Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Is The Bible Literally True?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
    I agree that killing infants is immoral.
    Could you pass that on to Allah?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
      I agree that killing infants is immoral.
      Obviously not in the mind of a god, so my point is that there is no absolute, objective, divine standard, at least not in the sense of any of the man made gods, which are the only gods we tend to have belief about.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Could you pass that on to Allah?
        As soon as you pass it on to YHWH.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Hacking to death infants and children is either immoral, or it is not. If you think it can be either, then you all need stop clamoring about the existence of an objective moral standard.
          And yet your using an objective moral standard to make that statement. So your claim is self-refuting.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post
            And yet your using an objective moral standard to make that statement. So your claim is self-refuting.
            If you read it in context then you should have understood that what I meant is that (according to you) hacking infants to death is either right or wrong in the absolute sense, objectively. Yet you contradict yourself by defending the biblical gods command to hack infants and children to death. The question for you is, which is it?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              If you read it in context then you should have understood that what I meant is that (according to you) hacking infants to death is either right or wrong in the absolute sense, objectively. Yet you contradict yourself by defending the biblical gods command to hack infants and children to death. The question for you is, which is it?
              Your the whining and complaining about moral standards in your worldview you cannot even complain about standards. I was addressing Hakeem in his post. Yet you seem to be defending him which shows your inconsistency. But please whine some more.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                As soon as you pass it on to YHWH.
                Two words, JimmyPoo --- NEW TESTAMENT. Allah never got the memo.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  If you read it in context then you should have understood that what I meant is that (according to you) hacking infants to death is either right or wrong in the absolute sense, objectively. Yet you contradict yourself by defending the biblical gods command to hack infants and children to death. The question for you is, which is it?
                  Oh that'a the Old Covenant Jimmy. It was moral to hack infants to death back then. This is how this lot get around some of the more awkward texts of the OT. Unless, of course, they're texts they like and which support their particular agenda. Then it's God's Law, to be obeyed on pain of perdition.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Two words, JimmyPoo --- NEW TESTAMENT. Allah never got the memo.
                    Two words CP, New Testement. YHWH never got the memo.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Another example that shows that the Bible is not literally true is Rev 22:16 “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” However, it is a fact that Jesus came from a virgin birth, then Jesus did not have a physical father and hence Jesus could not be a physical descendant of David.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
                        Another example that shows that the Bible is not literally true is Rev 22:16 “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” However, it is a fact that Jesus came from a virgin birth, then Jesus did not have a physical father and hence Jesus could not be a physical descendant of David.
                        That presumes that Mary didn't descend from David.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          At least he affirms the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Two words CP, New Testement.
                            Jimmy, honey, if you're going to pretend to be a Bible skoller, at least learn how to SPELL TESTAMENT!!!!!
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
                              Another example that shows that the Bible is not literally true is Rev 22:16 “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” However, it is a fact that Jesus came from a virgin birth, then Jesus did not have a physical father and hence Jesus could not be a physical descendant of David.
                              What? No complaint that Jesus wasn't literally a root? Or literally a star? You are slipping Hakeem.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                That presumes that Mary didn't descend from David.
                                Hi rogue06,

                                Please let me clarify.

                                Both genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 trace Jesus' descent from David to Joseph in name as per Matt 1:16 and Luke 3:23. If Jesus did not a biological father, then Joseph was not his physical father and hence he could not be a physical descendant of David.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X