/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

We have a thread already, bud

A thread died for this

>>680480

Those continental positions never existed, it's a lie made up by (((scientists))) influenced by Satan. Don't believe everything you hear from (((them))) kiddo, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

>>680485

(((Scientific))) methods are false. They were made up by Jews from Satan. We're not basing our methods on (((science))) but on logic. Look at a map. How can you not see that the continents were once connected? Also, the Bible does say Pangea existed in Genesis 1:9 (KJV).

>And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."

I don't think you're saved if you believe in the lie of evolution because it means you don't believe in the Bible. But hey, I believe in the Bible that's why I'm a creationist and not a Darwinist. You're either with us or you're against us (Matthew 12:30, KJV).

>>680493

Water in one place implies that there was a single land mass.

Listen if you're going to spew forth your Satanic propaganda then please leave. I know that the Holy Ghost is in me, I can feel him. He directs me towards Christ and Christ alone.

>>680496

>Water in one place implies that there was a single land mass.

So all over the earth is "one place?"

>boast of having the virtuous Holy Spirit

<spits venom at anyone who questions you

Arrogance is not befitting of an apostle.

>>680498

>So all over the earth is "one place?"

I know you hate the Bible.

>Arrogance is not befitting of an apostle.

It's a simple statement of fact… How is fact arrogance?

>>680499

<I know you hate the Bible.

I disagree with your particular interpretation of the Bible, I'm sure there are many here who disagree on your view on this very board.

>It's a simple statement of fact… How is fact arrogance?

You say you feel him within you, how do you know that isn't your inflated ego speaking on your behalf?

>>680462

Good thread, you left out the flat earth though.

>>680500

>I disagree with your particular interpretation of the Bible, I'm sure there are many here who disagree on your view on this very board.

That's most likely because you use a demonic version such as the NIV or the ESV rather than the God given KJV. You probably also have been influence by pagan Roman Catholic ideals. Your "interpretation" is not an interpretation, it's a mutilation.

>You say you feel him within you, how do you know that isn't your inflated ego speaking on your behalf?

Wrong. I know it is him. You have no idea because you have never felt him. Only those who have felt him know him and I know him because I have felt him.

>>680501

Flat earth is stupid, only fools who hate the Bible teach that to make the Bible look stupid.

>>680503

>translations can be demonic

Seriously doubt that

<only my way is right, and anything less is of the Devil

>I know it is him

So did Smith, Newbrough, and Miller right? You act as though it's this spiritual trance that can only be felt by the worthy.

>>680505

<mocking me

So you're advocating relativism? Every way is right?

>So did Smith, Newbrough, and Miller right? You act as though it's this spiritual trance that can only be felt by the worthy.

Wrong. If they had then they would've all been Bible believing Christians. But they weren't. They were from Satan himself and they knew it.

>>680506

<relativism

We're speaking of matters of the way in which the world was created, not in terms of our salvation. The fact of God sending His son to earth to die for our sins is universal to all Christians. I believe Billy Graham put it best

>"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

>They were from Satan himself and they knew it

Amazing how you personally knew their thoughts and motivations.

>>680508

>citing Billy Graham

Billy Graham was a false preacher and is in hell.

>Amazing how you personally knew their thoughts and motivations.

Where did I ever say that?

>>680510

>Billy Graham was a false preacher and is in hell.

<everyone converted by his preaching is in hell as well

At this rate, heaven's gonna be empty by the time you get there.

<Where did I ever say that?

"They were from Satan himself and they knew it."

>>680511

Billy Graham actively promoted false versions, he was a false preacher and was not saved. He deceived numerous people with false Bibles.

Also, I don't seen your point.

>>680513

<false teachers and Bibles

I suppose you only listen to Anderson read and screech from the KJV?

<Also, I don't seen your point.

Being blind does that

>>680462

>God created the world is six literal 24 hour days

Bible doesn't say this, God ushered in Creation before Days and even Light were instituted, it's obviously a metaphor.

Moreover, the authentic Church of Jesus Christ has yet to proclaim any particular view on this invalid, and by the Church, I mean the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

>>680514

Your fiery darts will not harm me Satan, get thee behind me!

>>680516

Yes it does. You are not Christian.

>>680518

"And I have spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets." - Hosea

It's a similitude by the ministry of the prophets anon.

>>680520

Well that managed to shut him up.

>>680524

Hosea 12:10 as a whole destroys most evangelical interpretations.

The Holy Spirit tells us quite explicitly He will use metaphor via His prophets to communicate things to us, and Christ Our Lord chose to give out a majority of His Word in parable.

>>680528

Huh, never knew about the prophets, but I thought it seemed odd that the Christ mostly spoke in parables. And then Evangelicals can only retort with supposed slippery slopes

>>680516

>Bible doesn't say this

It does, so either God's lying or you are.

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

>>680511

Luke 6:26

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

>>680545

Or, He is using a similitude.

Definition of similitude

1 a : counterpart, double

b : a visible likeness : image

2 : an imaginative comparison : simile

3 a : correspondence in kind or quality

b : a point of comparison

A "day" to God is not the same as a day to a man.

You have completely failed to make a substantive rebuttal to my point.

>>680546

So any preacher who isn't outright scorned is false? Well I guess JWs are doing the right thing, because very few seem to treat them with kindness.

>>680547

>A "day" to God is not the same as a day to a man.

The sabbath day is a 24 hour day. The word used is the same, therefore the six days are 24 hour days.

If you think you can just nullify the entire Bible and say it is all a metaphor then you're both wrong and that's wicked. You are making God a liar by contradicting his word here. This is your first step to saying the entire account is false. You can't just say "that's a similitude" for anything you want to redefine, nor can you just say "that's out of context" for anything you don't like. It's not that simple. Well, I suppose you can always say such things if you're willing to lie and deceive, but they are deceptive and wrong. And you can expect someone will point out your falsehoods in that case.

There will continue to be those who want to nullify the word of God through their own personal traditions. Just like the scribes and pharisees did accordingly in Mark 7:7-13. Worth a read.

>>680548

>So any preacher who isn't outright scorned is false?

Wait, where did anyone say that? Please show me where anyone said this. Are you just making stuff up right now?

The entire world is gushing over Billy Graham. They can't get enough of him. Even though he denied Acts 4:12 and said there are many ways to heaven on broadcast television. So, Luke 6:26 is a perfectly fitting verse for him. So is James 4:4.

>>680557

>The sabbath day is a 24 hour day.

This does not address the distinction between the understanding of Time by the eternal, change-less, Father and mere man.

>If you think you can just nullify the entire Bible and say it is all a metaphor then you're both wrong and that's wicked.

And where did I say this? I merely quoted the passage wherein the Holy Spirit affirms that the use of metaphor is definitely utilized in Holy Scripture.

Like the eunuch, we all need the Apostle to teach us the meaning properly, that you disdain the Apostolic Tradition, is not my problem.

>You are making God a liar by contradicting his word here

?

>>680557

<Wait, where did anyone say that?

Well you seem to act as though anyone who isn't booed for even being on stage is some bedfellow of the devil, I'd say you did.

<Even though he denied Acts 4:12 and said there are many ways to heaven on broadcast television

Did you actually witness this or just hear it through the grapevine? I know people have a tendency to twist things.

>>680561

>This does not address the distinction between the understanding of Time by the eternal, change-less, Father and mere man.

Are you saying the sabbath wasn't the seventh day of the week and a 24 hour period of time? Let's clear this up if possible. Are you reinterpreting this right now?

>And where did I say this?

You gave no reason at all for saying this. Someone could use your exact argument to say the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a metaphor as well. And that fact alone already proves how flimsy your reasoning is. If you're going to invoke this explanation, then tell us exactly why some parts of incredibly clear scripture are supposed to be metaphor while others aren't. It seems like you simply want to blend in with the world, so therefore something that goes against the popular view must be smacked down and you'd use such an excuse to do it.

>Like the eunuch, we all need the Apostle to teach us the meaning properly,

Actually, see 1 Corinthians 2:9-13.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

—

So it seems like you spend a lot of time talking about the Holy Spirit while not discerning the fact that it is God himself who teaches understanding. Do you need me to explain St. John 14:16-17? Should I post 1 John 2:27 as well?

>?

Exodus 20:11 says day as in the sabbath day. I am telling you right now that you are calling that a lie by implying day-age theory. Well if what you said was reality, it would mean God literally lied in Exodus 20:11. I can't see how any Christian could believe that God actually lied in making this factual statement in that sentence. Yet here you are, claiming to be one and apparently claiming either Exodus 20:11 isn't the word of God or that God actually said a lie there and also in Genesis 1-2. What follows next is even more "deconstruction," and doubting of what we know to be literal truth, openly wondering if God really said these things and if they are really so. If you'll do that, at least do the rest of us a favor; stop pretending you believe in it.

I never got this full autism creationism vs evolution debate.

God is God. He can bend reality itself, including time. And trying to understand it is no short of a chair trying to do Math.

God does not abide to your human rationality.

>>680566

>Well you seem to act as though anyone who isn't booed for even being on stage is some bedfellow of the devil, I'd say you did.

How? I literally quoted Luke 6:26. That's it.

>Did you actually witness this or just hear it through the grapevine?

His Larry King interview. Said people other faiths are following "the light they have" even if it's without Jesus. Also, the one and only thing he was sure about hell was that it's separation from God, which is yet another big crowd-pleaser with less than zero scriptural basis.

Psalm 139:7-8

Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

>>680571

>Are you saying the sabbath wasn't the seventh day of the week and a 24 hour period of time? Let's clear this up if possible. Are you reinterpreting this right now?

You're putting words in my mouth, you're completely ignoring my point that we can judge the "days" in the context of God as metaphor, for man does not know or see things as God does.

>For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. Isaiah 55:8

You keep circumventing my point, because you can not argue against it, or I must assume as such, because you keep refusing to address it.

>Someone could use your exact argument to say the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a metaphor as well.

True! And this is why Scripture warns of False shepherds and personal interpretations. I am a Catholic, and I rely on the Church's authority for interpretation, being that it is has the deposit of faith of the Apostolic Tradition, and is guided via the Holy Spirit.

>And that fact alone already proves how flimsy your reasoning is. If you're going to invoke this explanation, then tell us exactly why some parts of incredibly clear scripture are supposed to be metaphor while others aren't.

I go to my Church for authority, I am not like you. I do not rely on my own personal interpretation, like you.

>It seems like you simply want to blend in with the world, so therefore something that goes against the popular view must be smacked down and you'd use such an excuse to do it

?

>>680577

>for man does not know or see things as God does.

I say it again. Exodus 20:11—

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

—

It says "sabbath day" in Exodus 20:11. Do you see that? It says "sabbath day." What was the sabbath day? Was it the seventh day of the week? Are you saying day here means something other than that? I'm trying to find out what you mean by trying to draw a "distinction" according to your own words here.

So just tell me, was the sabbath day a 24 hour day or not?

>You keep circumventing my point, because you can not argue against it, or I must assume as such, because you keep refusing to address it.

The address is that after you tried to assert your point I then quoted Exodus 20:11 and pointed out that it says "sabbath day" directly in the sentence. So if that is a 24 hour day how is this supposed to be a metaphor? I keep trying to ask this but you keep on pretending Exodus 20:11 doesn't say "sabbath day" in it.

>I am a Catholic, and I rely on the Church's authority for interpretation, being that it is has the deposit of faith of the Apostolic Tradition, and is guided via the Holy Spirit.

So you basically admit you are not guided by the Holy Spirit. Am I getting that right?

>I do not rely on my own personal interpretation, like you.

How would you know this if you aren't guided by the Holy Spirit? How do you pretend to know this? In fact, what gives you the authority to even post anything at all about scripture here?

>?

Evolution is the world's current trend even though there is no real basis for it in scripture anywhere, and the parts that contradict it you want to smack down with "it's just a metaphor, bro" even though you don't have the authority to do it.

>>680575

<How? I literally quoted Luke 6:26. That's it.

You regurgitate Bible verses on a whim. You dismiss any souls this man has saved and instead would leave them burning in eternal damnation.

<Said people other faiths are following "the light they have" even if it's without Jesus

So he said they crave God and attempt to worship them in their own way? That just sounds like human nature, not universalism. But of course you'd twist that. Who do you accept? Anderson, yourself?

<Also, the one and only thing he was sure about hell was that it's separation from God

Welp, guess any pastor in history who has said anything like that was a heretic and entire congregations have been cast into eternal hellfire. Is this fun for you? Just seeing how many you can torture?

Guess it's either spit venom or the infernal gallows for anyone.

>>680581

>I say it again.

You're refusing to address the point, yet again.

>It says "sabbath day" in Exodus 20:11. Do you see that? It says "sabbath day." What was the sabbath day? Was it the seventh day of the week? Are you saying day here means something other than that?

Yes, because, once again: For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

>So if that is a 24 hour day how is this supposed to be a metaphor?

What you're saying is inherently nonsensical, a passage being figurative for one does not mean all passages are figurative, and literalist passages does not mean all of scripture is literalist.

Once more, I am not like you. The Church teaches that Scripture teaches through both metaphor, literalist, and figurative language.

>So you basically admit you are not guided by the Holy Spirit. Am I getting that right?

If the Church is not guided by the Spirit, then neither was Christ.

>How would you know this if you aren't guided by the Holy Spirit?

Because the Apostles and the Church are guided by the Holy Spirit. I strongly suspect you aren't, so why should I regard your personal interpretation?

>Evolution is the world's current trend even though there is no real basis for it in scripture anywhere, and the parts that contradict it you want to smack down with "it's just a metaphor, bro" even though you don't have the authority to do it.

Man came from dust, Man came from Slime, and per the words of St. Paul, our bodies are natural bodies joined to the Spirit.

>It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written:

This spiritual body will not be joined to us until the Last Day.

>>680583

>You regurgitate Bible verses on a whim. You dismiss any souls this man has saved and instead would leave them burning in eternal damnation.

Ok first of all, I think you are confused here. My first post to you was quoting Luke 6:26.

But secondly, I tell you now that the man was a false prophet, that a corrupt tree only brings forth corrupt fruit. If anyone got saved it's because someone else who was there gave them the word of God, not because of Billy Graham. Also, it's not even up to me to send anyone to damnation, and I normally wouldn't even bring this up, except you just accused me so I am now clarifying it. Hope that settles things. I am not the guy you were arguing with earlier. I'm not sure why you seem to keep thinking this.

>So he said they crave God and attempt to worship them in their own way? That just sounds like human nature, not universalism. But of course you'd twist that.

If you really don't believe me just look up "Billy Graham Exposed Full Documentary" on youtube, it has 200k views you should be able to find it if you are having trouble doing research. Luke 6:26 is fitting. That's all I have to say on the matter.

>Who do you accept? Anderson, yourself?

That's a vague question. But the final authority is the word of God, and it doesn't matter who contradicts it.

>Is this fun for you? Just seeing how many you can torture?

I think you have me confused for someone else, honestly. Still, I hope the facts have shocked some sense into you. I hope you have an enjoyable weekend.

>>680590

>My first post to you was quoting Luke 6:26.

You kept speaking of false prophets, the insinuation is that they weren't saved by any of his preaching. And it looks like I was right, since you hold such venom for him.

>Billy Graham Exposed Full Documentary

<trusting sensationalist tripe

Though I suppose it's only when it suits your narrative.

>But the final authority is the word of God, and it doesn't matter who contradicts it

Everyone most likely contradicts it in some way, no man is without sin.

>the facts have shocked some sense into you

At least I know what a lost cause looks like.

>>680587

>What you're saying is inherently nonsensical, a passage being figurative for one does not mean all passages are figurative, and literalist passages does not mean all of scripture is literalist.

Just tell me, was the sabbath day a 24 hour day or not? And if you don't want to answer me on this point, then don't.

>If the Church is not guided by the Spirit, then neither was Christ.

I'm going to take that as a yes because you admit the question without actually answering.

>I strongly suspect you aren't, so why should I regard your personal interpretation?

All you strictly have to do is see Exodus 20:11 for yourself and if you are saved then you will be given understanding from God. I'm only here to make sure you don't force a wrong interpretation on people, so far it's been a pretty clear-cut job. If you just stopped posting about things you don't have authority to talk about then things would be good.

>>680593

>since you hold such venom for him.

This sounds like a follower of a false prophet. Would I be right in assessing this? Try reading Acts 4:12 sometime.

>rest of your post

Are you a progressive? This doesn't sound good. Maybe you really need to watch that documentary.

Acts 4:10-12

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

>>680598

<follower of a false prophet

I don't follow him, but I certainly respect what he set out to do. Speaking unto the nations.

>>680599

>>>implying

>are you a progressive?

How dare you lump me in with them. You really do alienate anyone who opposes you.

<maybe you need to watch the fearmongering

No thanks

>>680601

>How dare you lump me in with them.

Progressives are quick to presume things are wrong and demand to be spoonfed facts, when they can't even do their own research if they are interested. I could google "larry king interview" for you but I'm not going to.

For all it concerns me you can keep the herd mentality. But if you aren't even going to bother to verify the sources I've already provided for you (Larry King interview, documentary) then why keep posting? That's the part I don't get. It's like you don't believe me when I say something and refuse to even search for or view the sources given but you're gonna keep posting here.

there is a thread already. Pooh off

>>680462

I agree with you entirely, but we've already got a Creation General to contain the poo-flinging that this thread will inevitably turn into.

>>680623

>>680618

>>680625

>>680626

>>680628

>>680629

>>680630

>>680631

>>680632

>>680633

>>680634

>>680635

WTF

>>680574

Shhh! We're trying to put God in a box ITT

>God created the world is six literal 24 hour days.

There were no days back then, how do you know they were 24 hours? Besides the day even varies on earth, I lived in Canada where the day was almost a week long.

>The universe has only been in existence for the last 6,000 years.

THIS WAS BULLSHIT CALCULATION BY AN IRISHMAN CALLED JAMES USHER

The amount of assumptions he pulled out of his ass to make that calculation is ridiculous.

>>680649

>>680574

>>680659

Agnostic logic.

>YoU cAn'T kNoW

>>680595

>Just tell me, was the sabbath day a 24 hour day or not? And if you don't want to answer me on this point, then don't.

1. The Scripture can be read metaphorically, literally, and allegorically.

2. The context of the Scripture is thus incredibly important.

3. Combining both 1. and 2., the instructions according to the Sabbath for Man, are not the same with the similitudes used in Genesis to describe something experienced by God, which as I have repeated several times, whom does not experience things as man do.

What more do you need? You're misunderstanding my point on purpose here.

>I'm going to take that as a yes because you admit the question without actually answering.

Did Christ leave a Church or not, heretic?

>and if you are saved then you will be given understanding from God.

You have no understanding, your eyes are blind, you have ears and do not hear.

>I'm only here to make sure you don't force a wrong interpretation on people

You're here to spread error and mislead others, just as any other damned wolf.

>>680659

>There were no days back then, how do you know they were 24 hours? Besides the day even varies on earth, I lived in Canada where the day was almost a week long.

As Hosea 12:10 proves, metaphor will be used by the ministry of the prophets, thus the idea that God experiences Days as man does, by reason of Hosea 12:10, can be doubted as a metaphor by the authority of God Himself, and throughout 2,000 years the Church has never actually been moved to proclaim either way.

Moreover, God tells us in Isaiah that He does not in fact experience things the way His creatures do, you know, being God and outside of Time, and the Creator of all things. Do not let this be a stumbling-block to you.

The Church Fathers have taught that the six "days" can be regarded as six "stages", according to God, and the seventh stage of Rest is now our time, and the Sabbath day of the week was commemorated to honor it.

"We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, "Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven;" Galatians 4:26 and in another place, "For you are all the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness." - St. Augustine

We are in the year 6893 of the Byzantine Calendar. Atheist modernists have changed it in the 18th century, but follow the authority of the Holy Orthodox Church instead.

>>680466

It's fine. We've had quite a few threads deleted recently. Nothing's been pushed off.

>>680775

<those last two

Let me guess, a Hovind sermon?

>>680722

>thus the idea that God experiences Days as man does, by reason of Hosea 12:10, can be doubted as a metaphor

No it can't. You have not given nearly a sufficient reason. Stop irresponsibly telling people that it's acceptable to DOUBT God's word. I'm telling you, it's like I'm dealing with pharisees who are looking for a loophole to nullify everything the word of God says.

By what authority do you interpret these things? You already told us before you are not being guided by the Holy Spirit. So then the question comes where are you getting all this? Should you not remain silent on matters you don't understand?

>>680719

>1. The Scripture can be read metaphorically, literally, and allegorically.

>2. The context of the Scripture is thus incredibly important.

>3. Combining both 1. and 2., the instructions according to the Sabbath for Man, are not the same with the similitudes used in Genesis to describe something experienced by God, which as I have repeated several times, whom does not experience things as man do.

That is still not an answer. Do you mean to say yes the sabbath day was 24 hours or no it was not? If you don't want to answer then don't answer, but if you WILL answer again then tell us was the sabbath day a 24 hour day, yes or no?

I've laid it out in simple terms. The onus is on you to answer fairly or not at all. We are all getting tired of dealing with these long, dissembling non-answers.

>What more do you need?

I need you to tell us whether you think the sabbath day was 24 hours or not. In fact that's all I originally asked for, but you have so far avoided to answer.

>You're here to spread error and mislead others, just as any other damned wolf.

What gives you the authority to say this. By whom do you get the approval to interpret any scripture on this matter or to interpret it at all? This is a serious question and needs an answer.

Maybe if you were actually engaging in the discussion at hand instead of making all these accusations which you can't possibly substantiate, there would be less repeating myself. You are abusing scripture and telling people the Hosea 12:10 is some kind of loophole, that can be abused to get any result you want. It's irresponsible.

>>680804

They probably looked the same as we do now

>>680811

>Then what the hell are all the others that look quite dissimilar from people now?

Uh, non-humans? I thought we went over the fact you can't classify every fossil with 100% precision. Or are you a new fossil-poster?

>>680812

<I thought we went over the fact you can't classify every fossil with 100% precision

Never said that, but considering many creationists have tried, I'd assume you would have some baseline.

>>680816

>Never said that, but considering many creationists have tried, I'd assume you would have some baseline.

Maybe they have, but they are still fallible. And understandably so because a fossil isn't a living specimen and so some information is irretrievably lost.

But even more importantly, if some flood geologist makes a bombastic prediction that's on him not on scripture. I don't see how their theories become attached to the rest of us.

Ultimately, I don't see the immediate problem that identifying some fossils would solve. So I'm really not too worried about it.

>>680761

Eh sounds pretty nice, why didn't it last?

>>680462

II. (2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.

(3) When, therefore, Moses says, "God completed his works on the sixth day," we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number. Since it is the first number which is equal in its parts, in the half, and the third and sixth parts, and since it is produced by the multiplication of two unequal factors, two and three. And the numbers two and three exceed the incorporeality which exists in the unit; because the number two is an image of matter being divided into two parts and dissected like matter. And the number three is an image of a solid body, because a solid can be divided according to a threefold division. (4) Not but what it is also akin to the motions of organic animals. For an organic body is naturally capable of motion in six directions, forward, backwards, upwards, downwards, to the right, and to the left. And at all events he desires to show that the races of mortal, and also of all the immortal beings, exist according to their appropriate numbers; measuring mortal beings, as I have said, by the number six, and the blessed and immortal beings by the number seven. (5) First, therefore, having desisted from the creation of mortal creatures on the seventh day, he began the formation of other and more divine beings.

- Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretations I (30 A.D.)

Talmudists hate Philo. But Philo was red pilled, he knew about the Logos and that it was begotten of God.

>>680462

>Genesis 2:10

>And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

Clearly this can only be correctly read on opposite day though since those rivers are flowing into Eden, not out of it!

>>680796

>I've laid it out in simple terms. The onus is on you to answer fairly or not at all. We are all getting tired of dealing with these long, dissembling non-answers.

And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

Allow the mouth of the Lamb to end your argument. The sabbath day and its distinction is not applicable to God and His ways, which we do not know.

>>680462

>Prove me wrong.

The eucharist is literal.