Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The six days of creation

Good answer.

Of course He could have done as you suggest, He simply chose to do it His way. I woulda probably done it your way, too, but I'm not God.

It appears you got that right. Personally I think the whole God becoming a Man and dying for our sins is crazy. But then I realize I am extremely limited in mental capacity and not the Rule Maker Whose ways are higher than ours.

I'm glad we could both agree this propositions sounds crazy. Of course it's interesting how differently we conclude what this mean.

Christ disagrees with you. Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." NIV (or your particular flavor)

Well done A_S,

Not often RM achieves a brief, brilliant moment of clarity.

Jesus does not contradict Himself.

Romans 10:1-4

"Brothers, my heart�s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God�s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

We come at the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the most documented fact of history prior to the printing press, from different world views. You start with the idea the God of the Bible is wrong and your fallible mind is the final authority. Your life's philosophy can not stand a careful philosophical scrutiny, though. It will eventually self destruct. I am not cleaver enough to get you there, but based on the four lectures I recently listened to, an advanced philosopher would be able to show you.

I start with the idea the God of the Bible is Infinite Intelligent Energy. Therefore He makes no mistakes and is the definition of perfection in everything. An advanced philosopher shows this belief will not self destruct.

If you are interested I will send them (C.D.'s) to you so you can try to destroy the premise or eventually accept the truth of it.

You said this.



And this.



Christ said this.

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Then you try to wiggle around with this.



No wonder you find yourself in conflict with so many Christians here.

I find myself in conflict with "Christian" everywhere I go. I stand on God's Word and obey His precepts. Are you arguing to argue or are you trying to clear up something I may have missed. There is no wiggling. I quote God's Word unapologetically from an abundance of love.

Do you find these Scripture contradictory? Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses. As followers of Christ we are not under the Law Moses, but under the Law of Christ. Apostle Paul further wrote by the Holy Spirit,

1 Corinthians 9:20-23

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the Gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it."

It's that well documented?
Can you give me 10 contemporary, non-Biblical, Roman accounts of it?

RM, using the New Testament to prove the New Testament is, once again, circular reasoning.

Do you have an equally clear OT quote regarding how Jesus will come to end the Law?

Thanks Carbon, I really appreciate the compliment.

Of course it's all up to him to decide what he will do with that moment of clarity.

Thanks again.

All statements of fact depend on circular reasoning because all claims will ultimately appeal to a self-authenticating source of authority.

All . . without exception!

"To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one's conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point. Another example: Imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, "see, it's a meter." However, the next question is obvious, "How do we know your neighbor's meter stick is really a meter?" This process would go on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium allow). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter."

"The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter."

The meter is a man made construct with an agreed upon definition. You are confusing an agreed upon definition with circular reasoning. I could check my meter stick against the agreed upon definition of a meter:

"The length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.",

and see by just how much my meter stick is off.

No, I am confusing nothing. You are simply refusing to acknowledge your self-authenticating source of authority, which you admit above is an "agreed upon definition."

Your self-authenticating source of authority is human consensus.

I agree with you. Can you refute what It says?

We all use circular reasoning. You start with the idea the Bible is unreliable and end with the same. The problem with you position is it can't stand up to scrutiny. Only the Bible makes sense of Absolute Morality, Laws of Logic, and Uniformity of nature.



This is a fun question. One I have never thought about so it will take time to check it out. Thanks for the challenge.

You say non-Biblical. Have you discovered something others have not about the scholarship of the New Testament? So you think other writings of the same period are better documented?

It been several years since I read these books. Take a look at the book by a former skeptic: Evidence that demands a verdict and his subsequent work, More evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell. Also a former skeptic Lee Strobel wrote The Case For Christ. I will allow you to do the same reading I did. I used to be an atheistic evolutionist. Facts interrupted my life so I did some reading.

Dr. Kindell says there would be a lot more serious Christians if we had a lot more serious skeptics.

How could there be "evening" and "morning" (as we know it) on the first three days of Creation if God did not create the Sun and Moon til day four?

AS, it was either Samuel Clemens or Abe Lincoln that proffered, "best to remain silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or in this case, punch the keyboard) and remove all doubt".