Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity…

Yep.

The manner in which He went about creation, and the time involved in creation, are irrelevant. That “God created” all of it is what is relevant.

Creation happened eons ago. My preacher claims about 5000 years. I told him that would not stand up under the slightest scrutiny.

I am a pain in the ass for him.

I also told him Jesus could not have been killed on Friday afternoon and come up missing by Sunday morning if he spent 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb. And that Easter isn't the anniversary of anything since it comes on a different day every year.

I know Antlers, all that is of no consequence, I believe that too.

Antlers and KRP. It’s quite interesting that you guys are being led by the Holy Spirit into truth yet you can’t see the truth that has been held in Christianity since before Christ.

Your views are nothing more than dispensational theology. Dispensational theology is a heresy that was introduced into the church about 200 years ago. It is not a historical view of Christianity but “new theology“ that was “discovered“ 200 years ago.

You guys can talk all the talk you want to, but you are not in any way, shape or form representing historical Christianity.

You know, it's like the Gospels, all telling the same Story, but in different ways.
It reinforces the "Story".

Gospel/scripture is Christ, confirmed biblically.

The understanding of the Gospel/scripture is through the Holy Spirit, confirmed biblically.

Our personal relationship with Christ/gospel/scripture is spiritual, confirmed biblically.

Christ is the living Gospel, from the infinity of before into the infinity forward, confirmed biblically

The bible contains snippets of this infinite gospel, from the creation onward. The written word is to lead some to awareness of the Holy Spirit, each person is different.

It could be as little as two words... I am... it could be a child singing Jesus loves me this I know... it could be as an infant, Paul speaking to Timothy... it could even be in the womb as with John the baptist.

Any of these steps can lead to the Holy Spirit and the living Gospel.

Kent

What do you make of that letter Paul sent to Timothy wherein he said that "all That be in Asia" had turned away from him. Who was in the wrong? The Asians (modern Turkey) or Paul?

Rejecting Paul isn't rejecting Christ. But I doubt all of Asia rejected him, there were likely fractions.

Kent

It seems to me that the book by Jesus' brother James and a good bit of the Revelation of Jesus Christ are written in opposition to Paul. There had to have been a lot of dissent against Paul by the first Christians and not just the Jerusalem Christians.

But the Paul version for the most part won out and morphed into the Roman endorsed church. I believe that a lot of what was attributed to Paul was doctored to support the civil government/church connection. There is almost no other explanation for Romans 13 among others.

That's a bit of a stretch. The sequence of events is wrong anyway, to be made much worse if days are converted to be "epoch": Day 3: Dry ground & plants · Day 4: Sun, moon & stars. Plants are gonna be dead if there's no sun.

And the earth is not flat.

I don't state that the world was created in six literal days, the book of Genesis does that. I merely point to it.

It's right there for all to see and read, the morning of the first day, the evening of the first day, the morning of the second day, the evening of the second day, etc.

Undeniable. Cannot be interpreted as millions of years or evolution.

Genesis describes special creation over six literal days, just as it is written, followed by a list of generations following Adam and Eve.

Well, you have a very narrow and self serving interpretation of Genesis 1. Makes me wonder if you have ever read it.

Light and “darkness” were created on the first day. A simple reading shows that “light” had already been in existence before “Let the land produce vegetation……”. Dry land and vegetation came after “light and darkness.” Most will see that what they recognize as the “greater and lesser lights” came later. You comment about “Plants are gonna be dead if there’s no sun” is not accurate if indeed “light and darkness” were in existence before what you think is Day 4. Seems that life was flourishing with the light provided by the Creator.

But, you will believe what you choose to believe and you may remain in the state you are in.

As has been said before…. The primary message of Genesis 1 is THAT God DID create, not …how. You make a very serious error trying to extract and reconcile current “scientific” speculation with Genesis 1.

Thanks wabigoon for pointing it out.......When one gives SOURCES such as I did then it is NOT plagiarism.

Agreed!

The sun provides our light - undeniable scientific fact. The superstitious savages that put that biblical version of events together had no idea.

No, Genesis does not necessarily state that the earth was created in six literal days. That is simply your self serving interpretation and opinion. An opinion impacted by your continuing denial. What you state as “Undeniable” is simplistic and false.

You remind me a bit like all the “scientists” that presented all the “facts” regarding Covid and the vaccine..facts that were “undeniable” but later shown to be pretty much nothing but self serving lies. The “science” was not factual nor true.

I also remember stating that it had once become clear that the universe had been cycling….expanding and then contracting….then “big banging” again…..the universe had existed “forever” and a “creator” was irrelevant.

Now the scientific community seem to believe that the universe is expanding and will continue to expand…..and that it did indeed begin with a creation event.

Meh…. You choose what you want to believe…. One can believe “untruths.”

That is why I ask…..”If you believed something that was untrue, would you want to know it?”

I have met many people who prefer to believe comforting lies…..not uncomfortable truth. Pretty common.

Well, it seems to me that the “superstitious savages” of the past had a better grasp of both reality and possibility than some of the “posters” of today…..

So, how about Plato…..? Others….? A superstitious savage? What an arrogant and illogical opinion.

But you are free to share your opinions….

Proverbs 26: 4-5

You're straw-manning me. I'm not saying everyone back then was a superstitious savage, but the ones that put together the good book of immorals certainly seemed to be the case.

The level of a denial of the truth you display is mind boggling. It is a simple fact that Genesis specifies mornings and evenings of each day of creation.

You can see it for yourself.


I quote;

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


''The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And so on, each day is specified, morning and evening/

A morning and evening does not represent an epoch or millions of years, just a day.




You are proven wrong, yet continue to act like you made a point.

There's no account in scripture of Paul meeting
or even seeing a recognisable bodily Jesus.
So How did Paul come to know Jesus personally?