Off-topic spin-off thread: Wookin's ideas about interpreting various NT passages

Actually I am not. I believe wholeheartedly in the bible. I think evolution is nonsense. Therefore you want me to somehow equate the foundation of Christianity being a farce to something I, myself, find trivial.

If you believe as you do, then so be it. I am not trying to convince you otherwise (evolutionary speaking). I am just saying to always examine yourself. I, myself, try to do the same. God bless :slight_smile:

Most if not all parables are about converts and false converts.

You seem to miss the point of my question.
It is proven that the earth is alot older than 6000 years.
It is proven that evolution is the process by which small organisms change overtime with natural selection as its mechanism into the animals we see today.
Thus the YEC worldview is proven false.

So then the ultimatum again: You either believe in a worldview proven false and you are able to be a christian. Or you accept the worldview that doesn’t allow you to be a christian but is proven true.

Do you see my point?

I’m not trying to convince you either, but i am trying to make a point.
God bless :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Wow. Most of the parables in Matthew are about the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Kingdom of God). I know this because it explicitly says so.

2 Likes

No, it hasn’t been proven that the earth is billions of years old. That is based on a presupposition. No one was here to observe therefore you are left with a best guess.

No, it hasn’t, again presupposition with no one here to observe such a phenomena, and no, I do not consider ‘specie variation’ as evolution or as you like to call, “microevolution”

The YEC worldview has not been proven wrong. Again, you have a presuppsotional bias to your point of view, and so do I. I am not saying, who is right or wrong. Just because you have a presupposition does not make you right.

You are not able to be a Christian unless God enables you.

Well that is why i tried to make my point in another way.
Because i knew you would not accept that its all proven.

But did you get the point i was trying to make?

If you read most if not all the parables. We see true converts and false converts. prodigal son etc…

I guess if that’s the lens you need to read through. The problem is that you miss what Jesus is really saying (especially when he’s explicit as to what the parable is about). That’s something of a tragedy.

2 Likes

My friend, God and evolution do not go together. If evolution is true, you would not only do violence to the text but to the character and nature of God. Evolution is full of blood, disease, death,animals ripping each other apart etc… without sin entering into the world being the cause of the fallen creation. The God of evolution would not be the God He portrays Himself in scripture.

Pick a parable

Yeah, sorry i will not go further into the YECvsEC debate in this post.
There have been many more posts about this and they are not in favour of what you are saying right here.

3 Likes

The parable of the pearl.

I am sure they are not. That is because they use their evolution worldview to interpret scripture. I use “solas scriptura” scripture alone interprets scripture. God bless :slight_smile:

Well.
My point was i do not believe in things proven false.
So if your interpretation would be the only one that is in tune with Christianity like you are saying.
Then i would not be be a christian. Luckily however, this is not the case.
God bless.

2 Likes

No they aren’t. They are about the nature of the Kingdom of God. The converted and the unconverted weren’t even conceptual categories. There were God’s people and then everyone else.

2 Likes

Ah! “The Parables of the HIDDEN Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price?”

Hidden from who?

Pretty much every parable is talking about those who are true believers and those who think they are i.e. vine and the branch

What does the text actually say those two parables are about? Before “scripture interprets scripture,” let’s see what it actually says…because it’s pretty explicit.

I think what you’re doing, though, is not even interpreting scripture through scripture, but interpreting through systematic theology…

1 Like

DING! DING! That is solas scriptura or that it is a part of solas scriptura

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.