eternal soul wasn't at stake, but it is.

I know you'll just dismiss me because you are so full of your indoctrination (you'll call it "education") that anything I say must be dismissed since you are superior in every way, but I can assure you that from the writings of yours I've seen you bear no marks of a believer. You cling to the world's beliefs and mock those who simply believe the Bible as written. If someone with a few degrees from some godless university says something you accept it and if something is written in Scripture you dismiss it as simply written to combat Egyptian superstition or whatever drivel you've read recently.

Wake up. Race car drivers drive race cars, firefighters fight fires and believers believe the Scriptures. You therefore hear them not because you are not of God.

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#26

I didn't know you were God. Clearly you're not, because I am a believer and believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and believe in His atoning death for my sins and literal bodily resurrection from the dead. I also experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit in my life, and miracles, and healings, and have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the Bible is 100% error free to be a Christian, and in fact throughout Church history it's only been relatively recently and only within the narrow fundamentalist view that has injected this requirement for salvation into the Bible where it's not taught. You shouldn't add things to Scripture.

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#27

tbwp10 wrote:

I didn't know you were God. If you knew how often a false believer responds with this comment you'd be embarrassed to have written it.Clearly you're not, because I am a believer and believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and believe in His atoning death for my sins and literal bodily resurrection from the dead. And yet you don't believe the Scripture that tells us everything we know about the Christ you claim to have trusted. Hmmmmm. I also experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit in my life, and miracles, and healings, and have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the Bible is 100% error free to be a Christian, and in fact throughout Church history it's only been relatively recently and only within the narrow fundamentalist view that has injected this requirement for salvation into the Bible where it's not taught. What book did you find that little nugget in? It wasn't the Gospel of John.You shouldn't add things to Scripture. I'm not. You're subtracting from it. You do realize that that is forbidden also, don't you?

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#28

I do believe the Bible tells us everything about Christ. And I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative.

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#29

Then why do you believe what the world says about it in areas of science?

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#30

?

You lost me. What do you mean?

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#31

The Bible says 6 literal 24 hour days. You deny it.

The Bible says worldwide flood. You deny it.

The Bible says the earth was created about 8,000 years ago. You deny it.

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#32

The Bible doesn't say 6 literal 24 hour days. That's your interpretation. The Bible doesn't teach a worldwide flood, it actually teaches bigger than a worldwide flood; a catastrophe on a cosmological scale involving a reversal of creation. The Bible doesn't say the earth was created 8,000 years ago. Again, that is your interpretation. I believe you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly. You believe I am. We can agree to disagree.

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#33

tbwp10 wrote:

The Bible doesn't say 6 literal 24 hour days. Yes it does. So very, very clearly.That's your interpretation.That's the clear and plain reading of the Word of God, not anyone's "interpretation". You are very eager to assign meaninglessness to the Word of God, that it doesn't mean what it says, but rather something else that is either in everyone's "heart of hearts" or needs to be defined by scientists or theologians and archaeologists.The Bible doesn't teach a worldwide flood, Of course it does. Of course it does. Anyone can see that unless they've had their mind blinded by gorging themselves at the hog trough of theological academia.it actually teaches bigger than a worldwide flood; a catastrophe on a cosmological scale involving a reversal of creation. The Bible doesn't say the earth was created 8,000 years ago. I'm beginning to believe we're not even talking about the same book.Again, that is your interpretation🙄. I believe you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly. You believe I am. We can agree to disagree. I don't "agree to disagree" on Scripture. I earnestly contend for the faith.
I think the Mona Lisa is a painting of a butt-ugly woman. If you want to "agree to disagree" we can do so on that topic if you like.

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#34

The Bible teaches BIGGER than a worldwide flood. Judgment on a COSMIC scale. Please read my words carefully. The Bible presents creation in a 7 day framework, but it is NOT a scientific treatise. Genesis is a THEOLOGICAL polemic against false Egyptian cosmologies. Genesis 1 has more similarities with Ancient Near East creation accounts because it is an attack on those pagan accounts. You want to make Genesis 1 about modern science when it's not. There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and science, because Genesis 1 doesn't claim to be a modern science account. You think you are interpreting "literally" but can't see that you are imposing your modern world views back on Scripture instead of interpreting in the proper historical context. Just like you did by trying to make 1 Timothy 6.20 about "science" when it is indisputably not. That is so misleading and erroneous to put "science" into that verse where it doesn't belong. It's like those who erroneously say Jeremiah 10 is a prohibition against Christmas trees 500 years before the first Christmas. You can't read back your modern ideas back into Scripture. You end up with false, incorrect interpretations. No one can read the Bible perfectly objectively. We all bring our societal and cultural baggage with us and read the Bible through the that lens. That’s why it's so important to understand and interpret in the proper historical context. Otherwise we erroneously read our modern ideas back into Scripture, like erroneously claiming that Paul was speaking about "science" in 1 Tim 6.20, some 1,800 years before there was such a thing as modern science!

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#35

Genesis 1 is an anti-pagan THEOLOGICAL polemic. Not a scientific treatise. If you force Genesis 1 to be about science, and require it to be accurate in terms of modern science (thousands of years before there was modern science), then the literal teaching of Genesis is that the sun, moon, and stars are below the floodgates of heaven that were the source of rain for the flood

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#36

tbwp10 wrote:

The Bible teaches BIGGER than a worldwide flood. So you're willing to say right now that the flood was worldwide, that the whole of the planet was underwater at the same time as a result of the judgement that God pronounced in Genesis 6 AND there was additional cosmic judgement, or are you saying the earth wasn't flooded as the Bible says but rather the judgment was of a cosmic nature?Judgment on a COSMIC scale. Please read my words carefully. The Bible presents creation in a 7 day framework, It presents a 7 day Creation . You are the one "interpreting" it rather than just reading it.but it is NOT a scientific treatise. Genesis is a THEOLOGICAL polemic against false Egyptian cosmologies. There it is. Just like I said. "It doesn't mean what it says, it's just railing against the Egyptians".Genesis 1 has more similarities with Ancient Near East creation accounts because it is an attack on those pagan accounts. You want to make Genesis 1 about modern science when it's not. There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and science, because Genesis 1 doesn't claim to be a modern science account. You think you are interpreting "literally" but can't see that you are imposing your modern world views back on Scripture instead of interpreting in the proper historical context. Just like you did by trying to make 1 Timothy 6.20 about "science" when it is indisputably not. That is so misleading and erroneous to put "science" into that verse where it doesn't belong. It's like those who erroneously say Jeremiah 10 is a prohibition against Christmas trees 500 years before the first Christmas. You can't read back your modern ideas back into Scripture. You end up with false, incorrect interpretations. No one can read the Bible perfectly objectively. We all bring our societal and cultural baggage with us and read the Bible through the that lens. That’s why it's so important to understand and interpret in the proper historical context. Otherwise we erroneously read our modern ideas back into Scripture, like erroneously claiming that Paul was speaking about "science" in 1 Tim 6.20, some 1,800 years before there was such a thing as modern science!

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#37

You've dribbled all this ancient Egyptian nonsense here before.

tbwp10

Jan 12, 2023

0

#38

Don't act all high and mighty. Genesis puts the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament below the waters above, yet no one (even fundamentalists) believe that is literally true. But you want to scold me for supposedly not believing it "means what it [literally] says" when you don't consistently follow a "literal" interpretation yourself. In Acts 2 the moon did not literally turn to blood. So are we not believing the Bible "means what it says"?

Scripture only talks about ONE Tigris River. And that one and only Tigris River it talks about as one of the four rivers of the Garden of Eden it identifies with post-flood Ashur of Assyria. Which puts the Garden of Eden on top of the fossil record instead of underneath it. But can't have that so fundamentalists/YECs have to do these mental gymnastics and say that Moses must be talking about two different rivers by the same name when there is NOTHING in Scripture to suggest that. So much for believing the Bible "means what it says." Like I said, hypocrisy.

ItsTimeForTim

Jan 12, 2023

0

#39

Oh yikes... This blew up.

Kjvav

Jan 12, 2023

0

#40

tbwp10 wrote:

Don't act all high and mighty. Genesis puts the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament below the waters above, yet no one (even fundamentalists) believe that is literally true. I do. But you want to scold me for supposedly not believing it "means what it [literally] says" when you don't consistently follow a "literal" interpretation yourself. In Acts 2 the moon did not literally turn to blood. So are we not believing the Bible "means what it says"? The literal parts are literal. The figurative parts are figurative.

Scripture only talks about ONE Tigris River. And that one and only Tigris River it talks about as one of the four rivers of the Garden of Eden it identifies with post-flood Ashur of Assyria.No it doesn't .Which puts the Garden of Eden on top of the fossil record instead of underneath it. See how wrong you are? But can't have that so fundamentalists/YECs have to do these mental gymnastics and say that Moses must be talking about two different rivers by the same name when there is NOTHING in Scripture to suggest that. So much for believing the Bible "means what it says." It "means what it says". You simply approach it as fiction and therefore have no problem disbelieving it.Like I said, hypocrisy.