Born Again

[_LittleNipper]

The Bible must be interpreted on its whole and not manipulated per verse.

This is referred to as begging the question. Google it my friend.

All verses must be interpreted in light of each other.

And I could arbitrarily place within a single bound volume disparate works by various authors and assert that they are all related and must be interpreted in such a manner that a coherent consistent message runs throughout. That might even be possible but it would not prove that that was the intent on the part of each individual author. An example of this occurs within the LDS church where the gospel taught by Brigham Young is different from that which is taught today. The TBM will deny this is the case because they have to maintain the false narrative in their mind that the church is the same over time.

So if some verses elude to a spherical planet, then circles and four corners must also be interpreted in that light of understanding as a sphere is an additional complexity that cannot be explained away.

Yeah no - except for some very telling scriptures where this absolutely fails. Satan tempts Jesus by placing him high up so that he can see all the kingdoms of the world. Not possible on a spherical planet. Stars cannot fall to earth from the heavens. Here you are clearly just making stuff up to save the idea that the Bible is a whole which it is not.

Jesus the Messiah/Christ validated the entire Old Testament. Jesus validated none of the Book of Mormon. And I'm surprised at you in this day and age not having a clue how Satan the prince of this planet could not take Jesus to a secluded out of the way place and conjure up scenes of various places and kingdoms of his planet. I mean today I can sit in my living room and see anything I want by conjuring it up on a TV screen... When we die and are judged, do you not suppose that GOD will not flash before the unsaved individual's eyes every mistake he ever did --- and without a TV? And people believed this possible long before TV was invented.

[_spotlight]

Jesus the Messiah/Christ validated the entire Old Testament. Jesus validated none of the Book of Mormon. And I'm surprised at you in this day and age not having a clue how Satan the prince of this planet could not take Jesus to a secluded out of the way place and conjure up scenes of various places and kingdoms of his planet. I mean today I can sit in my living room and see anything I want by conjuring it up on a TV screen... When we die and are judged, do you not suppose that GOD will not flash before the unsaved individual's eyes every mistake he ever did --- and without a TV? And people believed this possible long before TV was invented.

You are begging the question once again Nipper. It is incorrect to use the Bible to vindicate itself. Satan is a late invention of religion. Theology evolves over time. Unfortunately.

[_LittleNipper]

Jesus the Messiah/Christ validated the entire Old Testament. Jesus validated none of the Book of Mormon. And I'm surprised at you in this day and age not having a clue how Satan the prince of this planet could not take Jesus to a secluded out of the way place and conjure up scenes of various places and kingdoms of his planet. I mean today I can sit in my living room and see anything I want by conjuring it up on a TV screen... When we die and are judged, do you not suppose that GOD will not flash before the unsaved individual's eyes every mistake he ever did --- and without a TV? And people believed this possible long before TV was invented.

You are begging the question once again Nipper. It is incorrect to use the Bible to vindicate itself. Satan is a late invention of religion. Theology evolves over time. Unfortunately.

The Bible is the only Word of GOD. And without the Bible we would have no knowledge of Christ --- I mean, He died 2000 years ago. If indeed it is the Word of GOD it will magnify HIM. Now, we can seek after scientific evidence, and behavioral evidence, and archaeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment; however, these in turn are derived from the study of GOD's Word. A book that is a forgery will not posses all these tributes if any. And the Book of Mormon I believe is what started you to mistrust GOD's Word.

[_spotlight]

The Bible is the only Word of GOD. And without the Bible we would have no knowledge of Christ --- I mean, He died 2000 years ago. If indeed it is the Word of GOD it will magnify HIM. Now, we can seek after scientific evidence, and behavioral evidence, and archaeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment; however, these in turn are derived from the study of GOD's Word. A book that is a forgery will not posses all these tributes if any. And the Book of Mormon I believe is what started you to mistrust GOD's Word.

Um no Nipper, just the opposite of what I've been trying to pound into your head. The Bible is contradicted by scientific facts at least where your literal interpretation of it is concerned. You simply choose to remain ignorant of the facts. Am I wrong? If so you will have no problem explaining how there exist fossils throughout a permafrost that would take hundreds of thousands of years to form.

[_LittleNipper]

The Bible is the only Word of GOD. And without the Bible we would have no knowledge of Christ --- I mean, He died 2000 years ago. If indeed it is the Word of GOD it will magnify HIM. Now, we can seek after scientific evidence, and behavioral evidence, and archaeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment; however, these in turn are derived from the study of GOD's Word. A book that is a forgery will not posses all these tributes if any. And the Book of Mormon I believe is what started you to mistrust GOD's Word.

Um no Nipper, just the opposite of what I've been trying to pound into your head. The Bible is contradicted by scientific facts at least where your literal interpretation of it is concerned. You simply choose to remain ignorant of the facts. Am I wrong? If so you will have no problem explaining how there exist fossils throughout a permafrost that would take hundreds of thousands of years to form.

This may give you another perspective. It is perplexing yet there are other possible explanations. https://creation.com/permafrost

[_spotlight]

This may give you another perspective. It is perplexing yet there are other possible explanations. https://creation.com/permafrost

Do you ever think for yourself Nipper? You just cut and paste from creationists sites. How can you ever learn anything in such a manner as this? You assume you know it all already. Anything that rocks your boat gets summarily dismissed.

Your article does nothing to address the problem that permafrost poses. Uniformitarianism or lack thereof does not solve this problem. This is, per your view a creation of god. Does the way it behaves - think chemistry and physics as they relate to the behavior of matter here - change all on their own since creation occurred? The problem with the permafrost is that there are no conditions involving uniformitarianism or catastrophism that would allow the depth of permafrost to exist after the creation event. And by the way, uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophies. It refers to your "fined tuned" laws of nature without which life cannot exist. Contradiction after contradiction Nipper is all you have.

[_LittleNipper]

This may give you another perspective. It is perplexing yet there are other possible explanations. https://creation.com/permafrost

Do you ever think for yourself Nipper? You just cut and paste from creationists sites. How can you ever learn anything in such a manner as this? You assume you know it all already. Anything that rocks your boat gets summarily dismissed.

Your article does nothing to address the problem that permafrost poses. Uniformitarianism or lack thereof does not solve this problem. This is, per your view a creation of god. Does the way it behaves - think chemistry and physics as they relate to the behavior of matter here - change all on their own since creation occurred? The problem with the permafrost is that there are no conditions involving uniformitarianism or catastrophism that would allow the depth of permafrost to exist after the creation event. And by the way, uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophies. It refers to your "fined tuned" laws of nature without which life cannot exist. Contradiction after contradiction Nipper is all you have.

Of course I think for myself. Many people believe that the Earth is 2 billion years old. And I disagree and I have my reasons. I tend to share Creationist websites because they are scientists and fully understand scientific terminology. I don't need all that to comprehend that something is wrong with what evolutionists accept as absolute truth. I believe that the permafrost didn't take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a certain depth under certain conditions anything is possible, and with GOD ALL things are possible. Uniformitarianism is not a Creationist or Christian theory or construct. It is an earlier secular scientific view that believes that what happened in the past is very much the same and consistent with what happens today. I certainly do not believe this. I believe that GOD created a perfect environment on a perfect world, within a perfect Universe. And after the FALL of Adam everything was corrupted to one degree or another and has been progressively getting worse since. Saying contradiction after contradiction may give you some peace of mind, but it doesn't convince me of anything.

[_spotlight]

Of course I think for myself. Many people believe that the Earth is 2 billion years old. And I disagree and I have my reasons.

4.543 billion Nipper. The fact that you are off by this much underscores your level of ignorance of the subject. You have not looked into this at all in any sort of objective manner have you?

I tend to share Creationist websites because they are scientists and fully understand scientific terminology.

No, they are apologists. Even if your apologists have PhDs in the appropriate fields it does not make them right. An appeal to authority is a fail. But have to give it up to them if they understand the proper terminology. Their money spent on education did not entirely go down the drain.

But even here you are incorrect. Their terminology is not correct much of the time. "Evolutionist" for example is not proper scientific terminology. Uniformitarianism is a concept they misunderstand. Baraminology is not proper scientific terminology. They are nutters Nipper, not scientists.

I don't need all that to comprehend that something is wrong with what evolutionists accept as absolute truth.

Then you cannot complain if you encounter people who'd reject your world view without ever reading the Bible.

I believe that the permafrost didn't take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a certain depth under certain conditions anything is possible, and with GOD ALL things are possible.

Back this up with a valid computer model that reflects the laws of chemistry and physics (as you believe your god has created those). You can't do that and neither can your apologists with PhDs. If god violated his laws to quick freeze the soil to that depth then he is a deceiver because there would be no need to create permafrost to that depth for any reason whatsoever other than to throw people off on how long it would take.

Uniformitarianism is not a Creationist or Christian theory or construct. It is an earlier secular scientific view that believes that what happened in the past is very much the same and consistent with what happens today.

Nope Nipper. That is not what it means. It refers to the laws being the same. You know the laws made by your god supposedly. Or is there no law at all? So per your understanding even though water today is made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen in the past this was not the case.

I certainly do not believe this.

And you should not be surprised then that there are people who certainly do not believe in your god's existence Nipper. You have no basis to complain at all.

I believe that GOD created a perfect environment on a perfect world, within a perfect Universe. And after the FALL of Adam everything was corrupted to one degree or another and has been progressively getting worse since. Saying contradiction after contradiction may give you some peace of mind, but it doesn't convince me of anything.

I never expected it to convince you of anything. I never expected to convince anybody on the flat earth site either. But the exchange was entertaining and enlightening in understanding human nature.

[_spotlight]

Oh look! Uniformitarianism in the Bible. It must be false.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.

[_LittleNipper]

Catastrophism VS Uniformatarianism https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... N2NhYjMzNw Actually, all scientist now accept catastrophic events of one sort or another. Uniformatarianism deals with geologic formations and the processes involved. There was simply too much evidence for an event or several events of one sort or another, and so uniformatarianism has pretty much been forgotten.