tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post7138852460107802013..comments2024-01-24T04:02:06.466-05:00Comments on Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: Penal Substitutionary Atonement Eliminates True ForgivenessKen Pulliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-51227508363595671502009-10-22T14:56:39.325-04:002009-10-22T14:56:39.325-04:00Agreed.Agreed.rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12498594411996802944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-14426462560020948502009-10-22T12:35:56.431-04:002009-10-22T12:35:56.431-04:00Ross,
I believe that Leon Morris conclusively sho...Ross,<br /><br />I believe that Leon Morris conclusively shows that "hilasterion" is best translated "propitation." (The Cross in the NT)<br /><br />Rom. 5:9 does teach propitiation, I think even though the word "hilasterion" is not used.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-20544562574237744582009-10-22T10:03:04.132-04:002009-10-22T10:03:04.132-04:00Wow. You are well-read on this stuff for a dude w...Wow. You are well-read on this stuff for a dude who doesn't believe it! I am impressed with your care to detail on this topic and I appreciate it. Very right about hilasterion. Sorry, I didn't mean to quote that verse in order to prove that propitiation is the correct way to view the atonement, but rather to show that many Christians understand PST to be founded in Scripture, and not in a way that is illogical or contradictory. <br /><br />God's wrath against (our) sin is clearly manifest in the Bible, OT and NT (e.g. Deut. 32, Rom. 1 and obviously countless others), and the question of the ultimate nature of his wrath and its purpose as it relates to the atonement is a very profound and difficult one, worth wrestling with for a lifetime in my view. I for one hope that "expiation" is the better word choice, believing that God's wrath is for the sake of his love and not for the sake of itself. <br /><br />Any thoughts on why Romans 5:9 and verses like it in Paul should not be used to defend propitiation / PST?rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12498594411996802944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-2626889888731825392009-10-22T03:20:23.195-04:002009-10-22T03:20:23.195-04:00Ross,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. On poi...Ross,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughtful comments. On point #2, you are right that propitiation is the main emphasis of PST. You are probably aware of the debate over the Greek word, "hilasterion," which C.H. Dodd maintained should be translated "expiation" and Leon Morris forcefully argued against him that "propitiation" is a better rendering. Even granting Morris' point, though, there are plenty of Scriptures that teach expiation even without using the specific word. For example, Col. 2:14 and Isa. 43:25.<br /><br />On point 3, I agree that the Bible indicates that many things are accomplished through the death of Christ. I also agree that preachers are not a good source for precise theology.<br /><br />I will admit that this particular criticism of PST (that it eliminates true forgiveness), while I think its valid, is my weakest argument against PST.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-65901048509313635442009-10-21T17:44:09.866-04:002009-10-21T17:44:09.866-04:00Gosh, thank you for responding so quickly!
On p...Gosh, thank you for responding so quickly! <br /><br />On point 2, well said. I think I agree this is a weakness of the theory. As is represented in your most recent blog post, the arbitrary transference of penalty could be seen as unjust in and of itself.<br /><br />On point 1, expiation is not properly the basis for PST, but rather propitiation (satisfying wrath). Many people who believe in PST believe that Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of God against sin (to free us from the profound penalty of sin that we deserve) but also, separately, they believe that he died to free us from sin itself (not intrinsically a part of PST's logic, but one can hold more than one belief about what the cross achieved for humanity). So in the logic of PST itself, the sin is not cancelled, but rather paid for. Punishment and sin are not the same. Thus the response is not "what sin?" but "what ultimate consequence?". Because he has taken what we deserve on himself, and as we have said, that is the very essence of forgiveness. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world." -1 Jn 2:2<br /><br />On point 3, I think this may be an oversimplification about what Christians have traditionally believed about the Bible. I know you used to be a Christian, so you probably know what I mean. Just because some form of the word "forgiveness" is used to describe what God does in relation to us and our sins, does not mean that is the only, final, ultimate thing that he does. This is why Paul uses the word "righteousness" so often in his letters. As Paul was aware, the OT sacrificial system was worthy to deal with "the forgiveness of sins", but it was another thing altogether to deal with the righteousness of God, which was called into question by that fact that he had passed over sins in the past (Rom. 3:21-26). Paul believes in forgiveness but clearly he believes the atonement through the death/resurrection of Jesus is about something bigger than just forgiveness.<br /><br />I grant your overarching point that PST has been logically and theologically (with regard to Scripture) presented in problematic ways by Christians. But that does not necessarily mean that the idea of substitutionary atonement, or even some form of penal substitution is not a helpful/logical/biblical way (among others) to conceive of the Christian atonement. I'm willing to be convinced the penal substitution is not helpful, but I'm not there yet. (The discussion on deontic sin was perhaps most convincing in this regard.)<br /><br />Finally, I want to thank you again for your discussion on this recently. In my view it is perhaps much more fruitful for Christians to be reading these critiques than for non-Christians! We need to realize where we're not making sense and where we're not being true to our own Scriptures. So thanks for arguing on Scriptural grounds as well as logical grounds.rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12498594411996802944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-69178611146886190462009-10-21T05:39:46.952-04:002009-10-21T05:39:46.952-04:00Ross,
Thanks for your comments. On point 1, My co...Ross,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. On point 1, My contention is that if sin is expiated on the cross, then its gone. Its wiped away, its taken off the books, so if one comes along later and asks to be forgiven of that sin, the response is "what sin"? I don't see any sin on your account.<br /><br />Point 2--Yes forgiveness is in a sense costly in the human sphere. We swallow our self-pride and forgive the person even though they have wronged us. That is not the same thing though as PST holds. PST holds that the penalty the guilty party deserved must be paid, it transfers that guilt to an innocent party who happens to be the God-man and has him pay it a substitute. So its more than just absorbing a loss. <br /><br />Point 3--What does it matter after all is forgiveness is eliminated by PST. It matters because it flies in the face of many Scriptures which use the word not to mention the preaching and teaching of many evangelicals. My point for bringing it up is that these evangelicals are not being true to the Bible and yet most don't even realize it. Its an internal contradiction in their theology.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-51831091174399673812009-10-20T17:54:59.242-04:002009-10-20T17:54:59.242-04:00Ken,
Great blog post. Personally I don't bu...Ken, <br /><br />Great blog post. Personally I don't buy penal substitution either, at least as it is traditionally presented. But I have a couple of questions regarding your argument. <br /><br />1) I was wondering why you believe payment and forgiveness must be mutually exclusive? Why if there is payment does that cancel out forgiveness? If you steal money from me and then eventually you pay me back, that does not make my forgiving you unnecessary or irrational. I might respond, "Thank you for paying me back. I forgive you." And that would not be nonsense. We say things like that all the time. <br /><br />2) You say that the argument, "It is God himself who pays the debt we owe," does not change things for you. But there is here, objectively speaking, an entirely different phenomenon that should at least be acknowledged: God is not simply getting paid, but he's actually bearing the debt. And bearing the debt is what we call "forgiveness". That's the whole point of using the "debt" metaphor. Because in the act of forgiveness, injustice must be born by someone. If a person chooses not to retaliate but to forgive, they are certainly bearing that debt or perhaps even paying the debt to themselves if you want to put it that way. Would you agree? It would be very offensive to say to any victim of injustice that their act of forgiveness is not essentially costly.<br /><br />3) Let's say I grant your point that in penal substitution there is no forgiveness. It is after all a very insightful point. But I guess what I would most like to know is, what of it? Why point this out? Why is forgiveness intrinsically good? Forgiveness is a word that has no meaning without some concept of justice/injustice underlying it. So I imagine your Christian opponent would respond, "Well then, it is not forgiveness. It is justice. The debt has been paid." <br /><br />"Yeah," you (or some of the other commenters here) might say, "perhaps you think a debt has been paid to God, but sex slaves and victims of genocide have not been paid back." <br /><br />I think their response would be, "Well, yes. But what are you proposing instead? How could they be paid back in this world? You cannot give someone back their virginity. You cannot give someone back their life. But by this man's suffering, they may know that they are not alone in their own suffering, and by this man's death the wrongs done unto them have been vicariously dealt with and justice has been done and by his resurrection they have become heirs of a kingdom that is free from torture, sorrow, and death." <br /><br />The human situation is complicated. Most of us (perhaps all of us) have been sometimes victims and sometimes offenders. A lot of wrong has been done in this world and, empirically, I think we can agree on the fact that WE cannot put it all to rights (even just logically, it is impossible to hope conceive of justice in regard to the sins of past generations). <br /><br />But if there is a God, and God himself has laid on himself the iniquity of us all, so that he can be both just in regards to evil and merciful in regards to the human beings he made, that sounds wonderful and rational to me. It seems then, that the point of the cross for Christians is that God condemns evil once for all without destroying human beings. He puts the world to rights and spares us in the process. How else in this complicated and messed up world could we ever rationally justify the desire in our hearts for both justice and love to reign?rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12498594411996802944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-45581085046937795462009-10-10T08:00:48.628-04:002009-10-10T08:00:48.628-04:00I would suggest that we ignore the rantings of peo...I would suggest that we ignore the rantings of people like ZDenny. There will always be people like him who show up here. Its best to ignore them. Let them claim victory or that they have refuted us or whatever they desire to say.<br /><br />I would prefer to keep the discussion at a higher level.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-91638221895541130372009-10-09T22:01:41.055-04:002009-10-09T22:01:41.055-04:00Chuck said, "debate to train my mind when I e...Chuck said, "debate to train my mind when I encounter bigots like you in person"<br /><br />I understand why you call people bigots. You are a lot like PZ Meyers who doesn't treat his opposition with respect. When you don't believe in God, no one has any value especially those who disagree with you.<br /><br />PZ Meyers instructs his followers to mock people of faith and he is planning to urinate on the grave of Clarence Thomas. The reason is that PZ is not able to love people just like you are not able to love anyone else except yourself or people who are like you. <br /><br />You need to know the love of God which is eternal and unchanging. In the atheistic bubble, you love a cookie in the same way you love your kids. I hate being so brutely honest about this fact; however, your love is connected to your feelings which are driven by chemicals. <br /><br />We all know that chemicals are not able to love other chemicals. It is irrational to even think that chemicals can love other chemicals. The fact is that your desires paramount and there is no reason to die to your selfish desires on behalf of others.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-31593381098643778892009-10-09T17:14:52.135-04:002009-10-09T17:14:52.135-04:00Z,
You said, "Chuck: The reason you engage i...Z,<br /><br />You said, "Chuck: The reason you engage in these debates is because you doubt your own worldview. I understand your insecurity. I am acting in love and showing you the path to the life of love. Your only respond to is offer me death and eternal death at that."<br /><br />Which I take as more of your hypocritical claims to god-head. Are you omniscient? Do you know my worldview?<br /><br />I egnage in this debate to train my mind when I encounter bigots like you in person. I also do it to find a way to practice charity towards people whose worldview I find destructive and hateful.<br /><br />I don't know you Z but your tone and your worldview convey someone who needs to be right no matter what and believes his righteousness is sanctioned by a god he imagines. History is littered with the skulls of innocent people who had to deal with people like you and I find that offensive. Therefore I speak up and challenge bigotry and ignorance when I see it masquerading as righteous morality.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-81105437249766022062009-10-09T17:06:41.213-04:002009-10-09T17:06:41.213-04:00Phil: The only person offering irrational hopeles...Phil: The only person offering irrational hopelessness is atheist. You believe that nature magically created and designed itself. In other words, you believe that nature existed prior to its own existence. <br /><br />The evidence for Christianity is overwhelming and only a person with a closed mind who claims ignorance can avoid the evidence.<br /><br />The ultimate proof for a Christian moves beyond the probable external evidence to absolute proof. A Christian who knows the love of God personally has evidence that goes beyond that of any external evidence.<br /><br />If you want absolute certainty, you have to know the love of God. <br /><br />I am certain that Ken never knew the love of God and that is why he jumped ship. If He knew the love of God, He would never have left because the love of God provides the absolute proof that goes beyond the arguments from probability.<br /><br />In fact, all external evidence no matter what it is is based on probability because reliance on our senses and mind to know reality are dependent on faith. No knowledge that exists outside of us can be absolutely certain as absolute knowledge belongs to God and God alone.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-45050998616195133422009-10-09T16:37:29.520-04:002009-10-09T16:37:29.520-04:00"A world without hope is what you offer the w...<i>"A world without hope is what you offer the world."</i><br /><br />Irrational hope can cause more harm than good. For instance, hoping a magical being in the sky will heal your daughter if you pray to it rather than taking her to a doctor. Then there's hoping your daughter won't have sex instead of educating her about it and contraceptives. How about hoping you can afford a house when clearly you don't make enough money, especially when that hope involves hoping that ARM won't adjust too drastically? Then there's hope that a big enough hurricane won't come so why spend more money on proper levees, or hope that you'll make tenfold what you loaned that nice exiled Nigerian prince who emailed you for help, hope that you won't get sick so you don't bother to get health insurance, hoping you'll score a big win at Atlantic City to pay off your debt rather than looking for a second job, and so on.<br /><br />Hope can make you feel great, like drugs or alcohol, but just as there are good and bad forms of those, and good and bad times to rely on them to feel good, the same is true about hope.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-27256313917602391262009-10-09T16:22:15.311-04:002009-10-09T16:22:15.311-04:00Chuck: The reason you engage in these debates is ...Chuck: The reason you engage in these debates is because you doubt your own worldview. I understand your insecurity. I am acting in love and showing you the path to the life of love. Your only respond to is offer me death and eternal death at that. <br /><br />A world without hope is what you offer the world. A blind belief in a design that doesn't have a designer is a strange belief to offer the world.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-66864197139778538102009-10-09T15:59:22.314-04:002009-10-09T15:59:22.314-04:00Z,
"The gospels are an amazing historical ac...Z,<br /><br />"The gospels are an amazing historical accounts that only speak to those who are capable of loving someone besides themselves."<br /><br />Just because you say it doesn't make it so Z but, it is an interesting version of self-love.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-44331999610866002642009-10-09T15:57:48.254-04:002009-10-09T15:57:48.254-04:00Z,
You said, "I do expect that God will use ...Z,<br /><br />You said, "I do expect that God will use this over your lifetime to bring you to your senses."<br /><br />Z, I hope the same for you.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-33695725213896811442009-10-09T15:33:37.688-04:002009-10-09T15:33:37.688-04:00Chuck, I meant thermonuclear fusion. Thanks for t...Chuck, I meant thermonuclear fusion. Thanks for the correction.<br /><br />The bottom line is that you need Jesus. Without Jesus you are without hope and separated from God for eternity.<br /><br />The fact is that you have a choice and your choice to choose self over love will result in your eternal existence without love.<br /><br />Faith is a gift of God so I don't expect you to become a Christian; however, I do expect that God will use this over your lifetime to bring you to your senses.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-75586976829789730442009-10-09T15:28:58.866-04:002009-10-09T15:28:58.866-04:00ZDENNY,
You said, "You think you are God and...ZDENNY,<br /><br />You said, "You think you are God and that is the problem."<br /><br />Hmmmm . . . did I say that? No, I said I find your worldview detestable and historically proven to be immoral. Now, if you feel disagreeing with you is an assumption of competing godship then one must wonder how you view yourself. Are you god Z?<br /><br />"I guess you are on the same path since you deny reality itself."<br /><br />No, I find your worldview to be primitive, self-hating and historically destructive.<br /><br />"You are a fallen creature. We are surrounded by death, disease and sickness and you think everything is o.k. and that everyone just dies as a part of life should be normal."<br /><br />Yes, I accept death as part of life and that is why I attempt to practice charity, honesty, love and compassion to those I can. I've practice much charity with you. You are arrogant and self-deluded and believe that your "feelings" extrapolate some sort of goodness. They don't.<br /><br />"Some people are just too selfish to see beyond the bubble of selfishness! I guess your bubble is pretty thick!"<br /><br />Can you please provide evidence to my selfishness. It seems pretty self-centered to me to make a judgement to a person's selfishness based on the disagreement they have with your "facts".<br /><br />"You clearly need Christ so that you can learn how to love someone besides yourself. You see, only those who desire love will find it; however, you don't desire anything but the fulfillment of your selfish desires and that really is the bottom line."<br /><br />Z, I volunteer and work with families that have been ravaged by the effects of alcoholism; I contribute to two International Christian NGOs that offer food, education and shelter to orphans; I am working on a new targeted theraphy to help extend life to those who have been diagnosed with brain cancer. How exactly am I selfish? If the only evidence is that I think your worldview is self-hating, primitive and arrogant then you should condemn yourself.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-39951260016134579742009-10-09T15:22:13.388-04:002009-10-09T15:22:13.388-04:00Chuck said, "Martyrdom is a poor litmus for t...Chuck said, "Martyrdom is a poor litmus for the veracity of one's beliefs."<br /><br />I would agree unless you were an eyewitness and you knew your story was a lie. The fact is that it couldn't be a lie because we have too many witnesses which make it possible to compare the stories. We know the stories are true because none of them are exactly the same and yet none of them contradict each other also. <br /><br />The gospels are an amazing historical accounts that only speak to those who are capable of loving someone besides themselves.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-57791730132196608942009-10-09T15:19:01.774-04:002009-10-09T15:19:01.774-04:00Chuck: You simply don't see yourself as a sinn...Chuck: You simply don't see yourself as a sinner. You think you are God and that is the problem. <br /><br />I can also deny my need for food; however, this would be foolish and result in my death. I guess you are on the same path since you deny reality itself. <br /><br />You are a fallen creature. We are surrounded by death, disease and sickness and you think everything is o.k. and that everyone just dies as a part of life should be normal.<br /><br />I guess I am just not as closed minded as yourself. In fact, I have to be rational and based my life on evidence rather than a dogmatic faith that you apparently have.<br /><br />Some people are just too selfish to see beyond the bubble of selfishness! I guess your bubble is pretty thick!<br /><br />You clearly need Christ so that you can learn how to love someone besides yourself. You see, only those who desire love will find it; however, you don't desire anything but the fulfillment of your selfish desires and that really is the bottom line.<br /><br />My prayers are with you.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-51280229240234104772009-10-09T15:12:00.092-04:002009-10-09T15:12:00.092-04:00ZDENNY,
"I urge you to not reject the love of...ZDENNY,<br />"I urge you to not reject the love of God. All the predictions of the Bible are true and are coming true. Don't live eternity without love!!"<br /><br />Have you ever been treated for an OCD condition known as "Scrupulosity"? Look it up. You exhibit many of the symptoms. I wish you well and hope you find peace. I don't need to believe myself a depraved and worthless creature unworthy of god's love to feel love. Nor do I need to believe my being alive caused another person to die a capital punishment. Nor do I believe anything I am capable of doing would ever neccesistate such punishment. You however do believe these things about yourself and others so I wonder how you can not hate yourself and the rest of humaniyt.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-13815479021402440322009-10-09T15:08:47.425-04:002009-10-09T15:08:47.425-04:00ZDENNY,
"The second prediction was the forma...ZDENNY,<br /><br />"The second prediction was the formation of planets. We now know that planets most likely form first because they are much smaller than stars. Planets form in the same way as stars; however, due to a forming star draining the pond, planets never reached the size in which cold fusion was able to take place."<br /><br />Cold fusion? Really now Z. Come on.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-30950532659622019842009-10-09T15:07:05.021-04:002009-10-09T15:07:05.021-04:00"The eyewitnesses all died for their belief t..."The eyewitnesses all died for their belief that Christ rose from the dead. A person that is willing to go to their death while being beaten all along the way is pretty strong evidence that the empirically confirmed events are true."<br /><br />Muhammad Atta died because he believed he would dwell with 77 virgins. Martyrdom is a poor litmus for the veracity of one's beliefs.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-2804956704921218182009-10-09T14:33:25.824-04:002009-10-09T14:33:25.824-04:00As I stated, you would have to demonstrate collusi...As I stated, you would have to demonstrate collusion. John is clearly independent of Matthew. Matthew is clearly independent. Mark and Luke do not claim to be independent. James is clearly independent as well as Peter. If there was collusion, they would all be identical; however, they are not identical and vary only based on perspective.<br /><br />The eyewitnesses all died for their belief that Christ rose from the dead. A person that is willing to go to their death while being beaten all along the way is pretty strong evidence that the empirically confirmed events are true.<br /><br />The fact is that we have more evidence than you. You have zero evidence! <br /><br />All atheists are Theists because they believe that Nature created and designed itself; however, Nature would have to exist prior to its existence which is a logical contradiction.<br /><br />On top of that we have no evidence that life comes from non-life.<br /><br />All of the evidence is for Christianity because the Bible predicts all this stuff.<br /><br />Christianity is supported by more evidence than any other worldview in existence. <br /><br />Christianity is very easy to defend because it is rationally consistent and supported with a ton of evidence.<br /><br />Take for example, Genesis 1. All of the predictions made by Genesis are coming true.<br /><br />The first thing created were the heavens. We know that dark energy which is a canopy in space fills what we call the heavens. Therefore, the heavens were a creation and they were created before everything else because this is the stuff out of which God formed everything else.<br /><br />The second prediction was the formation of planets. We now know that planets most likely form first because they are much smaller than stars. Planets form in the same way as stars; however, due to a forming star draining the pond, planets never reached the size in which cold fusion was able to take place.<br /><br />The third prediction is that of light. A planet near a nebular cloud or on the edge of a cloud would have experienced the light of the birth of the universe first. The gas in a nebular cloud diffuses the light making it appear as one light<br /><br />The fourth prediction is that of an atmosphere. We now know for a fact that atmospheres follow planet formation. No one questions this.<br /><br />The fifth prediction is that of an organic life. Science believes that organic life preceded the life of fish.<br /><br />The sixth prediction is that of fish and then birds. Science once again believes that fish followed organic life in the seas followed by insects and then birds.<br /><br />The seventh prediction is that of the sun, moon and stars which would have taken place after our star had completely formed and left the nebular cloud. The moon which has a very different composition appears to have been added at this time. The stars would have appeared as stars as they the nebular cloud and began to diffuse.<br /><br />The eight prediction is that of land animals. Science believes that land animals followed sea animals.<br /><br />Lastly, the ninth prediction is that of man. Science has confirmed that man is the climax of the Creation having existed only 6,000 - 20,000 years based on their own numbers.<br /><br />As I stated, the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. The only way Moses could have known this stuff is if God had inspired the writing themselves.<br /><br />I urge you to not reject the love of God. All the predictions of the Bible are true and are coming true. Don't live eternity without love!!D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-82248982328272106902009-10-09T14:29:45.400-04:002009-10-09T14:29:45.400-04:00"In a court situation, the testimony regardin...<i>"In a court situation, the testimony regarding an alien would be accepted."</i><br /><br />IF it was my neighbor presenting it. If it was me presenting it, it would be dismissed as hearsay (hint: in the analogy, I'm Saul). <br /><br /><i>"When I take a statement for court, I only need for the person to identify themselves."</i><br /><br />Imagine if my friend was on trial for murder, and I brought in a document that I claimed was written by a witness who states they saw someone else commit the murder. When asked to verify that this document was from a witness, I pointed to where in the document it says, "My name is John and I witnessed the murder." Would you admit that document into evidence as eyewitness testimony?PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-6547153899512581752009-10-09T13:36:54.469-04:002009-10-09T13:36:54.469-04:00ZDENNY,
Also, your saying John is independent den...ZDENNY,<br /><br />Also, your saying John is independent denies the basis of your argument which is corroboration. How can John be independent AND corroborative WITHOUT collusion? The dating of the texts does not imply simultaneous authorship does it? Face it, you have taken your faith as fact which is a common logical fallacy in the face of randomness known as the availability heuristic but, it does not make it true.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com