is genesis 8:21 a fallacy?

[waitasec]

That's because your mind was already made up prior to the OP being posted.

as was yours. i am asking how you have been able to make sense out of it for yourself.

you see what you don't realize, and perhaps you can shed some light on this, is that you never once asked me why i thought what i thought about this meaning of omniscience or why i think this passage is a fallacy.
which leaves me with 2 conclusions
either 1) you are not even remotely interested as to why i cannot reconcile this notion
or 2) you know why i cannot reconcile this notion which would explain your disinterest in why i cannot

 

[Space Ghost]

Yeah but the OP questions the literal interpretation of Genesis 8:21 and the state of mankind-- not God's future baptism of fire. I merely mentioned that as a side note. If you'd like to discuss it, start a thread.

Wow lol Your seriously going to burn me for it when you admit bringing it up despite the OP? Even as a side note you brought it up here and you didn't get criticized for it. I will feel free to do so as well without starting a new thread. Thanks for the advice though.


You must be a very very proud Christian.

 

[james2ko]

Wow lol Your seriously going to burn me for it when you admit bringing it up despite the OP? Even as a side note you brought it up here and you didn't get criticized for it. I will feel free to do so as well without starting a new thread. Thanks for the advice though. You must be a very very proud Christian.

Burn you? Criticize? For suggesting the start of another thread? I'm sorry you feel that way. You must be a very very sensitive Atheist.

 

[Space Ghost]

Burn you? Criticize? For suggesting the start of another thread? I'm sorry you feel that way. You must be a very very sensitive Atheist.

lmao Nice job trying to turn around the whole Hall Monitor thing you had going with "If you'd like to discuss it, start a thread."!! I see I am going to have lots of fun with you.

 

[james2ko]

as was yours. i am asking how you have been able to make sense out of it for yourself.

I do not expect this to make any sense to you but the only way the bible can truly and totally be understood is if God reveals it to an individual. (Mat 16:17; Jn 6:44; Jn 6:65; Php 1:29)

you see what you don't realize, and perhaps you can shed some light on this, is that you never once asked me why i thought what i thought about this meaning of omniscience or why i think this passage is a fallacy.

The bible was not written for skeptics. A skeptic's mind is closed to the truth of scripture (Isa 28:9-13; 2 Co 4:4) It is to be studied and correctly discerned by those Christians with God's Spirit (1Co 2:11) in order to learn God's way of life so they can teach (Isa 30:20) and lead those in the millenium and beyond (1Co 6:2-3; Rev 20:6).

which leaves me with 2 conclusions either 1) you are not even remotely interested as to why i cannot reconcile this notion or 2) you know why i cannot reconcile this notion which would explain your disinterest in why i cannot

Number 2 sounds about right.

 

[james2ko]

lmao Nice job trying to turn around the whole Hall Monitor thing you had going with "If you'd like to discuss it, start a thread."!! I see I am going to have lots of fun with you.

Be careful what you wish for

 

[james2ko]

No, because it's not a literal account. I don't interpret literalistically what is written mythically. To do so would, indeed, be an exercise in scholastic masturbation --

Conversely, I can also say: It's not a mythical account. I don't interpret mythically what is written literalistically, to do so would be an exercise in SM at best, and a monumental waste of time, at worst.
I have to say, I do find it somewhat inconsistent that you take the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ as a literal, true event yet dismiss the Genesis account as mythical.

 

[waitasec]

The bible was not written for skeptics.

nuff said. :beach: