What is the best way to get rid of...

[rogue06]

Jorge also is a KJVist (read his profile and you'll see it).

Not really. If the KJV doesn't support a YEC reading in a particular verse he'll throw the KJV aside in favor of a version that he describes as inferior if it can be used to support YEC. IOW, his belief in YEC has primacy over his KJVO.

For instance, when Jorge ripped passages from Psalm 104 (long regarded as the “Creation Psalm” and dealing with the Creation) to support his view about Noah’s Flood...

Do some research (for once!) and discover that Psalm 104:6-9 has been interpreted for a very long time to essentially mean that "mountains rose and valleys sank". Note, also, how it says that God "set a bound" so that this (a global Flood) would never happen again.

...he abandoned the KJV to do so since it makes clear that it is the water that went “up by the mountains; they go down the valleys.” IOW, It wasn’t the mountains and valleys that moved. But Jorge is willing to take passages out of context (references to the Creation) and apply them how he wants (about the Flood), and abandon his KJVO view to use what he deems inferior translations to do so.

[Manwë Súlimo]

That is giving heed to genealogies.

Well, I think that has more to do with people vying for primacy in the church by seeing who had the most honorable lineage, as was customary to do elsewhere.

[rogue06]

Well, I think that has more to do with people vying for primacy in the church by seeing who had the most honorable lineage, as was customary to do elsewhere.

The point is that we're instructed to avoid getting involved with genealogies, though Paul doesn't say exactly why. And its the genealogies that we're told to avoid getting involved with that YECs use to base their estimates on.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not really. If the KJV doesn't support a YEC reading in a particular verse he'll throw the KJV aside in favor of a version that he describes as inferior if it can be used to support YEC. IOW, his belief in YEC has primacy over his KJVO.

For instance, when Jorge ripped passages from Psalm 104 (long regarded as the “Creation Psalm” and dealing with the Creation) to support his view about Noah’s Flood...



...he abandoned the KJV to do so since it makes clear that it is the water that went “up by the mountains; they go down the valleys.” IOW, It wasn’t the mountains and valleys that moved. But Jorge is willing to take passages out of context (references to the Creation) and apply them how he wants (about the Flood), and abandon his KJVO view to use what he deems inferior translations to do so.

So whatever supports YEC is what is important and everything else, is secondary.

[Tiggy]

Please tell me where the Bible says anything about unicorns other than in the outdated KJV translation?

I know it's hard to control yourself when Jorge posts something idiotic, but that was nearly on the same level of stupid as Jorge's posts are on...

Er...that's the point.

Jorge has stated many times that the 1611KJV is the only "true" version of the Bible and the only translation he accepts. That's where "unicorn" is found.

Jorge's rules, not mine.

- T

[Tiggy]

Then I apologise to Tiggy for not getting my facts straight.

No worries.

- T

[Jorge]

Please tell me where the Bible says anything about unicorns other than in the outdated KJV translation?

I know it's hard to control yourself when Jorge posts something idiotic, but that was nearly on the
same level of stupid as Jorge's posts are on...

************************************************************************

Man, how I wish that yo-yo's like you would learn to remain quiet
whenever they didn't know what they were talking about.

Hmmm ... but then you'd be silent just about always! Bwahahahaha

Jorge

[Jorge]

Translating: "You are not agreeing with me, agree with me more!"

Now let me see if you have the evidence to back up your position with, my guess is none.



Name one or is it that I don't agree with Jorge's personal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 so therefore, I have to 'compromise' something. Still nothing here that proves your assertion is true.


Evidence presented thus far... none...





Jorge, but do you take what the Bible 'plainly says' about the dome above the heavens that holds back the water? No, so following your logic, you are 'compromising' the scriptures! Want another, do you take what the Bible 'plainly says' about the sun orbiting the earth instead of the reverse or do you take less literal and more figurative interpretations of the Bible on those verses too? What's the point, you are doing the very thing you accuse me and other ones and not batting an eye at your apparent contradictions, which actually go against what tradition has taught us because if anything, the tradition for a young earth is far more in support for a structure above our heads that holds back the waters then it is for the modern YEC views and likewise, the tradition is far more in favor for geocentrism then it is for what modern YEC's believe. The point is, you do this too and it just makes you into a giant hypocrite when you accuse TEs, OEC's, and IDers of doing the very same thing you do yourself.

BTW these thousand and one contradiction list use the same sort of logic you do when interpreting the Bible. They assuming the Bible should be read in 'plain English' and ignore the fact that the Bible is a book written to the people of the past and not to us living in the 21st century. They also generally ignore that their interpretations are totally whacked and even logically inconsistent. Which goes to show, fundy Christian and fundy atheist really are not much different, they simply hold to a different belief about the existence of God.




I see your panic button approach is in full swing here my friend, let me see how badly your fail at logic 101:

1. The bible is pretty clear that sex with a person of the same sex is sinful. Does it say that being attracted to the same sex is? No, so the question we should ask these people is what they are practicing and if they agree they struggle with it or accepting it.
2. The early creeds of the church are pretty clear that Jesus died and rose again, in the flesh and both the Gospels and the letters of Paul make that clear, so those that deny a bodily resurrection are denying the very foundations of the church.
3. The Bible makes it pretty clear that miracles happen and those Christians simply are misusing science and misunderstanding what they are talking about. I agree that miracles are normally impossible, but because God is all powerful and the creator of the universe, he is able to do things that naturally would not come about. This may sound weird, but it really is no different than a human chopping down a tree and building a house. Would nature normally build houses? No, so it is a 'violation' of nature to build a house? No, what happened is that an intelligent being intervened and made nature do something that doesn't normally happen.

Of course, in reality, I have never ran into this kind of Christian in real life and I think I can count on my hands how many I have ran into on the internet. In addition to that, the early creeds of the church as well as the Bible itself are pretty clear about all of these positions. It's too bad for you that the Bible is not clear about the position of the age of the earth and universe and no church creed makes a single mention of it anywhere. It is also funny that you fail to understand those difference and thus resort to the 'panic button' approach where you act as though accepting scientific evidence logically leads to having to accept all sorts of 'liberal ideals'. Which isn’t true, all of these positions are indepndent of each other and can be reached, without accepting each other as true; therefore; I was correct in you using the 'panic button' approach and acting as though questioning the age of the earth and how literal we should take Genesis 1 and 2 equals having to accept EVERY theology out there.


That you haven't got the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, yes I do.



Sorry Jorge, I have already covered this above and your stupidity is not my problem. The Bible 'plainly says' many things and these many things find themselves on those idiotic Bible contradiction list that expose that black and white fundy Christians are no different then black and white fundy atheist in terms of thinking styles. They can't possibly figure out that the Bible wasn't written to them personally and therefore end up with all sorts of goofy interpretations that lead to idiocy like yours or like theirs.



So thus the panic button approach in which one has to read the Bible in its most literal forms or else must become 'selective Christians' and only select parts of the Bible instead of looking at the Bible in terms of the ancients and how they saw it. Sorry Jorge, but you'll find that traditionally, there is much disagreement about how literal or non-literal Genesis 1-11 should be taken that goes back to the Jews and is detailed way back in the 3rd century BC meaning that the debate about how literal Genesis 1-11 should be taken predates modern science by 1,800 years and Christianity by 300 years. Your response to this? My guess is you’ll simply ignore it and repeat yourself again because you can’t address any point brought forth.




Sorry Jorge, but your either/or mentality doesn't work here. I present forth facts that refute your beliefs and the best you can do is repeating yourself and ignore all the errors you have been pointed out on. Therefore, my conclusion is that you don't like the evidence and thus try to lump Rogue, Jim, and me in the same group and pretend as though they are one in the same. Sorry Jorge, but these positions are not dependent on one another and must all be measured on their own merits. Accepting scientific evidence doesn't mean one has to be a miracle denier, there's plenty of arguments out there (such as the one I brought forth) that make a pretty compelling case that miracles are not inconsistent with science at all anymore then building a house is inconsistent with nature itself. If nature is left to her own devices, houses, cities, computers, etc wouldn't exist, what happened is that an intelligent force took these elements of nature and made these things with them. God does the same thing in regards to miracles; he simply uses his power to overcome whatever nature would do if left to her own devices. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about and just blurting out things without thinking. Famous Christians such as Augustine held to non-literal views of Genesis and he is one of the greatest thinkers of church history, so sorry Jorge, your panic button approach is inconsistent with the evidence presented and simply shows your black and white, either or mentality doesn’t hold up to reality at all.

*********************************************************************

Everyone DUCK ... Terror is Hurling Elephants again !!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge also is a KJVist (read his profile and you'll see it).

**************************************************************************************

No need to read my profile -- simply ask and ye shall receive (an answer).

The 1611 AKJV is my preferred and I will use it over any modern translation
on any day of the week and twice on Sundays.


I conducted a 9+ - year study (including collating almost a dozen different
English Bible translations) to arrive at my present position. To this day I
continue investigating this matter.

Now, why don't you tell us what you have done besides your
now-recognized M-O : spewing out ignorance and venom......

Jorge

[Jorge]

Er...that's the point.

Jorge has stated many times that the 1611KJV is the only "true" version of the Bible and the only translation he accepts. That's where "unicorn" is found.

Jorge's rules, not mine.

- T

******************************************************************

MISrepresenting again!!! Yet here you are, walking free and unbanned from TWeb.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

a huge library of young-earth creationist books?

I am pretty much through with the C/E issue as I have lost total interest in both 1. wasting my time arguing with those who are unconvincable and 2. working on the side of too many religious bigots, who really aren't concerned with observational fact but with stomping out religion itself.

I have a heck of a lot of old creationist books, I haven't counted them but probably 350-400 different books. Ideas are appreciated for what to do with this resource.

I also have a lot of scientific books, geology, anthropology, physics etc. It is time to start disposing of it.

I will come back here in a few weeks to see what suggestions there are.

I have no idea as to what you should do with your books GM, other than what C26 suggests. :)

It's great to see you back, even if only for a bit. Hope all is going well. My best wishes.



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

**************************************************************************************

No need to read my profile -- simply ask and ye shall receive (an answer).

The 1611 AKJV is my preferred and I will use it over any modern translation
on any day of the week and twice on Sundays.


I conducted a 9+ - year study (including collating almost a dozen different
English Bible translations) to arrive at my present position. To this day I
continue investigating this matter.

Now, why don't you tell us what you have done besides your
now-recognized M-O : spewing out ignorance and venom......

Jorge

I find that LPoT argues here position very well.

[Tiggy]

Er...that's the point.

Jorge has stated many times that the 1611KJV is the only "true" version of the Bible and the only translation he accepts. That's where "unicorn" is found.

Jorge's rules, not mine.

MISrepresenting again!!! Yet here you are, walking free and unbanned from TWeb.

Jorge

Er....

I've studied the subject quite deeply and, as a result, always defer to the AKJV1611.
This was after years of study and follow-up so it is not a position taken lightly.

Jorge

and

Finally, there are other "inerrant" versions of the Bible out there but this doesn't tell the complete story. If I took the AKJV1611 and deleted four Books from it, the remainder would continue to be inerrant but, as I hope is obvious, it's not kosher.

Jorge

How's that foot taste Jorge?

- T

[Harestone]

Wouldn't someone from the ASA want them?

[rogue06]

Wouldn't someone from the ASA want them?

Take a look at the third line in his signature on his posts