thomas t

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

457 Excellent

1 Follower

About thomas t

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/20/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.facebook.com/thomas.treppenhauer.7

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Northern Bavaria, Germany
  • Interests
    for instance playing the piano, playing the violin and singing
  1. That was from the ToS, you, however, wrote: I didn't resort to name calling, you did. Stop this finally! Thomas [...] You have demanded a reply to my statement and reply was given. Not my fault if you find something in it of personal effect. the "fool" was your part, rjp... I asked you something, that's true, but my demand was not meant as a demand to leave the subject level in part of your answer. When you came up with insulting, I would be glad if you could not write such things as "not my fault". Thank you. Thomas
  2. Good day Willamina, look: this discussion came to a close for me the moment I was getting insulted. So please understand that I am not going to answer your question.... For me it's that simple: one insult => finish.
  3. No offense, Thomas, but this is your usual modus operandi as soon as people challenge your ideas. Good morning MG, no, please don't tell false things about my modus operandi, thanks. In general, I don't have anything against challanging my ideas. However, it is important for me that people stay on the subject level. I made it clear in my post # 26, where the insult was, in my opinion. Perhaps you could read it (again?). My disussion partner wrote this: [....]It's time to eat of the dish you've prepared for others. "A fool hath no delight in understanding, But only that his heart may reveal itself." [...] The reason for this is that the same person could insult me again.
  4. ok Paul, so I wish you a nice journey. Thank you for wishing me the peace of God. [red color mine] Therefore? I don't see any causal link in there. I agree: Can't be both one and seven days. That's more than clear to me. But then what should the "therefore" mean? I don't see any reasoning behind it. However, don't feel forced to answer. Just wanted to get my scepticim across. Good day John, my point here is that one day stays one day in the creation account. Greetings, Thomas
  5. Good day Paul. ? And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Gen 1:14 KJV That's your assumption. 1 day (mentioned in Gen 2:4) would equal 7 days (mentioned before). This would be perfect confusion, I think. Paul, process is the translation of the Hebrew word qets. Your statement comes across as if the four words of "in process of time" can be assigned to the one word of yawm. Anyway, this passage stands afterwards, as discussed in the other thread. The other passages you cite come in behind, I wouldn't discuss them now. The first chapters of Genesis, in my opinion, are an account of creation or God's log, as Joe would put it. In Gen 2:4, He wouldn't use a word, in my opinion, that can mean anything and everything from little instant up to eternity. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. You said this in the other thread, already. There I wrote: The moment sun and moon were introduced in Gen 1. the use of day remained unchanged. The wording in its context did not change whatsoever. And the evening and the morning were the third day. Gen 1:13 KJV And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Gen 1:19 KJV I hope that we can avoid going round in circles.. Thomas
  6. Good day Openly, thanks for your efforts. ... but that's not what I thought or what I've said. I'm aware of the fact that heaven and earth are mentioned in Gen 2:4 as opposed to man who is not mentioned in this verse, as I see it. You seem to be referring to Gen 3:20 (KJV) and you seem to interpret "all the living" to be humans only. However, Eve was not Adam's mother obviously. Other Bible translations say "became the mother of all the living". This would have been correct after the flood, anyway. Thomas
  7. "In the day" was a manner of speaking, an expression, if you will. It uses "the day" to refer to a particular season or time period. You could say "at the time" when the Lord made heaven and earth. Good morning Shiloh, the problem I have with this is that my KJV Bible with Strong's Dictionary attributes all the three words of "in the day" to the one Hebrew word of "yawm". So I conclude that the use of the Hebrew word "yawm" didn't change at all compared to when it was used in Gen. 1. Are you telling me that the mere Hebrew word of "yawm" was a manner of speaking, in your opinion? If you answer with "yes", then next question I would be asking you is, do you think that the other days in Gen.1 were just expressions, too? If you answer this with "no", I would like to ask you why you make a difference between the single days in Gen. 1 and that one here, Shiloh? You might be right. I totally agree that there might have been dozens of years in between. However, who were the other people? (I don't want to have this discussed here, ok? But feel free to say your opinion to this once again, it's just that I won't answer this any further, because I think this could get us away from the OP, here) Thomas
  8. Good day Openly what you're trying to convey here is that 1 day as mentioned in Gen 2:4 equal 7 days. To put it simple, it means 1=7 according to what you wrote. Did I get you wrong? I find this disturbing. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 1.Cor 14:33 Thomas
  9. Jesus first
  10. Hello Paul, I've explained my position concerning your question already in an Paul. The OC, as I understand it, is not designed to have drawn out discussions among believers, so would you agree that it might be helpful to stop the Gen2:4-day debate between the two of us here? Actually, I like the policy of the OC on this site. Let's wait till nonbelieving or seeking fellow people come in and ask questions. Have a good debate, Thomas
  11. Unfortunately, the story that has been passed down to us is not the full story. Galileo had been friends with the newly appointed pope. In speaking with the pope about his desire to publish a book on his discovery, the pope granted Galileo permission - but only if he did not promote heliocentricsm and also presented the pope's words on the matter. So Galileo presented his book in the form of the story, that not only promoted heliocentrism but also made the view of the Church and the words of the pope being presented by a man name Simplicio, who argued in a way that his name implied (obviously an insult). During this period in time, the pope had been under a lot of attack. Thus, he broke half of his promise and made a fool out of the pope during a time the pope was vulnerable. The bottom line is that if Galileo had acted more discretely and less arrogantly, he would have been fine. Good day Neb, from what I read in wikipedia, the "Dialogue" was banned obviously for being insulting. You seem to be right with this one. However, according to the same article, he was found guilty of heresy and because of this reason he had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. The verdict could have centered solely around a promise. The article further mentions that the inquisition board in 1633 focused on the fact that in 1616 he was ordered not to teach heliocetrism. Giving an order is not the same as receiving a promise, as you surely would agree. A broken promise to a man concerning one's own free speech should, in my opinion, not result in a punishment, anyway. Thomas
  12. Good day Alpha, but maybe it also has to do with the Roman Catholic Church, among others, having spoken against science. For me, the proceedings against Galileo Galilei is such an example. The RCC punished and threatened him just because of having expressed a scientific opinion. Even if his opinion wasn't the science of the day, why punish? When people think of Christianity and science these days, this is certainly one of the first things popping up in their minds, I think. For this reason youngsters who want to become scientist might be predisposed against Christianity. Thomas
  13. Hello Gerald, glad to see you back. yeah. they are. Thomas
  14. Good day Paul, my suggestion to interpret scripture: if there is no reason to change the tranlation of a word according to what has been said before, leave it the way it was. What you try to estyblish here is to take possible meanings of a word it has had after the passage and apply it to the earlier one. In my opinion, the Bible is there to be understood from little children: but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Mt 19:14 If you want Bible interpretation to be such a Sisyphean task in that you have to have any usage of a single word in mind be it 10, 100 or 1000 pages after the passage, which child would be able to understand? The moment sun and moon were introduced in Gen 1. the use of day remained unchanged. The wording in its context did not change whatsoever. And the evening and the morning were the third day. Gen 1:13 KJV And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Gen 1:19 KJV So I think there's no reason to think that day meant anything else than day That was said subsequently. A child that starts reading .... at Gen 1, doesn't necessarily have this passage in mind. Why should God start the creation account using a huge metaphor? I don't think that God wanted to have a metaphorical meaning of a word right from the start. Moreover, there is no reason stemming from Gen 1 to think he did, in my opinion. Even if you still want to apply this to Gen.1, it would be totally unclear what morning and evening could mean, besides. Evening of thousand years