[geocentrism] Re: Very dangerous times indeed
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
(N) Because it is a phophecy. It did not happen in the past, but has yet to
happen. It h as yet to be fulfilled. The same as the phophecy of the Israelites
return to the Holy Land, which started in 1948.
(A)It was prophesy????. Moses and Joel and Daniel were all long before Jesus
and the Church??.by about 600-1500 years ??but Jesus and the beginning of the
church are our history not our prophesy!....I only know this via
scripture?..This has nothing to do with what scripture sates about itself .
Anything prophesized is future to the event prophesized The whole arrival of
the coming of Jesus the first time was a future event to those who prophesied
it?..not sure why you think this is relevant.
(N)I call it interpretation, just like you do, although I seem to remember that
a short while back you were arguing against any interpretation or reasoning.
The fact that Flood accounts are present through any ancient people you care to
find, even those that have been "cut off" for hundreds of years, greatly
strengthens our case for telling others that a Flood really did occur. The fact
that "long day," or "long night," or "long sunset" accounts are present from
around the globe greatly strengthens our case for the geostationary cosmology
of the Tanakh.
(A)This makes my point?..If you admit that what you are doing with scripture is
interpretation then how is scripture defining scripture more arbitrary or
Interpretative? You don?t care what scripture states you just want to believe
it the way you have arbitrarily decided what it should mean. ? As for Reasoning
this was my point, it is you who argues for the reasoning of man and if so what
is the logic or reasoning are you applying??It is not consistent with any form
of logic I know of.. This is the difference between using logic and determining
the interpretation. I am not against logic nor was that my original argument.
There is a difference between finding understanding in "my reasoning" verse
finding understanding via what scripture states and accepting that, which is
"reasonable". I do not have to find it "reasonable" in order to accept it.
Where is your reasoning that you stated was so necessary, I know it is
arbitrary but where is the logic the constancy in it ??.. . Re
ading
and believing scripture and scriptural definitions does not require reading
into it or applying my ideas to it.????.Physical evidence like everything else
says one thing to some and one thing to others if you do not accept scripture
what are you basing any of your arguments on.. Scripture that those events took
place??.. I agree there is no scripture for the Pope but I only know that from
scripture, not that I just decided I did not like him or something. And if it
is from scripture then it is not from men. I want bother going into any more
detail at this time with you because it doesn?t matter to you what the Bible
states or how plainly it states it.
No, I stated that my faith is in Gods word and it does not need my or anyone?s
interpretation. Nor is that faith based on my intelligence or lack thereof only
in my acceptance of him which I only know via his word. There is a difference
between finding understanding in "my reasoning" that yields my interpretation
verse finding understanding via what scripture plainly states.. if you Ignore
Scripture or just arbitrarily apply some meaning to it then what are you all
arguing about? There is nothing arbitrary in accepting what scripture states
about itself. This is not a privet or personal or individual or anyone else
interpretation. If you cant see this difference then what is the whole point to
believing anything because you only quote scripture when it is convenient and
when it is not you ignore it or state it is just one interpretation. My
position with regard to scripture letting scripture speak for itself is the
only constant one and the only consistency in this back and f
orth
interpretative position is that it is never consistent with itself or anything
else.
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Allen Daves
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, there is evidence, but this has been the whole point of our discussions.
Will you accept scripture as evidence? Not just in geocentricism or faith in
Jesus or anything else, that we only know from scripture but can you accept a
plain statement "this is that"?. Is there any evidence that the moon did not
turn into blood ( and persumably back) at this time contrary to what Peter
plainly stated?..... (If it was Peter.) If you don?t accept the scriptural
evidence and references here why would you accept any other evidence for or
against the moon being turned into blood in the past when no one was there to
see except Peter who said, not Allen "this is that which was written".. Further
if you don?t accept Peters remarks about "this is that" then why would or could
you ever think that it was going to happen at some time in the future? Because
it is a phophecy. It did not happen in the past, but has yet to happen. It h as
yet to be fulfilled. The same as the phophecy of the Isr
aelites
return to the Holy Land, which started in 1948. If this is just my
interpretation of scripture when I accept it's specific terms , definition's
and correlation?s to itself then what do you call it when you define or
correlate scripture to things outside scripture that scripture specifically
does not mention? I call it interpretation, just like you do, although I seem
to remember that a short while back you were arguing against any interpretation
or reasoning. The fact that Flood accounts are present through any ancient
people you care to find, even those that have been "cut off" for hundreds of
years, greatly strengthens our case for telling others that a Flood really did
occur. The fact that "long day," or "long night," or "long sunset" accounts are
present from around the globe greatly strengthens our case for the
geostationary cosmology of the Tanakh.
Neville.
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with
Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
Other related posts:
