'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

Hi Statman. Which means you finished the required courses to the satisfaction of the institution conferring them. But those hardly qualify you as knowledgeable about the Word of God. That alone disqualifies you and is the reason you think it is foolishness.The first requirement to understand the Bible is you must be born again. So if you read the Bible and it does not make sense to you that is completely understandable. You do not have the Holy Spirit to lead you and guide you in all truth.My first year in Bible College in 1964 I had all the answers. After 6 years of Koine Greek, Old Aramaic, and Chaldee Hebrew, with over 40 years of pastoral and teaching experience I still have not acquired the knowledge I thought I had then.I did meet the requirements of the College I attended to get their Bible Language diploma and even completed my Thesis for my DD. But all those prove is I met their requirements.At age 70 I limit myself to a full pastorate and EvC.Now if you would like to go back to Message 19 and point out errors in my analysis of Matthew 16:27, 28 have at it.That would add to the discussion we are supposed to be talking about.
Which was brought about by not understanding what the Bible says, rather than what someone wanted it to say.Jesus was talking about two separate events that would take place a couple of thousand years apart.Jesus did come with kingdom authority. He is the King but when He was here the first time He had no domain. The devil is still the prince and power of the air on earth.When Jesus returns He will have dominion over the entire earth as the devil will be bound and exiled to the lake of fire for 1000 years.God Bless, Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Duh! Ya think? I’m getting the impression you’re none to bright when you tell the blindingly obvious to an intelligent 68 year old. Save it for a third grader - it MIGHT be appropriate for them. Do you know how many times I’ve heard that a person must be a believer before they get the secret decoder ring? Does it occur to you that if a msg cannot be understood by the audience then the author of the msg is a poor communicator?I do appreciate your responses on your education and experience. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Rule #4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions. Welcome to EvC Statman,Please address the on-topic points made in a post. Since this thread is in a science forum, evidence or reasoned argumentation is expected when rebutting a position.People can only respond to what is written in a post and don't automatically know the knowledge level, age, belief, etc. of the person they are responding to; especially from small posts. Those who have been here awhile, start to "know" more about those they debate regularly. Since you are new to the "neighborhood" please be patient as people get to know you and your debate style.Also please remember to stay on topic.Thanks
AdminPD

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

I do appreciate that there is a board moderator. But in my view, your remarks would be better directed at Icant. I was simply expressing my displeasure at him talking down to me (repeatedly), questioning my veracity and my ability to understand the Bible. I had hoped to get back on topic when these issues were resolved.

Rule #1: Follow all moderator requests. I don't need to address ICANT specifically because he already knows that my message to you also applies to him.Please abide by my request and argue the position presented concerning the topic.
Address the argumentation and evidence provided concerning the topic.Thanks for your cooperation.
AdminPD

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

No and I am not going to:It is off topic. The OP had to do with whether there was a contradiction in the promise of Jesus to return in the lifetime of his disciples. I argued that the one way to reconcile the contradiction was to see the return of Jesus as the establishment of the church. Your question has nothing to do with the argument and in fact creates a new tangent. I was trying to cut off the discussion because it was wandering way off topic. Answering your question would only take it further afield.

In Message 76 In trying to steer my discussion back on topic I made the statement: Since that message was marked off topic I wanted to resubmit my invitation to Statman or anyone else who would like to point out errors in my analysis of Matthew 16:27, 28 in Message 19.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If is not so much that there are "errors in your analysis" as that you make the assumption that anyone who has had seminary training could not disagree with your analysis (Message 19 statement to Peepul). You present a Premillennialist analysis/interpretation, as I see it. There are in fact, many, (if not as I suspect, most) who have had seminary training who would disagree with that analysis/interpretation.So what you are doing is "appealing to authority" here in order to defeat the logic of those who disagree with you. This is not a valid debating technique. Therefore there is no point in anyone debating you, as you resort to a scripted sectarian interpretation (Premillennialism) rather than actually addressing the apparent contradiction in the text - which IS real, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

Yes, thanks. What justifies you in saying that 27 and 28 are talking about a different events, widely separated in time?If I say "I'm going on a beer run, give me money and I will get you some," and you give me your money; and then I say "I will be back from the store in less than half an hour," and I get back in twenty minutes, and I don't have any beer or your money, all I have is my favorite ice cream; and when you go to do me, I say "Oh no, the beer run is a separate trip, which won't be taking place for hundreds of years yet," and to that I add "If you had only studied the Bible better, you would understand what just happened to you" !!!I'm pretty sure the beatdown for this is going to be worse than the one for just picking your pocket would be, because at least that's honest work ...

Hi deerbreh, Then by all means lay out the Message 19 and insert where the analysis is wrong.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Iblis, Maybe it is all those years I spent in language school studying Hebrew and Greek.Or it could be the 47 years experience in studying the scriptures.Or it could be those pieces of framed paper hanging in my office.Maybe all this has me deluded into believing I know a little bit about what I am talking about.Now if you would like to correct my thinking please do as I asked deebreh to do and take Message 19 and show me where it is wrong.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What part of "appeal to authority" do you not understand? It is not the pieces of paper hanging on your wall that matter. It is the quality of your arguments. You just confirmed my judgment that there is no point in anyone debating with you on this board. You ask Statman if he is a believer and then maintain that if he is not he cannot possibly interpret the biblical text correctly. That is a religious argument. As is the implication on your part that the Premillennialist interpretation is the only interpretation a properly trained (seminary) individual could adopt. Even though this thread is about the Bible, it is in the context of a scientific forum. Thus religious arguments are not valid. You are on the wrong board if you want to appeal to religious belief and sectarian interpretations of biblical texts. It is impossible to use scientific arguments to "show you (me)where it is wrong" if your definition of "wrong" is based on religious dogma, which is obviously the case by your own admission.

Yeah? And when Chuck Norris cries, I'm the one who wipes his tears. (And I'm not doing it to be nice, no sir, not at all.)So what? This sort of dick-fighting isn't going to convince anyone but the choir. Justify your distinction between "kingdom" and "glory" in such a way as to prove that it was obvious to the hearers, and that the confusion we have about this passage is all our own mistake.Do the work, or sit down next to whatshisname who travels from thesis to conclusion without passing through the vacuum in between.

Hi deerbreh,So you are going to stand on your podium and insert your appeal to your authority and declare I don't know what I am talking about.I guess since you can't show me where I am wrong that is the easiest way out.Why not just take the text and show me where I messed up.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Show that the kingdom and the glory have been clearly distinguished by previous teachers, so that there is no justification for the audience thinking they are one thing. Prove it. Show that it isn't a literary illusion derived from an account of a man riding along quietly on a stolen donkey during the feast of tabernacles, while people were singing hymns and working with palm fronds. Prove it. Show other uses where it refers to something like heirs, people who aren't actually in charge of anything yet, kings with no "actual kingdom". Prove it.