thomas t

Hazard please, there is no scriptural proof. You have already written your "scriptural proof" in this post here, I see no reason to reiterate yourself, I answered it here. Please lets avoid going round in circles for reasons of time, thank you. Thomas

Hi Hazard, your entire quote as cited above is presumption I think. Regards, Thomas @Tzephanyahu thank you for pointing out that assuming "hidden messages" in the Bible leads to nowhere.

Hi Hazard, oh no, it's the "Gap Theory". You don't have anything to back your allegation of pre-Adamite life up. Rev 12:12 is in the future. It is at a time when the stars would have fallen down on earth, already. This was Rev 6. Ezek. 28:11-18? "You were in Eden, the garden of God;" (verse 13a) sounds like the Garden ! ... just where Adam was in, too. Isa. 14:12-14? How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! verse 12. There is nothing that indicates pre-Adamite life. This could very well have happened when Adam was there, too - maybe this happened when he ate the fruit. So your first verse couldn't back up your theory, so I assume that the rest of it can't be supported by scripture, either. I don't have the time to go through all of it. Three verses that didn't provide any back up of what you say... is enough. Ok? But let me discuss your purported "Lucifer's Flood". There's no evidence to back this other flood up. Let me show that your first three arguments don't back up anything. If your first three arguments don't back up a "Lucifer's Flood", then it's likely to assume the rest of it won't back up anything either. 1. "L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6)." you say. There is nothing in the text of Gen 1:2 that said "made" waste. This is your speculation. It says the earth was waste. Right from the start? Why not. Jeremiah 4 is about Jerusalem. 2 Pet. 3:5-6 can very well describe Noah's flood. Same applies to your arguments 2 and 3. So let me conclude: your first arguments were nothing but unsupported allegation, since the Genesis passages didn't support a view that holds that the earth became dark/empty/waste after having been different from dark/empty/waste some time before. I noted that the brothers and sisters couldn't refute you here, that's at least how I read the thread. That was sad to read. Regards, Thomas

Hi PG, oh let me explain. If you don't believe it was 7 days than you venture into arbitrary Bible interpretation (my opinion). And those who know how to use the most eloquent rhetorics... they are to convince the most? I don't want to trust rhetorically wise people with making decisions concerning Bible interpretation. Even if Mr. Watchman Nee can talk wisely, doesn't mean that he is to be trusted? Bible says God created the whole thing, including heaven and earth, in 7 days. Exodus 20:11: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Do you have a partner? When he tells you "I was at work for seven hours today" - and you answer him "yes, you visited your affair for 7 weeks - this is what you are telling me !"... do you think that your partnership will last? Thomas @Still Alive thanks for not bringing up further points at me. So I can go to bed early!

the whole thing took God 7 days. Your Joey education story doesn't have a 7 days timespan for all the things that have happened. no, these two can't be compared with each other. The seven day time span was used to make us know when we should rest (on the seventh day). That was the same 7th day that God took a rest (Exodus 20:11). So the seven days time span are likely to have been understood that way by former people. The seven days belong to our daily lives now. we can be sure of this, too. You aren't sure. of course it does. If God would have created the earth in say 8 days, than people would have understood that, too. As I said. We're going round in circles. Please let's avoid that, Still Alive. You have (almost) unlimited time, I don't. Please don't tease me with your time resources. As I said, they were no idiots. They would have understood larger time spans, as well. This is repeating things we have discussed again. Please, I won't answer the rest, since you keep exploding your issues, and I don't have time. Maybe in a couple of days I'll get back on the rest that you wrote...

Still Alive, please, the Bible does say it was 7 days And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. Gen 2:2. It's sad because you didn't stick with Bible. Bible trumps science, if Bible says it's seven days , it's seven days. are you telling me that the men living back then wouldn't be able to differneciate between 7 days and some longer time span, say some thousand years? Or even longer time spans? They were no idiots. Thomas

Everything. As Bible says in Gen1: heaven, earth, the stars.

Hi Still Alive, that's so sad. You write as if Bible is unclear about how long it took God to create the universe. 7 days it says in the Bible. I stay with Bible. Bible at sunday school, ok? ... actually it says there won't be need for a sun in Jerusalem, see REV 21:23. ... that's not heaven, it's the lake of fire. we had that so often, look at the old threads, for instance here. They had some good answers on this. Actually, this thread is about radiodating, Still Alive, can we remain on topic? if scripture is silent about a matter, be silent on it, too? This would be very wise and all the posters would save time. Regards, Thomas --- Hi Bawcash, yes I do. ok, keep searching, Baw, no problem. Thomas

Hi Pink Belt, Chastising someone is one thing. Encouraging someone not to sin is another. The former implies a hierarchy... and the latter means work. You would work for someone. Please also note: Muslims attack Christians in many countries around the world. Western-style atheists don't push for human rights abuses against Christians. So there's a difference, too in my opinion. Regards, Thomas

Thank you very much, Appy, you've understood me perfectly right. That was exactly what I was concerned about. But I suppose everything has been said now in this regard. Thomas

Hi Frienduff, the first part of the quote sounds nice. But some might just heed the second part of it, never worry resorting to insulting atheists. We have a problem concerning our determination to keep the Lord's commandment of not judging them. In this context "don't worry" is just the wrong comment at the wrong time. @missmuffet said, they say we have a crutch (Jesus). We shouldn't of course be worried about these kinds of comments. We are the ones that call them "enslaved to sin". Since this is how we view ourselves in the stage of before converting and then we suppose it might be the case with them also? It's also natural that they respond saying we practice a Manichean approach and so on. We are lucky that they can respond in a well-balanced way, I think. In business, they always worry about winning customers. And Jesus said we should be worried! but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt 10:28b. Christians are meant here, not the atheist. So let's be worried about heeding the Lord's commandment by the way we treat atheists. Moreover, when you invite people it's not saying "I don't worry one ounce if you show up or not". Inviting is more. You always keep write let's stick to Jesus and so on. Which is right. So please, let's apply Jesus rules in this context. Regards, Thomas

thank you very much for listening. It's a great gift to rethink things one has said, and many have trouble doing this. Just a little comment, it will be my last one on this, ok? an insult is still an insult, even if pronounced in a calm voice. It is Jesus who sets up the rules, and we should heed them. Always. And insulting just goes too far, Jesus makes that real clear (it's the "don't judge"-verse). Consider a business. You try to sell on a fair. An interested person comes to your stand and you come to engage in a kind of friendly discussion. "You have an evil heart", however, is just way over the top even if the discussion has been friendly so far. Actually, the problem I see here is that... so many believers resort to this kind of attacks, already and any atmosphere is long-lastingly poisoned through this kind of remarks, I think. One more condescending remark is adding fuel to the fire. Well, now I'm harping on what you've said. I feel a bit sorry for that - you just jumped in the moment when I thought by myself why we can't just keep the rules and never insult - and just do the work!". Last but not least, I hope that everyone stops insulting non-believers. We want something from them, as we are the ones who invite them. Thomas

I don't understand. Last time you wrote this: so you wrote him that verse Hebrews 3:12? So why is that not attacking, in your opinion? Of course you can insult using Bible verses, in my opinion. Look I don't have anything against you personally. It's just that some among us want to outreach to the non-believers... and then we have another group posting statements like saying they have wicked hearts. How does this work together, I'm asking myself. We shouldn't work against one another. The latter shouldn't destroy the work of the former, please. Thomas

Hi Michael. Still, that passage doesn't apply to him. If he's outside the church than he's out of the realm Hebrews 3:12 is talking about. You made a big mistake, in my opinion. You've attacked someone on the personal level. This happened on a public board. This is so so sad. Thomas P.S.: this does happen. Hopefully we can make a convincing case in the future.

Hi Miss, no I'm a believer. Actually, I've always been a believer. I grew up with the Bible. My mother gave it to me (she wasn't born again though). My sister didn't believe but I did from the first day on. So I have to rely on @Tzephanyahu's and others' accounts when I should estimate how it feels to be really atheist. But since youth time a used to get to know how unbelievers discuss (sister). I used to be a believer, but it took me 22 years to find out that for a Christian that you call "born again" it takes to repent. Let me leave a few more comments of your previous posts. I find this is disparaging. It's a one liner. This stands in sharp contrast to what you're telling us here: Where's the love in one-liners combining them with Satan, I'm asking myself. Btw, I find Tzeph does a great job describing that provocative remarks don't rule out that you can turn into a believer afterwards. Regards, Thomas

Hi Ayin, here I agree with @angels4u. I might add Matthew 7:1... Jesus talking to his disciples. John 7:24... Jesus talking to his enemies, so who do you want to be? Paul clearing up the issue, as another poster has said: For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 1. Cor 5:12 Thomas

Hi Missmuffet, maybe they sense the mistrust you have against them? I am really unsure of why people want to say anything about their motives. Why can't we just be workers? In business world, a shop vendor for instance never asks a customer what he or she does with the item bought... they just sell, clean up the house and then go home. Why can't Christians do the same. Hi Firm Foundation. Rahab the whore stays among the descendants of Jesus as cited in Matthew, beginning of the book. I think it is the very Rahab mentioned in Josua 2, unbeliever. Also remember Jesus threatened many many believers with hell. I think you're writing them off lightly. You give one line and it's these oneliners that could come across as careless. We should always give our best, as @Tzephanyahu said, listen to that one! Thank you very much for your post Tzeph. Thomas

if. Very important So we have freedom of speech haven't we? Am I allowed to keep an opinion for myself when I fear that the thread could be side tracked? This thread is about another matter.

Hi Missmuffet, so let's look at whom it was that Jesus declares employees of the Satan. Whether or not it is believers ... let me look it up... ah but wait... whom are you talking about, here? (bolded mine) Only believers in God believe he is present. Thomas

Hi Firm, Please let's leave this issue to another thread, things are complicated enough aren't they? Since you say I'm not able to make someone believe? Well that's for another thread, ok? This one is really about this... You found two disparaging remarks in the Bible? Please don't add a third one. Let Bible speak, yeah, but please don't tell me that the "fool has said in his heart"-Psalms-passage perfectly matches all atheists. Or is it that you can read hearts? I doubt it. Most of them are so-called agnostics, they say they don't rule out God's existence. (Speaking from own experience). Yeah, whenever we come to talk about atheists, this Bible verse is getting cited and that's disparaging already. Thomas

Hi Ayin, amen. Of course. But we can make things more difficult for the Lord. "But you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities." says Isaiah 43:24b. Moreover, we should not be working against each other. Some want to reach out... and others do their very best (I mean worst) to destroy their work. Ayin, there's also a difference between speaking harshly to someone, but in love, or showing contempt. Moreover, many show frustration when it comes to reaching out. This isn't the same as "speaking harshly" either. Imagine a shop verdor who shows frustration towards the customers. This won't be fruitful. --- Hi BB, ok. Are you telling me you know each of them? I doubt your authority goes as far as to judge them each. Thomas

Hi Fresno Joe, no, I'm not judging anybody. I do not shame anybody, neither do I shame Worthy as a whole. It's a wonderful board, I praise God for it! Hi Angels, I'm worried. I'm worried that the comments of some keep atheists away from faith. In my opinion, some are creating an atmosphere of mistrust against atheists, and this could harm "the great commission" as quoted by Fresno Joe. I want the best conditions possible for reaching out to the non-believers of the world. This thread is about what we can do to make condescending remarks on atheists vanish. Please see this comment, here... is that inviting people to faith? Hi Missmuffet. ... and Angels, read this comment, please: ... "they smugly believe" as if BB could read their minds. I think it is this kind of remarks that endanger the reaching out to atheists. These comments could keep them off rather than win them for faith. Hi Blood Bought. as I said I can't read minds. I saw many atheists here who pronounced their opinion when they had the chance to do this. Regards, Thomas

Thank you for that question. However, that's not the topic of this thread, as I imagined it to be. Maybe I didn't make my thoughts clear enough. This thread is about how we can talk about them knowing that they can't reply anything. In the other thread we had instances of believers posting condescending remarks about them in my opinion, and there were other posts in which people seem to get angry. This is what this thread is about. But we can go off topic here, no problem: maybe. I don't know. When I used to post on jesus.de message board (I am banned from there. I don't want to make any comparison between this one and ours, btw)... I noted that atheists also defended me as a believer sometimes. Yes it's true. On ine occasion I showed that I was happy with my belief... and the atheists were getting angry because of it... however, other atheists jumped in and said "why are you so angry with that believer, he's at peace". So this happened, too. Just wanted to share that story. Thomas

Hi Michael, I can't read their minds. It would be wrong to lump them all together saying they all have bad intentions. There might be some who have. However, generalizing is wrong, in my opinion. Thomas

Hi Ayin, no, you get me wrong. I don't have any complaints about what George has done. And I don't rebel against the new regulation, I accept it wholeheartedly given the circumstances that George has described. My issue here is how to deal with the new situation. yes, I think so. Thomas