Recent content by Van

Here we have the unstated claim the things must mean all the things. Nonsense. The context clearly teaches the natural man cannot understand the spiritual solid food things, but men of flesh can understand spiritual milk. Next, we have since one point teaches this, then another point cannot...

The deflection and absurdity defense. They cannot defend their additions to scripture to pour their dark ages doctrine into the text.

Let me repeat, the claim that to stick with the least that is being said might "shrink" the scope is false. In their Natural, unregenerate sate, is not in dispute. 1 Cor. 2:14 does NOT say the natural person cannot understand any of the things of the Spirit God. That is an expansion...

It is a blatantly false claim that "the things" refers to "all the things!" It could mean "all the things" or could refer to some of the things. Thus the least God is saying is "some of the things. Your theology repeatedly adds to scripture, the things becomes all the things, no one seeks...

One of us certainly missed something! :) When Jesus got out of the boat, the possessed man had already seen Him, and had ran up to the place where Jesus would disembark, so the possessed man "met Him" when Jesus got out of the boat. See verse Mark 5:2 and 6. But then the possessed man...

I disagree. People expand the scope of scripture to pour man-made conjecture into it. I could not think of an example where the plain meaning was denied and something less was read into the text. Perhaps you could provide an example. Here are a few examples of expansion: 1 Cor. 2:14...

I have yet to find a person who rewrites scripture to fit his or her doctrine to deny they seek the plain meaning of the text. No one seeks after God plainly means No one ever seeks after God, even though scripture is full of examples of people seeking after God. We all sin, and "no one seeks...

You did not answer the question, but changed the subject to my behavior. It was your conjecture as to why the demon(s) possessed man ran to Jesus, and we should stick with what scripture actually says. I said Jesus confronted the man, since He commanded the demon(s) to leave him. You...

1) No need to worry whether I comprehend your viewpoint, try defending it. 2) Scripture does NOT say nor suggest God exists in the "Eternal Present." That is "Time Travel Theology" which has no support from scripture. 3) I have shown, with Revelation 6:10 time of some sort exists in the...

The God of Scripture is far different from the God of Dark Age conjecture. But we must be on guard against replacing the conjectures of the past with modern day conjectures. We must seek support for our doctrines based on the context and not on what we may have been indoctrinated. Total...

You are mistaken. I did not reply with these remarks. Someone else did: sojourner4Christ I seem to be making more and more errors, I am so sorry I misrepresented you with my blatantly false post.

God has no beginning, He always existed. God has no end, He will always exist. Do these truths support the idea that God's spiritual realm does not have sequence, first this, then that? Nope. It has been made up and then falsely claimed. The souls in God's realm were aware of the passage...

1) Jesus commanded the demon(s) to come out of the man. 2) Scripture does not say why the man ran to Jesus, 3) The demon(s) might have compelled the man as a ploy, conjecture is simply conjecture.[/SIZE]

If we read Mark 5:1 to Mark 5:20 we find the story of a "demon possessed man." He was confronted by Jesus and the demon possession was ended. Thus the cause was in part to demonstrate Jesus was who He said He was, by performing sign and wonder miracles.

Bad mouthing AI seems to be a cottage industry among "academics." Yes, programs can be written to yield biased results. But individuals can write supposedly objective papers, with carefully concealed bias. AI is a tool, and it can be used to improve our translation efforts. Certainly we can...