Dragoon68 said:
You're engaged in a circular argument - to borrow you're own words - that, as the term implies, always come back to the same point. That theme has already been disproved several times by several persons in this thread. There's no point in taking side trips down more paths based on extracting a word here or there in a vain attempt to force the purpose and meaning of the whole of scripture to be something that it is not.
My arguments are clearly not circular and the reader who knows what a circular argument will know this.
People have, in fact,
not addressed the
specific texts I have referred to - the Colossians 1 text and the Genesis 8 text.
The reader will draw the obvious conclusion - these texts
cannot be integrated into your view. The problem with this, if it is not obvious, is that these texts are scriptural. So they are
true. If you cannot give an account of
these texts that does not contradict your position, then something that is true contradicts your position.
In order for your position to be sustained, you
must engage these texts. I do not wish to be argumentative, but there is simply no justification for not addressing texts which seem to work against your position.
These texts, I have argued, rule out the possibility of the earth being destroyed. If you believe in the authority of all scripture, you need to explain how my reasoning about those texts is wrong.
No one has mounted a response to my take on Colossians1 and Genesis 8.
Your argument here is of this form:
1. Scriptures A and B support the position that the world will be destroyed.
2. Therefore, I do need to address any arguments that scriptures C and D contradict the claim that the earth will be destroyed.
That is simply not how it works. To be clear: I have (or will) address
any and all texts that you guys put forth in respect to supporting your position. You need to do the same.
I admit that I have not yet addressed the Peter text about the earth melting. I will address that text.