The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Popinjay wrote: »

Yes, let's look. And now, let's look at the little bit you skipped over:

"18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Have Heaven and Earth disappeared? I must have missed that.

If my hunch is right and they haven't disappeared then surely no stroke of a pen or letter have disappeared. So nothing has changed yet. And anyone who says otherwise will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

After years of battling for the inerrancy and infallibility of the word of God in this very thread, it must be quite a blow to realise you'll be called least in His Kingdom.

If I may butt in: the qualifying clause is until everything is accomplished. Christ accomplished it all - fulfilled and abolished the Old Covenant, and established the New.

Some of the commandments in the Old are eternal in nature - the one against murder, for example - and are therefore part of the New Covenant Law too. Others were temporary, typical - the prohibition on pig meant, for example. Hence it is no part of the New Covenant Law.

J C

Popinjay wrote: »

Yes, let's look. And now, let's look at the little bit you skipped over:

"18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Have Heaven and Earth disappeared? I must have missed that.

If my hunch is right and they haven't disappeared then surely no stroke of a pen or letter have disappeared. So nothing has changed yet. And anyone who says otherwise will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

...you must have forgotten to read the "until everything is accomplished" bit???

....everything WAS accomplished at Jesus Christ's perfect atonement!!!!
....and the following Scripture verses indicate that this HAS already happened!!!!:pac::)
Lu 18:31 ¶ Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Popinjay wrote: »

After years of battling for the inerrancy and infallibility of the word of God in this very thread, it must be quite a blow to realise you'll be called least in His Kingdom.

....once I get into Heaven, I don't particularly mind where I come in the 'pecking order'...
.....once I have avoided the flames of Hell... I will leave it up to Jesus to determine my reward for defending Him before Men.

....the fact that the first shall be last and the last shall be first...might well give me a higher place in Heaven than a sinful wretch like me deserves!!!!!!!!:pac::):D

...I can but live in hope ... on that one!!!!:D

J C

Question :- Is it a sin to joke about Evolution?

Answer :- No ... because Evolution is already a Joke!!!:pac::):D

J C

darjeeling wrote: »

Your comment on my post bears no relation to what I wrote. Still, I see that, almost 16,000 posts in, we are once again at square one - confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Do you know, I think I'll sit the next round out.

...and the Evolutionsists are STILL unable to provide any coherent evidence for EITHER Spontaneous Biogenesis or Spontaneous Evolution!!!!:pac::):D:cool:

....so it's probably a good idea to 'throw in the towel' and sit out the next round!!!!

...mbeep.....mbeep!!!:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

How come so few creationists support the equivalent of creationism-ID in the courts? Imagine the following:

Prosecutor: The CCTV has film of you holding a gun, pulling the trigger, then the chap in front of you falls down dead with a bullet in his chest. Ballistics shows that your gun fired the bullet. I put it to you that you killed him!

Evolutionist defendant: It was all just one big spontaneous accident of Nature ... and because your brain and your eyes are also the result of a spontanous accident ... you can't really believe what you see on the CCTV film either!!! Wasn't me, guv.

Prosecutor: As an Evolutionist I think we can happily dispense with the evidence in this case ... and move on to our interpretation of what actually happened.
....The scientific fact is that I clearly see a Carrot in your hand on the CCTV film ... and the Ballistics experts have found a Lead bullet in the victim.
.....as the entire Scientific community (excluding Creationists) knows, a Carrot would take millions of years to produce a lead bullet, so you are clearly an innocent man!!!:pac::):D:rolleyes:

J C

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Just for clarification, Copernicus wasn't burned at the stake; as far as I know he died of a stroke, which induced a coma.

....and the stroke was probably brought on by worrying about being burned at the stake!!!:pac::):D

The Mad Hatter

J C: You have an absurdly long list of unanswered questions to address. See, this is how it works in a debate - either you address the issues your opponents raise, or concede their point. As you have not addressed the points that AtomicHorror (among others) have made, shall we take it that you concede them?

Incidentally, it is interesting to see you suddenly posting so much on this thread again. Were you waiting for everyone who knew what they were talking about to go away?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

a Carrot would take millions of years to produce a lead bullet

Hmm, I wonder what evolutionary pressures would be required for a carrot to evolve flesh so strong that it would be like lead...
It would surely have to be a sort of 'evolutionary arms race' where carrots with softer flesh were being eaten by weak jawed animals. Natural selection would favour those animals with slightly stronger jaws allowing them to feed on the denser carrots. In turn natural selection would favour those carrots with harder flesh that don't get gobbled up so easily. After millions of years of 'tit for tat' evolution we are left with super-dense lead like carrots and animals with vice like jaws that feed on them.
All purely hypothetical of course.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Question :- Is it a sin to joke about Evolution?

Answer :- No ... because Evolution is already a Joke!!!:pac::):D

You've been posting on/off in this thread for somewhere in the region of a thousand pages and only now have you taught of that joke?

PDN

Anybody got any pressing issues on the age of the earth before I merge this thread with the Creationism megathreadasaurus?

robindch

Nope, merge away.

PDN

We try to keep one Creationism thread at a time - so it tends to be survival of the longest.

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

We try to keep one Creationism thread at a time - so it tends to be survival of the longest.

Was that 'Humour' PDN - I'm shocked!

AdamusAdonis

So, back on topic?
"AGE OF THE EARTH"? - 42.

BrianCalgary

AdamusAdonis wrote: »

So, back on topic?
"AGE OF THE EARTH"? - 42.

13,000

~4,540,000,000 years.

wolfsbane

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

RE: AGE OF THE EARTH

Some Christians believe that the Earth is Six Thousand Years Old.

Does anyone have an opinion on this.

Kind Regards,

Apologies for being late to the thread, as I'm one of the few YECs here.

The 6K date is the historic Christian view, based on the chronologies in the Bible.

Those Christians who dispute the date do so on the basis of current scientific consensus. YECs hold to it and provide alternative scientific models to support the Young Earth position.

wolfsbane

The most detailed research based on the Bible's chronology was done by James Ussher (1581–1656), Archbishop of Armagh:
Archbishop’s achievement
http://creation.com/archbishops-achievement

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Hmm, I wonder what evolutionary pressures would be required for a carrot to evolve flesh so strong that it would be like lead...
It would surely have to be a sort of 'evolutionary arms race' where carrots with softer flesh were being eaten by weak jawed animals. Natural selection would favour those animals with slightly stronger jaws allowing them to feed on the denser carrots. In turn natural selection would favour those carrots with harder flesh that don't get gobbled up so easily. After millions of years of 'tit for tat' evolution we are left with super-dense lead like carrots and animals with vice like jaws that feed on them.
All purely hypothetical of course.

......it was a joke Galvasean!!!!:D

....these Evolutionists are subject to great flights of fancy!!!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...it was a joke Galvasean!!!!

A joke I took WAY too far.

J C

PDN wrote: »

We try to keep one Creationism thread at a time - so it tends to be survival of the longest.

....the longest WHAT???:pac::):D

Helix

wolfsbane wrote: »

YECs hold to it and provide alternative scientific[ models to support the Young Earth position.

"god put those bones there to trick you" isnt really scientific is it?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

You've been posting on/off in this thread for somewhere in the region of a thousand pages and only now have you taught of that joke?

....better late than never!!!!:pac::):D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....the longest WHAT???:pac::):D

Thread. I believe he means the longest running thread gets preference.
Kind of like when they assign scientific names to animals, the first name to be used gets kept.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....better late than never!!!!:pac::):D

Ah I suppose.
So, read any good (on topic) books lately?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah I suppose.
So, read any good (on topic) books lately?

....The Bible !!!:pac::):D

wolfsbane

Helix wrote: »

"god put those bones there to trick you" isnt really scientific is it?

I'm happy to tell you that is not a Creationist argument. You should check what they actually teach - all freely available on line.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm happy to tell you that is not a Creationist argument.

Plenty of creationists have used that argument, and similar ones suggesting that light was created in transit, to create the impression that stars were very far away, so that the universe would appear old, so that the strength of religious believers would be tested.

As an argument it lacks the vital ingredient of credibility.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm happy to tell you that is not a Creationist argument.

Yes, because that would be ridiculous ...

Owen

JC, no chance you'd edit your sig to make it smaller? Half the scrolling on this page is just to get past your sig!