New Testament Support for the FLOOD

Ask those same “rabbinic instructors” if Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT.

 

The answer is "it's within the realm of possibility" from one who is a practicing Jew and "yes" from one who is a Messianic Jew. I haven't heard from the others.

Although I find you bait & switch tactic there interesting. You'd discount OT scholars on the subject of OT numerical significance if they reject Jesus as Messiah, but I'm willing to bet that if they accept Jesus as Messiah, you'd reject them anyway, because they disagree with you.

 

I’d have to disagree. The Pharisees and Scribes, who were of course Jewish, of the OT times understood the law that came from Moses from God. They preached and practiced it. They quoted Moses in Exodus when Jesus was healing on the Sabbath. Why? Because Moses said that God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh and the seventh should be sanctified and kept Holy. Now Jesus gave them a piece of His mind, but it was nowhere along the lines of…Oh ye with little faith, My Father didn’t created the earth in six days can you not read!

I’m willing to bet that all the Pharisees and Scribes and those practicing Judaism in those times believed in a literal six-day creation. It was only until secular man started to put his .02 cents into the creation account did the literal interpretation fly out the window! This includes your OT scholars as well.

Do I argue with a person practicing Judaism because they don’t believe Jesus was the prophesied Messiah in the OT? Of course not, I believe God has a plan for them in the end times and their hearts have been hardened until then. God will use the Tribulation to woo His people back to Him.

We on the other hand, our hearts aren’t hardened and our eyes are wide open to the truth, but secular man has tainted the truth.

 

John you make a lot of claims that you can't support.

"Secular man" this and "Secular man" that, you haven't once brought up any evidence of this. According to Bill Bryson (A short history of almost everything) most of the early geologists who proved that the earth was much older then 10k years were Christians in good standing with their church: In fact some held position in the church.

I wish you'd stop polarizing people who disagree with you as 'secular', you are setting up a seeming bigotry against people you deem to be 'secular', which is an ever expanding list.

 

To learn more listen to the webcast below...enjoy

Web cast with Bill Jack and AiG.

 

Why would I want to learn more about propaganda speech? I certainly don't want to be indoctrinated into believing that the 'secular' man is evil incarnate. I prefer to treat people as individuals.

 

Huh?

What you may learn is that all the evidence you need is in the Bible. All the answers to life’s questions are in the Bible.

I view the whole Bible as Historical Fact. You view the Bible as part fact and part Spiritual fairytale

Your Theistic evolution and Scripture cannot be harmonized. Since you claim that macroevolution is microevolution over a long period of time, then you must have a hard time swallowing (Gen. 2:22). There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution was true; unless you want to say that Eve wasn’t made from Adam’s side. Then, if you do that, you doubt the very word of God.

Your belief theory was developed in part by Bible believing people who thought that evolution had some merit. In addition, it is an attempt to answer the many problems existing not only in the fossil record but also with how life could somehow randomly form out of nothing. Because of problems like this, some believe they can be explained by simply adding God to the picture: That God directed evolution, which goes against Scripture.

 

What you may learn is that all the evidence you need is in the Bible.

There's no "evidence" in the Bible. Only written writings. It's not a good idea to use the Bible for a purpose it was not intended.

God directed evolution, which goes against Scripture.
Either God directed evolution, or God created everything in 6 days and made it look like it was created over millions of years, which would make God a deceiver, something that is most definitely unscriptural.

 

That is a sad, sad, way to have to live…

So what’s the Bible used for? Is it only intended for salvation purposes only? But is there any evidence that if I follow Gods plan of salvation I’ll spend eternity in Heaven?

Come on Johnv, don’t tell me to have faith…. please don’t tell me this is all a waste of time, when I’ve been placing my faith on a collection of “writings!!”

 

Do you consider the 12 disciples witnessing the resurrected Christ “evidence” that God raised His Son from the dead?

I do! Praise God!!

I caution you to think before you post. Some lost soul may happen across this thread searching for answers!

 

Meatros, while God treats people as individuals, there are some things that are universally true about all men. In Genesis 8:21, the Lord mentions to Noah that the hearts of all men incline, or tend, toward evil always, from childhood.

So while secular, or unsaved, man is not 'evil incarnate,' God says clearly that evil is the tendency of his heart (his nature) at all times. This is why we must be born again: the old nature must be killed and a new one given.

Isaiah 64:6 says all our 'righteous' works are as filthy rags to God, and Romans 8:8 says that the unsaved man cannot do anything to please God.

So the propaganda is right there in the Bible, I'm afraid!

 

That is a sad, sad, way to have to live…
Really? Then when Jesus said "blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe", he must have been joking.

So what’s the Bible used for? Is it only intended for salvation purposes only?
Nope, it's intended to tell us who God is, and what our relationship is to Him. Salvation is part of that, but not exclusive to it.

But is there any evidence that if I follow Gods plan of salvation I’ll spend eternity in Heaven?
No. There's no evidence, nothing you can put under a microscope and test. It's a matter of faith. It's a faith that I happen to share, but it's still a matter of faith.

Come on Johnv, don’t tell me to have faith…please don’t tell me this is all a waste of time, when I’ve been placing my faith on a collection of “writings!!”
Trying to use the Bible as a form of evidence is indeed a waste of time. You're bastardizing the bible for a purpose it wasn't intended. I don't worship the Bible (doing so would be idolatrous). I worship God and God alone.

As far as telling you to have faith, that's Jesus' instructions, not mine.

 

Do you consider the 12 disciples witnessing the resurrected Christ “evidence” that God raised His Son from the dead?
First, it was 11, not 12. Second, no, I don't consider it evidence, I consider it testament.

I caution you to think before you post. Some lost soul may happen across this thread searching for answers!
Then that lost soul will see that there are other biblical views besides literal extremism, and probably be less likely to be afraid of reading the bible for themselves.

 

"literal extremism"?

Actually, when they read that intelligent people can trust God to mean what He says and say what He means, it might encourage them to know they can believe Him totally.

I pray that will be the case, anyway...trusting on one's own mind, especially when one is unsaved (which includes nominal "Christians") is a straight shot to deception.

 

I don't have a problem with biblical literalism. I do, however, have a priblem with literal extremism. The idea that an earth created in 4004 bc would be the only acceptible interpretation of Genesis is an example of literal extremism. Helen, I think you're a literalist, but I don't think that you're a literal extremist.

...when they read that intelligent people can trust God to mean what He says and say what He means...
I don't think that a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis out of step with this line of thinking. We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose, as I don't want to drift from the topic.

 

IMO the testament of the account of Jesus Christ in the Gospels may very well be used as evidence, which supports the fact that Jesus Christ was resurrected. They were IMO liable eyewitnesses to the account.

 

You seem to have a habit of trying to form my opinions for me. I've told you numerous times to stop doing this but you continue to bear false witness. If you'll lie about one thing, then why should I trust your opinion about this guy's audio 'evidence'?

Again you are applying your 'literalist' paradigm to my paradigm, which isn't literalist. Besides, wasn't she made from dust as in Gen. 1?

You can try to rhetorically strip my Christianity away from me all you like, but it's not working.

The old "fossil record" problem and abiogenesis. The first being an empty assertion and the second has nothing to do with evolution.

IMO yes. The primary point of the bible is for salvation. You should have some faith.

So it's impossible for a secular man to do good, they must always do evil?

 

Reading comprehension isn’t your strongest attribute. Gen. 1 just says he created man and woman in His image, doesn’t say anything about dust.

Gen. 2 God explains in detail how he created man, which was from the dust of the ground and He (God) not evolution, caused a deep sleep over Adam and took one of his ribs and created woman.

If you read a little more of your post of my quote you will find the answer to your question. “God says clearly that evil is the tendency of his heart (his nature) at all times. This is why we must be born again: the old nature must be killed and a new one given.“

The foundation of my faith lies in the book of Genesis and my faith in Genesis is a solid one. If Genesis contradicts itself, which it doesn’t, then how can one put their faith on the other 65 books of the Bible?

 

You are right, however that doesn't give you license to insult my reading ability.

Evolution is not a deity, it's a process.

I was quoting Helen actually.

Because they were all written by different people, with different attitudes and perceptions. Because unlike you, I see a literal reading of genesis as tantamount to calling God a liar, as the world wasn't created in the fashion that is laid forth in Genesis. The truth of genesis lay not in the 'history', it's of the message. Your either or fallacy is old and ridiculous. Either you accept the whole thing or it's trash. Well that may work for you, but it doesn't for me. I use my cognitive functions to determine whether or not Genesis is to be taken literally. I don't accept your appeal to popularity that denounces the non-literal meaning.

And before I hear "you should trust in God's words, not man's wisdom", I feel the need to remind you two things: I do trust in God's words, and you have to rely on man/woman's wisdom because the person reading the bible (ie, you, me) is man or woman!

 

"So it's impossible for a secular man to do good, they must always do evil? "

Word definitions are everything here. What is good? That which is intrinsically good is God and only God (from Jesus).

If doing good means pleasing God, then no, there is no unsaved person who can do good.

If doing good means benefitting, in some way, a fellow creature, then yes, of course any person can do at least some good!

The point of Genesis 8:21, however, is not the action, but the tendency of the heart. When the tendency is always evil (and no, the tendency does not rule -- that is what learning self-discipline and obedience to parents and laws and such is about), and if the person desires to do good, then the person is in a state of internal warfare, and that's a hard way to live!

There are many ways man tries to rescue himself. But they all fail. A drowning man cannot teach himself to swim! The only rescue is Christ Jesus Himself. He is the only One who can actually change the heart so that it has a tendency toward God (the Good) and not evil. And from that point of change, then the Holy Spirit raises the person up (Phil 1:6) to spiritual maturity, to become the image of Christ Himself (Romans 8:28-30).