Jump to content

Sparks

Worthy Ministers
  • Posts

    6,159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Sparks

  1. Yes, there is evidence. But since you never believe any of it, why bother?
  2. You might want to look into Babylonian Arithmetic Methods which were as precision as the math we use today. Look up The Antikythera mechanism which is basically an ancient hand-cranked computer that tracked the movement of planets in our solar system. It was thought to be ancient Greek, but it has cuneiform writing on it indicating it is much older. Look at the gears, and modern replica. Not everyone back then was a sheep herder.
  3. You apparently cannot tell the difference between a book of evil written about God, and the Bible even after being told the differences. Since you give each book equal credence, you obviously understand neither. If you don't mind, I don't want to carry out this conversation any further since we could not possibly disagree, more. If someday you figure out there is a difference between the two sources, look me up.
  4. I don't think anyone who reads the Zohar agrees on anything about it nor masters it, and while God allows you freewill choices, you should use them wisely. The only god you will get closer to in reading the Zohar, is Satan; the god of this world (little g).
  5. If you are reading the Zohar and practicing Kabbalah, you are practicing black magic. The people who practice Kabbalah believe God is both good and evil, which is their first huge mistake. They try to enter Heaven without God or his permission, and are trying to study the words God used to create the Universe, to try to be God. If you are studying that Satanic garbage, I would strongly suggest you not.
  6. No, it is not but God Almighty is the same God the Jews worship. The Jews were chosen by Him, first. Now Kabbalah is black magic, and evil. If you cannot tell the difference between the Bible and the Zohar, I guess that would explain your confusion about most of this topic, but God and his ways are supernatural. As for the restrictions of science, the only restriction of science (the tool) is that it can only be used to test and observe things in the natural world. When Jesus brought people back from the dead, healed the sick, walked on water, science (the tool) would fail you because those things were supernatural. It might do you some good to study what science, isn't.
  7. I think you mean scientists. Science cannot 'look' at anything, anymore than a screwdriver can, because science is simply a tool. Revelation is a book about the end and a new beginning, but it gives us a clue about the beginning of it all. God was the illumination then, and will be in our future. When God said 'Let there be light,' light came into existence along with gravity and the laws of physics, electricity and the various properties of the universe. God didn't work in the dark simply because He created our sun later; He is light. He can count the hours and call it a 24 hour day, for our sake and understanding. In the future, for those saved, there will be no night. Revelation 21:23 (NKJV) The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. Revelation 21:25 (KJV) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
  8. Yes, I do, and I understand how the phrase ties directly to Jesus. In fact, you should too because I showed you.
  9. So, do you believe the 24 hour day described in Genesis is trillions of years, or something like that?
  10. Do you disagree with what I have written, and my reasoning? I have already told you, it's not 'my way.' Would you say that a person who was not saved would even know what that passage meant, describing Jesus being God? The text is clear when you know what John meant. For what it is worth, the Holy Spirit won't disagree with Himself, and for that matter neither will the Bible which was written by man, but which was Holy Spirit inspired.
  11. Hermeneutics is a tool kit, with tools. Not a single tool. When you study Hermeneutics, you will know what to apply to what type of reading. A person who has accepted the Gift of Salvation has their own personal relationship with their savior, Jesus Christ. If you want to know more about Jesus, that is what the Bible is about from cover to cover. If you want to know more about how to understand the Bible, then Hermeneutics helps you to understand the Bible. What did John mean by "The Word?" It has a deeper meaning to people of those ancient times, for both the Jews and Gentiles, but suffice it say he is describing Jesus, himself. "The Word" = Jesus. Knowing that, what does this scripture say? John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 (KJV) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. If a person didn't know what John meant by 'the Word,' would they arrive at the right translation that Jesus is God in these scriptures?
  12. I have already told you, and demonstrated it. Think of Hermeneutics as a tool kit; a set of rules for interpretation that helps you to understand what the original authors of the Bible were saying. Part of it are rules for reading narratives, versus prophecy, versus poetic form, versus legal material, and so on, and part is understanding the times, and the culture back then. What does it mean when a Jew, of ancient times, tore his garment? It had specific meaning, but what meaning? To a Jew of those times, it needed no explanation. Genesis 37:29 Then Reuben returned to the pit, and indeed Joseph was not in the pit; and he tore his clothes. It is puzzling in our times that a person would tear their clothes, and if we went back in time, and spoke perfect Hebrew, my guess is that those people would not understand a 'mosh pit' even if we played a video of it, because it is something unique to our culture.
  13. Nope, that is not what I am saying, at all. But I am saying there is a correct way to interpret the Bible, and I will add that it is not 'my way' of thinking. I am also saying that those who are born again and saved who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit have a helper in understanding the Bible. (ESV) John 14:26 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
  14. The rules of Hermeneutics and allowing the Bible to speak to a person through the what the original authors meant to say (exegesis) will allow a person to arrive at the correct answer. Most of all, it is the Holy Spirit within a person who has accepted the Gift of Salvation that helps a person to understand what they are reading. People who are still unsaved would struggle to understand the Bible (those without the Holy Spirit indwelling them), and Earthy interpretations. That is where the difference in interpretations come in. Notice this scripture about those born again an saved, understanding: 1 John 2:27 (NLT) But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.
  15. You can read the Bible and allow it to speak to you, or you can inject your own opinions or biases into it. It is the difference between eisegesis, and exegesis which are two conflicting ways to read the Bible. One is the correct way, and one is not.
  16. When you take a passage written in a different context and topic, and try to apply it to something like the time-table for evolution theory, you will always get the wrong answer. To begin, you misquoted it: 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV) But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Then you have ignored the context about Jesus being away. That is what is being talked about. If you read the whole passage it mentions a time when scoffers will come and claim that the Lord Jesus will never return, as promised, because he has not already returned in all these long years. The idea Peter is trying to convey is that God's time-table is not like ours, and that both a thousand years and a day are a tiny amount of time that make no difference to Him. Peter is saying that God will return on His own time table, Peter is not saying that when the Bible says a day, it means a thousand years or trillions. Don't say that you believe in Evolution Theory, and then go looking for hints of it in the Bible taking just one line that you think acknowledges it. That is called an a priori fallacy in the first place, and in the second place, the Bible will tell you what it means if you read it in the proper context. That means read all of 2 Peter 3, not just one sentence from it.
  17. Yes. And why build a large boat and pack it with animals for a 'local flood' when a solution to that 'crisis' would be to lead the animals away from the area on a short walk?
  18. Do you object to the argument? Your postings do match a pattern, and I think you have to admit you rarely agree with anyone about anything. I don't think it is possible to disagree so often, normally.
  19. You are so mixed up about this one wonders if you simply post deliberately provocative messages for no other reason than to cause maximum disruption and argument in a thread, since your arguments rarely make sense. I doubt whether you care if you are right or wrong about your arguments when you post them. Coincidentally, trolls have that exact habit, not that you are one.
  20. Even if every single YE Creationist was a racist, which cannot be established, no YEC murdered millions. It's the evolutionists who did, and the atheists and Catholics. It makes sense that the evolutionist did the murdering since people who believe they were brought here from primordial soup, and not God, would find it easy to destroy life since life is random. They would reason we are just slightly smarter animals than say, a zebra, and so they would reason that murder is not wrong. They would murder millions without guilt, and that seems to be exactly what happened based on the evidence. Hitler thought his murdering was a good thing, and helpful to his racist cause.
  21. You just cannot acknowledge that it was evolutionists that murdered millions. Catholics had that problem as well, but so far no YEC Creationists murdering movement.
  22. You lose any debate when you turn to insults. It's the weakest argument of all.
×
×
  • Create New...