Originally posted by lce:giving 10%
WHO to?
"Once again yoy show yourself to be incompetent in seeing your own errors. Tell me, what in the world is an exegrete? Exegete I know but exegrete? Duh."
I thought you got it the 1st time when you said "I think you excreted the wrong word...." explicitly its exegete + excrete = exegrete.
"Again there is no issue of out of context for Jesus' words. A good exegete will not fail to draw the conclusion that Jesus was talking about a real historical Adam and Eve who were created from the beginning i.e. day six of creation week. The Jews have no notion of an earth that is billions of years old. And you obviously teh gong about the Jewish calendar."
Exegrete as much as you want. As long as Jesus did not mean it was 4000 years ago when He said that, you are taking it out of context to mean He meant that. That is putting words to Jesus's mouth... What has the Jewish calender have to do with what Jesus said in that verse? Define teh gong as its ambiguous here.
"Not necessary means not necessary lah! Again a good exegete would know that the time from Abraham to Jesus spans about 2000 years and this is not disputed at all. Problem is when compromisers (like you) believe in evolution and must deny the plain truth that the Bible teaches about a literal Adam who was created and a literal Eve who was fashioned from his rib, all on a single day."
Yeah.. seems like you exegrete plenty times a day... So you had just admitted its a deliberate omission to misinform.
What makes you think I believe in the evolution you described? I don't.
"And when you do respond at all I see the very same things you accused others of. Not only do you deny the veracity of Scripture you endorse the irrational, and stupidly believe that God used evolution to create the universe, oblivious to the fact the evolution is a theory thought up to deny the need for God, even His very existence. You would see God's handwork in an undirected, random, naturalistic process that began in a big bang which after billions of years evolved and somehow we came to be? Such is completely anti-thetical to the plain teaching of Scripture yet you would heartily embraced it.
False accuser, present where I believe "that God used evolution to create the universe". The rest of your post is really full of exegrete...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Once again yoy show yourself to be incompetent in seeing your own errors. Tell me, what in the world is an exegrete? Exegete I know but exegrete? Duh."
I thought you got it the 1st time when you said "I think you excreted the wrong word...." explicitly its exegete + excrete = exegrete.
"Again there is no issue of out of context for Jesus' words. A good exegete will not fail to draw the conclusion that Jesus was talking about a real historical Adam and Eve who were created from the beginning i.e. day six of creation week. The Jews have no notion of an earth that is billions of years old. And you obviously teh gong about the Jewish calendar."
Exegrete as much as you want. As long as Jesus did not mean it was 4000 years ago when He said that, you are taking it out of context to mean He meant that. That is putting words to Jesus's mouth... What has the Jewish calender have to do with what Jesus said in that verse? Define teh gong as its ambiguous here.
"Not necessary means not necessary lah! Again a good exegete would know that the time from Abraham to Jesus spans about 2000 years and this is not disputed at all. Problem is when compromisers (like you) believe in evolution and must deny the plain truth that the Bible teaches about a literal Adam who was created and a literal Eve who was fashioned from his rib, all on a single day."
Yeah.. seems like you exegrete plenty times a day... So you had just admitted its a deliberate omission to misinform.
What makes you think I believe in the evolution you described? I don't."And when you do respond at all I see the very same things you accused others of. Not only do you deny the veracity of Scripture you endorse the irrational, and stupidly believe that God used evolution to create the universe, oblivious to the fact the evolution is a theory thought up to deny the need for God, even His very existence. You would see God's handwork in an undirected, random, naturalistic process that began in a big bang which after billions of years evolved and somehow we came to be? Such is completely anti-thetical to the plain teaching of Scripture yet you would heartily embraced it.
False accuser, present where I believe "that God used evolution to create the universe". The rest of your post is really full of exegrete...
Wow, the way you can twist yourself out of a situation is really something! A clear case of wrongly calling it exegrete you can weasel out and say you were trying to combine excrete with exegete. How hard is it to admit you were wrong? Duh.
Like it or not, the worldview of the Jews in the Bible has no place for billions of years. Evolution put man at the end whereas Biblical creation has man "from the beginning of creation". It is not about putting words in Jesus' mouth, but understanding the Hebrew worldview, of which you FAILED to take the initiative to find out. Must spoon feed you, say ahhhhhh.....
See http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2901/jewish/How-Old-is-the-Universe-According-to-Judaism.htm
You accused me of misinformation by omission, yet you utterly failed to prove where the misinformation is and what. Just accuse can liao. Duh. You certainly do not believe in Biblical creation, so what view of origins do you hold then? I look forward to yet another ambiguous non-committal answer from you.
"Wow, the way you can twist yourself out of a situation is really something! A clear case of wrongly calling it exegrete you can weasel out and say you were trying to combine excrete with exegete. How hard is it to admit you were wrong? Duh."
No shit, exegrete...
Its clear like day that that site deliberately omitted the chronology from Abraham to Jesus. He was even taken out of context to mean it was 4000yrs. Deny as much as you can, this remain a fact. When critical question was raised you dismissed as "not necessary", thus it proved that it's not completely supported biblically. Now you are bringing the Jews to make your belief more believable. How many Jews believe in a young earth? Are you Jewish as well as Christian?
The question now is how the site you linked is being fallacious. Its no more of a red herring to throw strawmans of evolution and Jewish calendar. Argue biblically, logically, maturely.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Wow, the way you can twist yourself out of a situation is really something! A clear case of wrongly calling it exegrete you can weasel out and say you were trying to combine excrete with exegete. How hard is it to admit you were wrong? Duh."
No shit, exegrete...
Its clear like day that that site deliberately omitted the chronology from Abraham to Jesus. He was even taken out of context to mean it was 4000yrs. Deny as much as you can, this remain a fact. When critical question was raised you dismissed as "not necessary", thus it proved that it's not completely supported biblically. Now you are bringing the Jews to make your belief more believable. How many Jews believe in a young earth? Are you Jewish as well as Christian?
The question now is how the site you linked is being fallacious. Its no more of a red herring to throw strawmans of evolution and Jewish calendar. Argue biblically, logically, maturely.
An unreasonable person will always find fault with so-called ommissions, yet the fact remains that you failed to show how that so-called ommission have affected the argument, or that mentioning it will invalidate anything. No words of Jesus was taken out of contect either. Jesus was talking about creation of Adam and Eve in the context of marriage. Jews knew that Adam and Eve were created on Day six about 4000 years ago. You can deny it but you cannot negate that fact. And what with the silly notion that I must be a Jew? Cannot argue logically so just anyhow whack red herrings?
The link I gave has no fallacies. You are simply alleging it but fail to prove anything of that sort.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
An unreasonable person will always find fault with so-called ommissions, yet the fact remains that you failed to show how that so-called ommission have affected the argument, or that mentioning it will invalidate anything. No words of Jesus was taken out of contect either. Jesus was talking about creation of Adam and Eve in the context of marriage. Jews knew that Adam and Eve were created on Day six about 4000 years ago. You can deny it but you cannot negate that fact. And what with the silly notion that I must be a Jew? Cannot argue logically so just anyhow whack red herrings?
The link I gave has no fallacies. You are simply alleging it but fail to prove anything of that sort.
The link deliberately omit the information necessary(cherry picking) to tabulate it as 4000yrs but went on to assert it as such(appeal to believe). The link took Jesus words to meant Jesus believe in what they believe(quoting out of context). You can believe it true by blindly following what they want you to believe. I'm asking for biblical proofs and you give me none... but referred to Jewish beliefs(red herring). So are you arguing on Christians beliefs or on Jewish beliefs?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:The link deliberately omit the information necessary(cherry picking) to tabulate it as 4000yrs but went on to assert it as such(appeal to believe). The link took Jesus words to meant Jesus believe in what they believe(quoting out of context). You can believe it true by blindly following what they want you to believe. I'm asking for biblical proofs and you give me none... but referred to Jewish beliefs(red herring). So are you arguing on Christians beliefs or on Jewish beliefs?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Its a shame that you should ask... 2 Cor 9:7.
Really, i cannot be bothered with him. this guy is questionable.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Agreed. And it's not just malachi.
Some christians say its not applicable, but then still use other parts of the OT.
That is called hypocritical. Weren't the pharisees in the bible also practising hypocrisy?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:If one has decided in his/ her heart to give nothing, one will not be happy to give anything. Not happy, don't give. (which was what my ex-father-inlaw told me.)
Why did you ask something you obviously know (2Cor 9:7)?
After exchanging words with him many times you still don't know he is here for troublemaking?
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Can you guys for one agree on what in the OT is applicable and what in the OT is not applicable?
Because some of you say ten commandments, tithing are applicable, some say no.
Some say parts of the OT is applicable, some say no.
It's really confusing, coming from people who claim to believe in the same God?
The BIC acts according to his whimps and fancies, suka suka. Read the reply to you below you should know he is more interested in troublemaking.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
There was no misquote. There was only no quote.
His interpretation was not wrong... unless you would like say so...
Wow such answer as no such verse as cheerful when you give, this is so lame from BIC! He selectively quote and use bible verses as he likes. Scary! Shudders!
Never look upon such a soul if one wants to become a christian for he will lead one to no where.
Originally posted by SJS6638:Wow such answer as no such verse as cheerful when you give, this is so lame from BIC! He selectively quote and use bible verses as he likes. Scary! Shudders!
Never look upon such a soul if one wants to become a christian for he will lead one to no where.
err erm .... clearing my throat. die die must .................. ! yo yo yo/////////
Originally posted by SJS6638:err erm .... clearing my throat. die die must .................. ! yo yo yo/////////
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are simply using your ignorance to argue against the article, or else you lack the initiative to check things out for yourself. I have already supplied the information that the time between Abraham and Jesus was about 2000 years. Unless you have some good evidence that it should be far longer than a couple of thousands of years, your objection is simply another silly juvenille attempt to deny a clear teaching of the Bible. And it wasn't a case of making Jesus believe what we did, but believing in what Jesus did believe. You got things all wrong! Biblical proofs have been given but for those not in tune with the Boble it is no wonder that they failed to see it. And your fallacy of false dilemma is noted. The Bible is a book steeped in the Hebrew-Jewish mindset, so I am free to use both Newish and Christian beliefs as they do not necessarily conflict at all points. Again you should not use your ignorance of Bible knowledge to invalidate the argument made based on knowledge of the Bible.
"You are simply using your ignorance to argue against the article, or else you lack the initiative to check things out for yourself. I have already supplied the information that the time between Abraham and Jesus was about 2000 years. Unless you have some good evidence that it should be far longer than a couple of thousands of years, your objection is simply another silly juvenille attempt to deny a clear teaching of the Bible. And it wasn't a case of making Jesus believe what we did, but believing in what Jesus did believe. You got things all wrong! "
No you did not supply the information, you merely said it as so. No link, no source, no credential. Your claim "the time between Abraham and Jesus was about 2000 years", so take up the burden of proof. Where is the information that shows the chronologe from Abraham to Jesus? The Jewish link has no such information. Christian source please since the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as Saviour and will not endorse what you claim Jesus to believe. Nice try shifting the burden of proof.
"Biblical proofs have been given but for those not in tune with the Boble it is no wonder that they failed to see it. And your fallacy of false dilemma is noted. The Bible is a book steeped in the Hebrew-Jewish mindset, so I am free to use both Newish and Christian beliefs as they do not necessarily conflict at all points. Again you should not use your ignorance of Bible knowledge to invalidate the argument made based on knowledge of the Bible."
I'm not against their Scriptures but their rejection to Jesus. I was quite taken aback that you used their beliefs to back you argument that Jesus believed in a young earth... which is what we are still debating... Oh, did they quote from the Scriptures to derive the age of earth? I know right?
@SJS,
"Really, i cannot be bothered with him. this guy is questionable."
"After exchanging words with him many times you still don't know he is here for troublemaking?"
"Wow such answer as no such verse as cheerful when you give, this is so lame from BIC! He selectively quote and use bible verses as he likes. Scary! Shudders! Never look upon such a soul if one wants to become a christian for he will lead one to no where."
If he is really what he claimed to be, he must be exposed openly. Disgraceful antics smearing the name of Christ.
Blessed/Happy/Fortunate are:[2][3]
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Originally posted by Aneslayer:@SJS,
"Really, i cannot be bothered with him. this guy is questionable."
"After exchanging words with him many times you still don't know he is here for troublemaking?"
"Wow such answer as no such verse as cheerful when you give, this is so lame from BIC! He selectively quote and use bible verses as he likes. Scary! Shudders! Never look upon such a soul if one wants to become a christian for he will lead one to no where."If he is really what he claimed to be, he must be exposed openly. Disgraceful antics smearing the name of Christ.
Blessed/Happy/Fortunate are:[2][3]
- the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
- those who mourn: for they will be comforted. (5:4)
- the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
- they who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be satisfied. (5:6)
- the merciful: for they will be shown mercy. (5:7)
- the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
- the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. (5:9)
- those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)
Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The way he is tells. He is always right, full of self righteousness like the pharisees. Does he love his own neighbours as stated above in the scripture? We know the answer.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"You are simply using your ignorance to argue against the article, or else you lack the initiative to check things out for yourself. I have already supplied the information that the time between Abraham and Jesus was about 2000 years. Unless you have some good evidence that it should be far longer than a couple of thousands of years, your objection is simply another silly juvenille attempt to deny a clear teaching of the Bible. And it wasn't a case of making Jesus believe what we did, but believing in what Jesus did believe. You got things all wrong! "
No you did not supply the information, you merely said it as so. No link, no source, no credential. Your claim "the time between Abraham and Jesus was about 2000 years", so take up the burden of proof. Where is the information that shows the chronologe from Abraham to Jesus? The Jewish link has no such information. Christian source please since the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as Saviour and will not endorse what you claim Jesus to believe. Nice try shifting the burden of proof.
"Biblical proofs have been given but for those not in tune with the Boble it is no wonder that they failed to see it. And your fallacy of false dilemma is noted. The Bible is a book steeped in the Hebrew-Jewish mindset, so I am free to use both Newish and Christian beliefs as they do not necessarily conflict at all points. Again you should not use your ignorance of Bible knowledge to invalidate the argument made based on knowledge of the Bible."
I'm not against their Scriptures but their rejection to Jesus. I was quite taken aback that you used their beliefs to back you argument that Jesus believed in a young earth... which is what we are still debating... Oh, did they quote from the Scriptures to derive the age of earth? I know right?
Not all Jews rejected Jesus. But again this is irrelevant to the issue of what the Jews believe concerning what the Hebrew Scriptures teaches about the age of the earth. I have provided the sources which you did not, and could not refute. Instead you harped about their rejection of Jesus which is a totally irrelevant point!
I have presented a few lines of evidence pointing out that the Jews held to a young earth, so far you offered no rebuttal or refutation. You did throw out red herrings though but I am not falling for such lame diversion tactics.
The rule is BIC is always right. In any argument, he "wins". His aim is to win , showing God's love is secondary or almost non existent at all in his communication with people.
Love love love. Love is preached a great number of times in the church.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I am not shifting the burden of proof but exposing your shallow knowledge of the Bible. You lack the initiative to check sources like Wiki that mentions this information about the time of Abraham in relation to creation and Christ.Not all Jews rejected Jesus. But again this is irrelevant to the issue of what the Jews believe concerning what the Hebrew Scriptures teaches about the age of the earth. I have provided the sources which you did not, and could not refute. Instead you harped about their rejection of Jesus which is a totally irrelevant point!
I have presented a few lines of evidence pointing out that the Jews held to a young earth, so far you offered no rebuttal or refutation. You did throw out red herrings though but I am not falling for such lame diversion tactics.
Your choice to link to Jewish beliefs is... puzzling. If Jews accepted Christ, they would be Christians primarily...
Still that link you linked to argue that Jesus believed in a young earth still has this deliberate omission. If the jews rejected Christ, I have no reasons to believe in what they say about what Christ believed.
Oh... are we arguing that the Jews believe in a young earth now(red herring)? That's not my concern...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Your choice to link to Jewish beliefs is... puzzling. If Jews accepted Christ, they would be Christians primarily...
Still that link you linked to argue that Jesus believed in a young earth still has this deliberate omission. If the jews rejected Christ, I have no reasons to believe in what they say about what Christ believed.
Oh... are we arguing that the Jews believe in a young earth now(red herring)? That's not my concern...
Evidence??? You mean you take their worldviews as evidence? Ok noted...
I think you are all expending too much time and energy on the position of the 10% tithing. Not enough on the Why and How.
Its getting a bit convoluted now.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Evidence??? You mean you take their worldviews as evidence? Ok noted...