Hello, Marty,

I am inclined to agree with you, provided a number of necessary qualifiers are put into place.  Now, I’m not trying to kill everything here, with a million qualifiers. But truth is, some very important qualifiers must be brought into play. First, many key issues faced are not at all directly dealt with by Scripture .  One telling e…[Read more]

Not sure what you are saying about sin here, Kerwin.  Also, I’m not clear what you mean by alternative explanations.  My view is that the real source of sin is in poor decision-making on our part.  We sin, in our freedom, not in our slavery.   Indeed, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  If we are not careful, an often we are not, then…[Read more]

Hello again, again, Kerwin,

The Bible assumes God’s major, salvific revelations occur in history, not nature.  That’s why the Bible says so very little about nature and creation.  Since the only God who  can save you is that God who created you, the Bible says God created us, has a creation myth.  However, as the big interest was on God acti…[Read more]

Hello again, Kerwin,

Yes, traditionally Eden was viewed as a Paradise.  I don’t know, however, how you cam up with the idea that plants don’t have souls.  The Bible really does not make it clear one way or the other whether plants and animals do or do not have souls.

I’m also not sure what you mean by the “soft” sciences. Generally, that term i…[Read more]

Hello, Gene,

I’m not sure I’m quite getting my point across, so let me try this.  You don’t have to be a Constitutional attorney to be a good American and live a rich, full life.  However, you should have some at least  knowledge of the  Constitution and the Bill of Rights and welcome the opportunity to gain more, if the opportunity presents its…[Read more]

Hello, Nick,

I don’t follow you on  the Trinity and the Babylonian one.  Babylonian what? Bible? I don’t know of any Babylonian Bible. The word “Trinity” is not  found anywhere in Scripture.  As I said many times earlier, Scripture  strongly implies a Trinity, but does not spell it out in any  detail, as Scripture  is not a book of systemat…[Read more]

Nick. again your post is off topic.  let’s get back to the Trinity.

You are getting way, way off topic here.  Let’s get back to the Trinity.  Also, I believed I have already answered your question.

Yes, and also 2.  That was essential for my dissertation because I needed information on early Christian views on the  Spirit.

You need to put in some qualifiers, Ed.  I and II Clement are not part of the  Apocrypha. In Catholicism and early Protestantism, the Apocrypha is viewed as inspired.  That’s why the Catholic church retains it.  KJV initially included it, thereby considering it inspired and canon.  However, by the 16 forties, the English divines  had changed their…[Read more]

Common with pre-Abrahamic passages?  How on earth did you come up with that?  Also, I know many share your view on Genesis.  However, it doesn’t square with the text.  I could post a kind of summary I composed on the relationship of 1 and 2, but that is getting way, way off topic, as is this discussion on Eden.

Yes, Kerwin, I am aware of the Koine Greek here.  That, however, has nothing to do with what I am talking about.  Most assume that the Garden of Eden was some type of heavenly paradise, or prefect life, but, actually, there is nothing in the Bible that actually says that.

Hello, Ed,

Sounds interesting.   However, I’m not sure I quite understand what you are saying.  Are you saying there is some sort of hidden code or  in the KJV? If so, which KJV?  The 1611?  I’m going to guess ahead of time, no, here, as  the actual KJV 1611 had the Apocrypha and also is pretty unreadable to modern-day readers.  Between  the 16…[Read more]

Hello again, Kerwin,

Correct.  Modern-day Jewry holds more than  one view on this and many other biblical topics. For my part, I do not agree the Bible says anything here about a “fallen nature.”  Nothing in the one biblical account of creation  (Gen. 1) was ever said to have been perfect: good, yes; perfect, no.  I hold Gen. 1 and  2 to be two…[Read more]

Kerwin, please, it’s the “elect,” not the “elite.”   I find your view highly Calvinistic in that  you, too, seem to follow his idea of the elect and reprobate.  I argue that is unbiblical.  In the Bible, God loves and saves everyone, not just the elect, not just some minority of persons.  Also, I’m having trouble following your last sentence…[Read more]

Well, Ed, at least you are making the effort to study up.  That’s the way to do it.

Sorry, Nick, no time to respond to your post.  As I just said, too busy studying Scripture to bother with the divisiveness caused by men such as yourself.

Hello, Nick,

Then, if you don’t mind, I’m not going to respond in any detail to your post, as I am using my time now to reflect on the biblical image of God as having deep feeling and changing, and therefore have no time to listen to the words of idle men such as yourself.

Hello, Gene,

I’m not quite sure you grasped my point.  Again, I have  been fussing about persons not studying enough about  church history and doctrine.  Therefore, I think it’s great that you are studying up on Calvin. Incidentally, and this is somewhat off topic, but you forgot to mention the part about Calvin issuing a  public, written death…[Read more]

Yes, Andrew, that and also the fact that it is assumed  you really don’t need to do any critical thinking or studying. It’s a fad nowadays to go what’s called bible dipping.  You have a problem, you simply flip open Scripture to whatever page it happens  to be and whatever strikes you on that page is an answer to your questions.  All this is assu…[Read more]