Total Posts:162|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let there be light

FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:33:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...

You're reading too much into it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:38:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...

Divided the light and the dark and afterwards created the SUN.

What was the light before he created the sun?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:48:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:33:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1s
. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darknes
https://www.youtube.com...

You're reading too much into it.

I do not think so and neither does the Spirit.

. :1. God's majesty - God created
God did create
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
Man is depraved. Depravity is void and has no structure.
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
Depravity is darkness. Man is in the dark without Christ-the light.
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
Without God Spirit moving upon you then no call unto the light can come.
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
Man is in darkness, Jesus Christ is the light of salvation.
6. The need of approval - The light was good
Light has no fellowship with darkness- the light is good.
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darknes
Again light has no fellowship with darkness.

Genesis 1:1-4 describes the New Testament condition of man, the call from God, the light of the gospel, and his regeneration.

You do not put enough into it.
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:50:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:38:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...

Divided the light and the dark and afterwards created the SUN.

What was the light before he created the sun?

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 12:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:48:17 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:33:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1s
. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darknes
https://www.youtube.com...

You're reading too much into it.

I do not think so and neither does the Spirit.

. :1. God's majesty - God created
God did create
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
Man is depraved. Depravity is void and has no structure.
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
Depravity is darkness. Man is in the dark without Christ-the light.
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
Without God Spirit moving upon you then no call unto the light can come.
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
Man is in darkness, Jesus Christ is the light of salvation.
6. The need of approval - The light was good
Light has no fellowship with darkness- the light is good.
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darknes
Again light has no fellowship with darkness.

Genesis 1:1-4 describes the New Testament condition of man, the call from God, the light of the gospel, and his regeneration.

You do not put enough into it.

You put too much into it. Sure, God's Spirit must move on you. But how? First, last and always ... through the word, the scriptures - not separate and distinct from them. In other words, the word is the means, the sword, that the Spirit uses.

And "depraved". Man is "depraved". Why, the word "depraved" isn't even in the Bible - and word certainly does not describe a person who has never sinned.

Your post, if people didn't know any better, would lead people to conclude that every human, including babies, is "totally depraved" and thus the Holy Spirit must act directly and immediately (without medium) on a person, or else he'd never come to Christ.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 12:16:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 12:05:19 PM, annanicole wrote:

You put too much into it.

I am sorry you cannot relate and see.

Sure, God's Spirit must move on you. But how? First, last and always ... through the word, the scriptures - not separate and distinct from them. In other words, the word is the means, the sword, that the Spirit uses.

Never said any less. Of course the Word of God(Christ) must be preached.

And "depraved". Man is "depraved". Why, the word "depraved" isn't even in the Bible - and word certainly does not describe a person who has never sinned.

Depraved is a corrupt act or practice which perfectly describes man.

All men have sinned. : Your post, if people didn't know any better, would lead people to conclude that every human, including babies, is "totally depraved":
They are. Show us the verse that tells us children are born completely sinful and depraved? The Bible tells us children(including babies) are in vanity which is a corrupt act and practice and hence depraved. All are without Christ.

and thus the Holy Spirit must act directly and immediately (without medium) on a person, or else he'd never come to Christ.

You cannot come to Christ without it given by the Father.

John 6:65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 1:02:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 12:16:56 PM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 12:05:19 PM, annanicole wrote:

You put too much into it.

I am sorry you cannot relate and see.

Sure, God's Spirit must move on you. But how? First, last and always ... through the word, the scriptures - not separate and distinct from them. In other words, the word is the means, the sword, that the Spirit uses.

Never said any less. Of course the Word of God(Christ) must be preached.

Yep, and the when it is preached, the Spirit is communicating with man through the preaching. I thought you were describing the preaching, plus. Plus this, and plus that, i. e. the Spirit acts through preaching, then acts some more independent of preaching - acts in a direct manner.

Your post, if people didn't know any better, would lead people to conclude that every human, including babies, is "totally depraved":

They are. Show us the verse that tells us children are born completely sinful and depraved?


I can't. There is no such passage.

The Bible tells us children(including babies) are in vanity which is a corrupt act and practice and hence depraved. All are without Christ.

A one-minute-old baby is not "in vanity". It doesn't even know what "vanity" is. Where did you come up with that?

A human becomes separated from God when he or she sins, for sin is the transgression of the law. An infant has no need of Christ, other than securing the resurrection from the dead, because an infant is not separated from Christ in the first place. An infant is safe, not saved - and it is safe because it has not sinned. Once sin is committed, then there is a need for saving.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 1:26:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

A one-minute-old baby is not "in vanity". It doesn't even know what "vanity" is. Where did you come up with that?

A human becomes separated from God when he or she sins, for sin is the transgression of the law. An infant has no need of Christ, other than securing the resurrection from the dead, because an infant is not separated from Christ in the first place. An infant is safe, not saved - and it is safe because it has not sinned. Once sin is committed, then there is a need for saving.

First, the Bible makes no distinction from all have sinned and only those aware have sinned. We are born into sin, it is not developed, if it was then someone could possibly not sin. ChiId hood and youth are vanity. I agree they are safe because they lack accountability and knowing but that does not exempt their sin. Just because you do not know God does not mean He is not there and likewise just because you do not know what sin is does not mean it is not there. We do agree babies and children whom are not aware yet are safe because of their unawareness.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 1:34:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 1:26:14 PM, FLMinistries wrote:

A one-minute-old baby is not "in vanity". It doesn't even know what "vanity" is. Where did you come up with that?

A human becomes separated from God when he or she sins, for sin is the transgression of the law. An infant has no need of Christ, other than securing the resurrection from the dead, because an infant is not separated from Christ in the first place. An infant is safe, not saved - and it is safe because it has not sinned. Once sin is committed, then there is a need for saving.

First, the Bible makes no distinction from all have sinned and only those aware have sinned. We are born into sin, it is not developed, if it was then someone could possibly not sin. ChiId hood and youth are vanity. I agree they are safe because they lack accountability and knowing but that does not exempt their sin. Just because you do not know God does not mean He is not there and likewise just because you do not know what sin is does not mean it is not there. We do agree babies and children whom are not aware yet are safe because of their unawareness.

"All have sinned" is not to be taken to mean that "an infant who is incapable of sinning has sinned." We are not "born into sin" or "born in sin": we are "born into a sinful world".

Sin is the transgression of the law. What aspect of the law has a newly-born infant transgressed?

It appears to me to be utterly ridiculous to look at an infant just a minute or two out of the womb and say, "Well, there's another totally depraved sinner. Poor thing." Such a doctrine is hideous in its effects: it causes people to think that God, or the Holy Spirit specifically, must act in some direct manner to change their nature.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 2:32:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 1:34:03 PM, annanicole wrote:

"All have sinned" is not to be taken to mean that "an infant who is incapable of sinning has sinned." We are not "born into sin" or "born in sin": we are "born into a sinful world".

Please tell us how "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" suppose to mean? Because it clearly says "ALL" have sinned.

Sin is the transgression of the law. What aspect of the law has a newly-born infant transgressed?

A merciful God would not damn an innocent baby or young child to eternal damnation, if they die, because this baby or young child is not old enough to know right from wrong and is not old enough to make a personal decision for Christ.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

John 15:14 "What are mortals, that they could be pure, or those born of woman, that they could be righteous?"

Psalm 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies."

Job 14:1-4 "Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. He comes out like a flower and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not. And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!"

Proverbs 22:15 "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him."

I am sorry to disappoint you but the Bible declares that there is no human born of women, save Jesus Christ, that is born without a sinful nature. Ephesians 2:3 says "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath." Let us not deceive ourselves. If we were in the Garden, we would also have done what Adam and Eve had done. We can not judge them for "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10). In fact, "no one living is righteous before you(God)" (Psalm 143:2) and "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8) and in reality, "there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God" (Romans 3:11).

It appears to me to be utterly ridiculous to look at an infant just a minute or two out of the womb and say, "Well, there's another totally depraved sinner. Poor thing.":

To do that would be act or judge as if you aren't.

Such a doctrine is hideous in its effects: it causes people to think that God, or the Holy Spirit specifically, must act in some direct manner to change their nature.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:12 explains why: Because of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden, sin infected Adam and all his descendents, which includes every human being alive today, including babies.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 3:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 2:32:23 PM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:34:03 PM, annanicole wrote:

"All have sinned" is not to be taken to mean that "an infant who is incapable of sinning has sinned." We are not "born into sin" or "born in sin": we are "born into a sinful world".

Please tell us how "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" suppose to mean? Because it clearly says "ALL" have sinned.

You know as well as I do that words/phrases such as "all men" and "all" and "none" oftentimes are used in a hyperbolic sense. Examples of such a usage would fill up a page.


Sin is the transgression of the law. What aspect of the law has a newly-born infant transgressed?

A merciful God would not damn an innocent baby or young child to eternal damnation, if they die, because this baby or young child is not old enough to know right from wrong and is not old enough to make a personal decision for Christ.

It's not old enough to make a personal decision for the devil, either. In fact, it just can't do much of anything, can it?


Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

I have no concern for what David's mother might have been doing when he was conceived. I'm sure you realize that I would not accept an erroneous translation of the passage, a passage notably altered to allow for argumentation such as you are making.

John 15:14 "What are mortals, that they could be pure, or those born of woman, that they could be righteous?"

And you think this means that babies are born sinners?


Psalm 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies."

Where did they go astray from? And could you give us an estimated age at which they begin telling lies, so we'll have something to work with?

Job 14:1-4 "Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. He comes out like a flower and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not. And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!"

To take the passage as you intend it, we'd have to make Jesus a born sinner.

Proverbs 22:15 "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him."

Says nothing about a depraved infant. Have you found that applying the "rod of discipline" to a one-minute-old infant "drives folly" out of him?

I am sorry to disappoint you but the Bible declares that there is no human born of women, save Jesus Christ, that is born without a sinful nature.

Oh, you didn't disappoint me. You quoted the standard array of passages - and made sure in a couple of cases to stray from the KJV and ASV - which are very easily answered. A couple of them couldn't teach your doctrine even by a stretch.

Ephesians 2:3 says "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath." Let us not deceive ourselves. If we were in the Garden, we would also have done what Adam and Eve had done.

And you conclude that THAT teaches that infants are born totally depraved? I mean REALLY? The Ephesians, by the choices they made, habitually sinned - "lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind". If anything, it proves the opposite of what you are saying.

We can not judge them for "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10).

Be sure to continue, and we'll see exactly who Paul was discussing:

"There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable"

They "turned aside". I thought you were claiming they were "born aside". They "became unprofitable". That's quite different from being born totally depraved.

In fact, "no one living is righteous before you(God)" (Psalm 143:2) and "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8) and in

An infant makes no claim of any kind. It is sinless.


It appears to me to be utterly ridiculous to look at an infant just a minute or two out of the womb and say, "Well, there's another totally depraved sinner. Poor thing.":

To do that would be act or judge as if you aren't.

Such a doctrine is hideous in its effects: it causes people to think that God, or the Holy Spirit specifically, must act in some direct manner to change their nature.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:12 explains why: Because of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden, sin infected Adam and all his descendents, which includes every human being alive today, including babies.

You are confusing the consequences of Adam's sin with the guilt of Adam's sin. Nobody is denying that the consequences of Adam's sin - death - afflicts all humans, infant or not. What I'm denying is that an infant suffers the GUILT of Adam's sin. There is a mighty big difference between suffering the consequences of another's actions and being deemed guilty of those actions.

"the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son"

The way you have it, a newborn infant bears the GUILT of the iniquity of the father.

Well, what sin has an infant committed? You be sure and tell us. I'd like to know. It seems that you think we have a "sin gene" or something, and inherit just as we inherit eye color or skin color.

Not a single one of the passages proves that a little newborn is born totally depraved. Some of them have nothing to do with the subject.

And you watch the consequence, the logical next step, in this hideous theory:

When you preach what you call the gospel to a sinner, can he even understand it and respond to it unless a third party, the Holy Spirit, acts in some mysterious manner on him - separate and distinct from your preaching. Watch and see. To stay consistent, you'll have to claim that the Spirit kinda "opens" his heart - directly. You'll have to tell us that the Spirit "enlightens" him or "illuminates" him or "quickens" him - directly. In other words, a miracle has to be performed on the poor guy before he can even believe!
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:41:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 3:10:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
You know as well as I do that words/phrases such as "all men" and "all" and "none" oftentimes are used in a hyperbolic sense. Examples of such a usage would fill up a page.

Indeed portions of scripture uses hyperbolic language but does this? Are going to imply that Paul did not actually mean all have sinned? The case now resides on you to show that Paul was simply using an hyperbole here. I contend he wasn't, he was implying literally all have sinned.

It's not old enough to make a personal decision for the devil, either. In fact, it just can't do much of anything, can it?

It surely knows it wants food. It surely is aware of survival. Hence the baby is without quicking of the Spirit and completely bond to fleshly desire.

I have no concern for what David's mother might have been doing when he was conceived. I'm sure you realize that I would not accept an erroneous translation of the passage, a passage notably altered to allow for argumentation such as you are making.

Altered? Now you must show the verse was altered, again digging more holes for yourself and making assertions. That language speaks for itself.

John 15:14 "What are mortals, that they could be pure, or those born of woman, that they could be righteous?"

And you think this means that babies are born sinners?

Surely does not support they are not.

Psalm 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies."

Where did they go astray from?

God. Righteousness. Holiness. Are you implying God knows us not before we are born? He told Jeremiah He knew Him before He was ever in his mothers womb.

And could you give us an estimated age at which they begin telling lies, so we'll have something to work with?

Work with scripture "from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies" not need to interpret here, "from the womb"

Job 14:1-4 "Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. He comes out like a flower and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not. And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!"

To take the passage as you intend it, we'd have to make Jesus a born sinner.

Well there is a huge problem there.... Jesus is God and not able or capable of sinning or being corrupt. To make this claim you must then prove GOD can sin when it is against his nature. You then must show how Jesus compares to just men.

Proverbs 22:15 "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him."

Says nothing about a depraved infant. Have you found that applying the "rod of discipline" to a one-minute-old infant "drives folly" out of him?

It guess Luke 18 when Jesus suffers that infants be brought to Him so they could be touched means they are in no need? Again you must show infants are not sinners by the flesh. Your weakness abounds with your careless comments "rod to infants". One does not use the rod as the verse states without the child capable of learning what they have done and way the rod is used.

Oh, you didn't disappoint me. You quoted the standard array of passages - and made sure in a couple of cases to stray from the KJV and ASV - which are very easily answered. A couple of them couldn't teach your doctrine even by a stretch.

They why haven't you showed the doctrine incorrect? Why are just acting condensending? If it is wrong then it should be shown by scripture, should it not? Paul makes my point clear "all have sinned" regardless if they know it or not.

Ephesians 2:3 says "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath." Let us not deceive ourselves. If we were in the Garden, we would also have done what Adam and Eve had done.

And you conclude that THAT teaches that infants are born totally depraved? I mean REALLY? The Ephesians, by the choices they made, habitually sinned - "lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind". If anything, it proves the opposite of what you are saying.

No, you miss the point of the entire verse " we were by nature" by nature we are sinners and that includes infants. Unless you would like to show it does not include all.

We can not judge them for "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10).

Be sure to continue, and we'll see exactly who Paul was discussing:

"There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable"

They "turned aside". I thought you were claiming they were "born aside". They "became unprofitable". That's quite different from being born totally depraved.

In fact, "no one living is righteous before you(God)" (Psalm 143:2) and "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8) and in

An infant makes no claim of any kind. It is sinless.

The flesh and the Bible does not agree with you. When will you show us from scripture?

You are confusing the consequences of Adam's sin with the guilt of Adam's sin. Nobody is denying that the consequences of Adam's sin - death - afflicts all humans, infant or not.

Hence you have just ended the discussion and proved my point even if you like it or not. It seems you have no idea what the nature of flesh is. It is corrupted.

What I'm denying is that an infant suffers the GUILT of Adam's sin.

I never claimed they did suffer the guilt. I have not claimed once they go to hell as an infant and actually claimed the opposite multiple times.

There is a mighty big difference between suffering the consequences of another's actions and being deemed guilty of those actions.

Indeed. Yet the consequences are a fallen world, fallen flesh, and the whole nature to sin.

"the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son"

Indeed. We all commit our own iniquity. Yet you confuse the nature to sin and the knowing of sin, totally different.

The way you have it, a newborn infant bears the GUILT of the iniquity of the father.

Nah, another assertion without base.

Well, what sin has an infant committed? You be sure and tell us. I'd like to know. It seems that you think we have a "sin gene" or something, and inherit just as we inherit eye color or skin color.

It is inherit as being born into flesh is inherit. The flesh is what is sinful and as long as we are born into flesh we have sin. I have already gave you one "Vanity" and heres another "Greed".

Not a single one of the passages proves that a little newborn is born totally depraved. Some of them have nothing to do with the subject.

Yet you do not prove it, you just assert they don't.

And you watch the consequence, the logical next step, in this hideous theory:

I'm watching: I'm guessing your about to tell us what we are watching for, am I right?

When you preach what you call the gospel to a sinner, can he even understand it and respond to it unless a third party, the Holy Spirit, acts in some mysterious manner on him

The Spirit convicts them to salvation but only by hearing the Word of God. Mysterious? No, it is flat-out scriptural to hear the Word. You cannot will your own salvation that is useless. The gospel of Jesus Christ given by the Holy Spirit is the power of God unto salvation, and it is powerful enough to convict those who are ready to receive it.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:50:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...

claims do not justify claims...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 6:06:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
FLMinistries: "It surely knows it wants food. It surely is aware of survival. Hence the baby is without quicking of the Spirit and completely bond to fleshly desire."

Anna: I have to pause on that one. Lemme get this straight: you view the desire for food as evidence of an inherited sinful nature? Well, shouldn't you then lose your desire for food after the Spirit quickens you? What's worse is that Adam ate before he ever sinned.

And, there's more. It is, as per you, "aware" of survival. That's extremely questionable, but nonetheless your example make sinners out of puppies and kittens.

Look at the absurd extremes at which you find yourself: a infant desires food and wants to survive. Your conclusion? "Still bound to fleshly desire"! Since when was the need for nourishment considered to be a fleshly desire?

As usual, the defense of total hereditary depravity waxes, like evil men who are totally depraved, worse and worse.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 6:24:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 5:50:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...

claims do not justify claims...

Who said these are claims?
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 6:34:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 6:06:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
FLMinistries: "It surely knows it wants food. It surely is aware of survival. Hence the baby is without quicking of the Spirit and completely bond to fleshly desire."

Anna: I have to pause on that one. Lemme get this straight: you view the desire for food as evidence of an inherited sinful nature? Well, shouldn't you then lose your desire for food after the Spirit quickens you? What's worse is that Adam ate before he ever sinned.

Anna your lack of honesty and true discourse is evident. Where in my statement did I claim the wanting of food is "lack of quacking of the Spirit"? And where did I claim it is sinful nature? Nowhere and you know furthermore, your dishonest and you desire strife when is nowhere apart for the fruit of the Spirit. No, I addressed you remark that "they do know or good for too much" which I replied they know they want food and are good for eating. No where is the real address to vanity?

And, there's more. It is, as per you, "aware" of survival. That's extremely questionable, but nonetheless your example make sinners out of puppies and kittens.

Puppies and kittens... :) Survival is a natural trait and is vanity.

Look at the absurd extremes at which you find yourself: a infant desires food and wants to survive. Your conclusion? "Still bound to fleshly desire"! Since when was the need for nourishment considered to be a fleshly desire?

Never claimed it was, you distort my statement and ignore my reply to yours "Babies are not good for too much"

As usual, the defense of total hereditary depravity waxes, like evil men who are totally depraved, worse and worse.

You can clamour all you want but address the points and stop going around the issue. Where is you Biblical support that not every single person are sinners and "ALL" does not mean babies? Where is scripture that lets us know that sin is exempt from infants? I'll wait for it.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:10:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 6:24:35 PM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:50:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...

claims do not justify claims...

Who said these are claims?

anyone who recognizes we have the propensity to question everything, even claims about scripture that CLAIMS to be the 3rd party revelation of an encompassing authority over everyone...it is my right as a human being to request you to present the empirical evidence that would establish these claims as fact and i am sorry the appeal to gullibility isn't going to fly
gotta problem with that? i would imagine if you did it's cause you're selling something...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:36:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 12:05:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:48:17 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:33:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1s
. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darknes
https://www.youtube.com...

You're reading too much into it.

I do not think so and neither does the Spirit.

. :1. God's majesty - God created
God did create
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
Man is depraved. Depravity is void and has no structure.
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
Depravity is darkness. Man is in the dark without Christ-the light.
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
Without God Spirit moving upon you then no call unto the light can come.
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
Man is in darkness, Jesus Christ is the light of salvation.
6. The need of approval - The light was good
Light has no fellowship with darkness- the light is good.
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darknes
Again light has no fellowship with darkness.

Genesis 1:1-4 describes the New Testament condition of man, the call from God, the light of the gospel, and his regeneration.

You do not put enough into it.

You put too much into it. Sure, God's Spirit must move on you. But how? First, last and always ... through the word, the scriptures - not separate and distinct from them. In other words, the word is the means, the sword, that the Spirit uses.

the WBC say the same thing...
interesting
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:39:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:10:40 PM, perplexed wrote:

anyone who recognizes we have the propensity to question everything, even claims about scripture that CLAIMS to be the 3rd party revelation of an encompassing authority over everyone...it is my right as a human being to request you to present the empirical evidence that would establish these claims as fact and i am sorry the appeal to gullibility isn't going to fly
gotta problem with that? i would imagine if you did it's cause you're selling something...

Certainly I have no problem with that. It appears you have the problem with that. You have mistaken me for someone who may feel the need or are compelled to justify myself, the Bible, and God to you, you are mistaken, I do not. The only compelling I have is preaching the Word to you, if you accept it or not is entirely up to you. After such is not my problem. I guess the literal thousands upon thousands of verifiable evidences discovered by archeology is not empirical?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:53:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:39:46 PM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:10:40 PM, perplexed wrote:

anyone who recognizes we have the propensity to question everything, even claims about scripture that CLAIMS to be the 3rd party revelation of an encompassing authority over everyone...it is my right as a human being to request you to present the empirical evidence that would establish these claims as fact and i am sorry the appeal to gullibility isn't going to fly
gotta problem with that? i would imagine if you did it's cause you're selling something...

Certainly I have no problem with that. It appears you have the problem with that.
indeed as this piece of literature claims to be representing an authority over me...

You have mistaken me for someone who may feel the need or are compelled to justify myself, the Bible, and God to you, you are mistaken, I do not.

then what was the purpose of this thread?

The only compelling I have is preaching the Word to you, if you accept it or not is entirely up to you.
well that isn't entirely true.
you see it is this idea that you are representing a authority over me that would have you judge me as wicked, evil and of the dark and of course deserving of eternal punishment...since this a belief system that you adopted as your own, explains why your position in the society i live in is problematic as it was christians who infringed on my rights as a fellow HUMAN BEING who so happens to live in a country that values equality for of ALL of it's citizens...i am a woman who is bi sexual.
you made me your enemy when you adopted the idea a human being is to be judged by what they believe...an atrocious ideology...
i judge people by what they do...and since christians have been making choices for me, i judge christians as controlling willful sociopaths.

After such is not my problem.
well, it is actually...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
so don't be surprised when someone tries to slap your face WHEN YOUR VOICE DOES THEIR BIDDING

I guess the literal thousands upon thousands of verifiable evidences discovered by archeology is not empirical?
more empty claims...not working.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 8:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:53:57 PM, perplexed wrote:

indeed as this piece of literature claims to be representing an authority over me...


You have mistaken me for someone who may feel the need or are compelled to justify myself, the Bible, and God to you, you are mistaken, I do not.

then what was the purpose of this thread?

The purpose of this thread is to show fall and redemption from Genesis 1:1-4.

The only compelling I have is preaching the Word to you, if you accept it or not is entirely up to you.

well that isn't entirely true.

Yea it is.

you see it is this idea that you are representing a authority over me

I have no authority over you.

that would have you judge me as wicked, evil and of the dark and of course deserving of eternal punishment

God makes that determination. We are all worthy of death, hell, and destruction. Christians included. We will not face that because we have humbled ourselves to God and accepted His gift of grace and you have not.

...since this a belief system that you adopted as your own, explains why your position in the society i live in is problematic as it was christians who infringed on my rights as a fellow HUMAN BEING

Christians infringed on your rights? What rights was those?

who so happens to live in a country that values equality for of ALL of it's citizens...i am a woman who is bi sexual.

Again it appears you are bi-sexual and are free, so who and how again have your rights been infringed?

you made me your enemy

No, you made Christians your enemy because they disagree with your lifestyle and yet you still live it. It appears Christians still will allow you to live your lifestyle and not hate you or be your enemy. It appears your filled with hate when Christians love you regardless of your lifestyle. You are not my enemy.

when you adopted the idea a human being is to be judged by what they believe

It is not my idea. It is God's. You hate Him not me. Take it up with Him when you get there. See how that works for ya.

...an atrocious ideology...

With hatred you spew it seems your entire being is atrocious. Isn't forgiveness and peace much better?

i judge people by what they do

I judge not at all. It is much better that. In that way I am no better than anyone else.

...and since christians have been making choices for me, i judge christians as controlling willful sociopaths.

You are living bi-sexual, have rights to do so, and yet Christians control you. You appear deranged. Hatred flows.

After such is not my problem.
well, it is actually...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
so don't be surprised when someone tries to slap your face WHEN YOUR VOICE DOES THEIR BIDDING

Again hatred. And you expect anyone to respect one word you say? You are violent and hateful. How should one react to those actions?

I guess the literal thousands upon thousands of verifiable evidences discovered by archeology is not empirical?
more empty claims...not working.

No not empty. Just you lack and unwillingness to study the evidences or just denial which I think the latter.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 8:42:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 8:09:22 PM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:53:57 PM, perplexed wrote:

indeed as this piece of literature claims to be representing an authority over me...


You have mistaken me for someone who may feel the need or are compelled to justify myself, the Bible, and God to you, you are mistaken, I do not.

then what was the purpose of this thread?

The purpose of this thread is to show fall and redemption from Genesis 1:1-4.
why?


The only compelling I have is preaching the Word to you, if you accept it or not is entirely up to you.

well that isn't entirely true.

Yea it is.
no it isn't for the reasons you conveniently left out...do you have something to hide?

you see it is this idea that you are representing a authority over me

I have no authority over you.
does your belief system allow you to think you know the will of this authority over me?
yes or no?

that would have you judge me as wicked, evil and of the dark and of course deserving of eternal punishment

God makes that determination.
no you do, since you cannot separate you from your ideal of god.

We are all worthy of death, hell, and destruction.
that is a horrible outlook on life, i am sorry you believe that

Christians included. We will not face that because we have humbled ourselves to God and accepted His gift of grace and you have not.
right, which explains why you make me your enemy..i am not a believer.

...since this a belief system that you adopted as your own, explains why your position in the society i live in is problematic as it was christians who infringed on my rights as a fellow HUMAN BEING

Christians infringed on your rights? What rights was those?
the right to express myself without being discriminated against. i was indoctrinated to believing there was something wrong with me and i carried that shame for most of my life why...to make the homophobes comfortable in their self entitled privilege

who so happens to live in a country that values equality for of ALL of it's citizens...i am a woman who is bi sexual.

Again it appears you are bi-sexual and are free, so who and how again have your rights been infringed?

you made me your enemy

No, you made Christians your enemy
is it not the christian observation that they are all worthy of death, hell, and destruction...and christians will not face that because the and you have not."
what sort of respect are you to offer to people who are gay or are unbelievers...?
did you know that this country being over 70% christian deem atheists as trustworthy as a rapist? i suspect 2 cor 6:14 or the parable of the 10 minas has something to do with it.

because they disagree with your lifestyle and yet you still live it.
nope...there are many states that do no recognize same sex marriages.
or there are communities that would marginalize those who are homosexual based on their religious beliefs justifying their unwarranted bigotry

It appears Christians still will allow you to live your lifestyle and not hate you or be your enemy. It appears your filled with hate when Christians love you regardless of your lifestyle. You are not my enemy.
just remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

when you adopted the idea a human being is to be judged by what they believe

It is not my idea. It is God's.
again it is yours cause you cannot provide to me that you are not just relying on the empty god card justifying your unwarranted hatred of homosexuals, women and unbelievers.
You hate Him not me.
you are mistaken, i hate the ideology of dogma, that exists...you have yet to prove god does.

Take it up with Him when you get there. See how that works for ya.
your appeal to fear betrays your insecurity...there it is....you are god

...an atrocious ideology...

With hatred you spew it seems your entire being is atrocious. Isn't forgiveness and peace much better?
i'm just being honest...nothing hateful about what i have said to you...nothing.

i judge people by what they do

I judge not at all. It is much better that. In that way I am no better than anyone else.
your appeal to gullibility is noted.

...and since christians have been making choices for me, i judge christians as controlling willful sociopaths.

You are living bi-sexual, have rights to do so, and yet Christians control you. You appear deranged. Hatred flows.
no i have been marginalized and i am not the only one, you know it.

After such is not my problem.
well, it is actually...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
so don't be surprised when someone tries to slap your face WHEN YOUR VOICE DOES THEIR BIDDING

Again hatred. And you expect anyone to respect one word you say?
no it's the law of motion...
You are violent and hateful.
no it was your ideology that hurt countless amounts of people in the name of the ideology of god which has never been proven to exist

How should one react to those actions?
by asking "why"?

I guess the literal thousands upon thousands of verifiable evidences discovered by archeology is not empirical?
more empty claims...not working.

No not empty. Just you lack and unwillingness to study the evidences or just denial which I think the latter.
still offering a lot of nothing.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 8:46:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anna: It's not old enough to make a personal decision for the devil, either. In fact, it just can't do much of anything, can it?

FLMinistries: "It surely knows it wants food. It surely is aware of survival. Hence the baby is without quicking of the Spirit and completely bond to fleshly desire."

Anna: I have to pause on that one. Lemme get this straight: you view the desire for food as evidence of an inherited sinful nature? Well, shouldn't you then lose your desire for food after the Spirit quickens you? What's worse is that Adam ate before he ever sinned.

FLMinistries: Anna your lack of honesty and true discourse is evident. Where in my statement did I claim the wanting of food is "lack of quacking of the Spirit"?


Anna: You didn't. You said:

#1 It wants food
#2 It is aware of survival
#3 HENCE the baby is without quicking of the Spirit and completely bond to fleshly desire

FLMinistries: And where did I claim it is sinful nature? Nowhere and you know furthermore, your dishonest and you desire strife when is nowhere apart for the fruit of the Spirit. No, I addressed you remark that "they do know or good for too much"

Anna: Actually, I said, "It just can't do much of anything, can it?" In other words, it's helpless. A one-day-old infant does not KNOW it is hungry, for it does not even know what hunger is.

FLMinistries: which I replied they know they want food and are good for eating. No where is the real address to vanity?

Anna: Vanity? Vanity is defined as "excessive pride in one's appearance, qualities, abilities, achievements, etc.; character or quality of being vain; conceit. An infant possesses none of that.

Anna: And, there's more. It is, as per you, "aware" of survival. That's extremely questionable, but nonetheless your example make sinners out of puppies and kittens.

FLMinistries: Puppies and kittens... :) Survival is a natural trait and is vanity.

Anna: And you are claiming that the survival instinct is a sign of total depravity? Are you are or not?

Anna: Look at the absurd extremes at which you find yourself: a infant desires food and wants to survive. Your conclusion? "Still bound to fleshly desire"! Since when was the need for nourishment considered to be a fleshly desire?

FLMinistries: Never claimed it was, you distort my statement and ignore my reply to yours "Babies are not good for too much"

Anna: But I didn't say that: I say they can't do much of anything, didn't I? Your reply is basically that infants have what you term "vanity", and you take this as evidence of total depravity.

Anna: As usual, the defense of total hereditary depravity waxes, like evil men who are totally depraved, worse and worse.

FLMinistries: You can clamour all you want but address the points and stop going around the issue. Where is you Biblical support that not every single person are sinners and "ALL" does not mean babies? Where is scripture that lets us know that sin is exempt from infants? I'll wait for it.

Oh, I'll answer. By the way, weren't you supposed to tell us exactly what sin an infant has committed? I think I ask that several times.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:36:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:39:46 PM, FLMinistries wrote:
I guess the literal thousands upon thousands of verifiable evidences discovered by archeology is not empirical?

I await with bated breath the production of these evidences.

hahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:58:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 12:36:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:39:46 PM, FLMinistries wrote:
I guess the literal thousands upon thousands of verifiable evidences discovered by archeology is not empirical?

I await with bated breath the production of these evidences.

hahaha

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.

Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.

Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.

Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.

Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.

Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.

Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.

Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.

Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.

Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.

Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.

Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years, A.D. 18-36. He most likely gained the position by marrying the daughter of Annas, head of a powerful high-priestly clan (John 18:13). Caiaphas is infamous as the leader of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus.

The discovery of the inscription which seems to mention James, the brother of Jesus Christ, was originally announced at a news conference in Washington, D.C. on the morning of October 21, 2002. The inscription is in Aramaic, one of the languages of the New Testament period, and says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It's carved on the side of an ossuary, a box carved out of soft limestone, typically used as a bone container in the tombs of first century A.D. Jews.

Great politician and administrator, Augustus ruled the Roman empire from 27 B.C.-A.D. 14. It was Augustus who issued the census decree that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born (Luke 2:1-7). Augustus erected for himself a grand mausoleum in Rome, on the east bank of the Tiber River, one quarter mile northwest of the Roman Forum. The remains exist today in the middle of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore.

The Bible says that Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah and Jacob were buried in Hebron, in a cave called the Cave of Machpelah, purchased by Abraham (Gen. 23). Traditionally, this cave has been located below the Haram el-Khalil ("sacred precinct of the friend of the merciful One, God") in Hebron, today a Muslim mosque. References as early as the Hellenistic period (2nd century B.C.) testify that this is the authentic location of the burial place of the Patriarchs. The cave was explored by the Augustine Canons in 1119, at which time they claim to have found the bones of the Patriarchs.

Interestingly, an inscription was found on the Mount of Olives in 1931 dating to the first century A.D. which reads, "Here were brought the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah"do not open." Evidently, because of his leprosy, Uzziah's bones were removed from the field belonging to the kings and transferred to yet a more remote location.

The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea.

Modern shore of the Sea of Galilee, showing the location of Capernaum. Archaeological evidence indicates the town did not begin until the 2nd century B.C., which explains why it is only mentioned in the New Testament, not the Old.

a26;The palace at Jericho where Eglon, king of Moab, was assassinated by Ehud (Judges 3:15-30).

a26;The east gate of Shechem where Gaal and Zebul watched the forces of Abimelech approach the city (Judges 9:34-38).

a26;The Temple of Baal/El-Berith in Shechem, where funds were obtained to finance Abimelech's kingship, and where the citizens of Shechem took refuge when Abimelech attacked the city (Judges 9:4, 46-49).

a26;The pool of Gibeon where the forces of David and Ishbosheth fought during the struggle for the kingship of Israel (2 Samuel 2:12-32).

a26;The Pool of Heshbon, likened to the eyes of the Shulammite woman (Song of Songs 7:4).

a26;The royal palace at Samaria where the kings of Israel lived (1 Kings 20:43; 21:1, 2; 22:39; 2 Kings 1:2; 15:25).

a26;The Pool of Samaria where King Ahab's chariot was washed after his death (1 Kings 22:29-38).

a26;The water tunnel beneath Jerusalem dug by King Hezekiah to provide water during the Assyrian siege (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30).

a26;The royal palace in Babylon where King Belshazzar held the feast and Daniel interpreted the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

a26;The royal palace in Susa where Esther was queen of the Persian king Xerxes (Esther 1:2; 2:3, 5, 9, 16).

a26;The royal gate at Susa where Mordecai, Esther's cousin, sat (Esther 2:19, 21; 3:2, 3; 4:2; 5:9, 13; 6:10, 12).

a26;
The Square in front of the royal gate at Susa where Mordecai met with Halthach, Xerxes' eunuch (Esther 4:6).

a26;The foundation of the synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus cured a man with an unclean spirit (Mark 1:21-28) and delivered the sermon on the
FLMinistries
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 1:01:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 8:46:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

Oh, I'll answer. By the way, weren't you supposed to tell us exactly what sin an infant has committed? I think I ask that several times.

A sin is a sin. I have answered you several times with no scriptural response. "Oh, I'll answer" I am waiting.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 5:23:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 1:01:41 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 8:46:51 PM, annanicole wrote:

Oh, I'll answer. By the way, weren't you supposed to tell us exactly what sin an infant has committed? I think I ask that several times.

A sin is a sin. I have answered you several times with no scriptural response. "Oh, I'll answer" I am waiting.

Then pardon me, but I haven't seen it. If you'll point out the post number, I'll be sure to go back and read it. Did any of them lie? steal? covet? commit adultery? The best you've done is said, "Vanity". But you need to explain that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 5:25:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:50:17 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:38:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:30:58 AM, FLMinistries wrote:
Genesis 1:1-4 (KJV)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Seven points:
1. God's majesty - God created
2. Man's depravity - Earth(man) without form and void
3. Man's condition - Darkness was upon the face of the deep
4. Man's need - God's Spirit must move
5. Man's salvation - Let there be light
6. The need of approval - The light was good
7. The regenerated man - Dividing of the light from darkness

https://www.youtube.com...

Divided the light and the dark and afterwards created the SUN.

What was the light before he created the sun?

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

So this Jesus was the light? Did he turn himself off in order to create the dark?

Then why do we need the sun?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin