Fundamentalist

A majority of fundamentalists do accept "lower" textual criticism but many do not, particularly KJVO.

 

With all respect, you might want to consider not attempting to "answer" one who can not respond to your posts. The one you addressed this to can not reply, at least currently, so this might be a little 'unfair', at best.

This has nothing to say for or against the content of your post, BTW.

I have made this suggestion to others, and want to be consistent with all.

Ed.

 

Well, it's nice to know where to come with all the questions to which I don't have answers. :thumbs:

Or not!

If a scholar (who has been through the entire Bible well over a hundred times, by his claim) does not trust another scholar, why should this ignorant farmer and non-scholar, trust the first self-styled "scholar"??

Ed

 

Ok my mistake.

I thought you said you believed in evolutionism.

Well I would love to hear how "liberal" is another term for "fundamentalist" when it comes to Gen 1-8.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I believe in evolution. In your mind, it conflicts with Gen 1-8 and the fall of man. In my mind they do not.

Liberal isn't another term for fundamentalist.

 

Sounds like a good thread topic to start up.

Would you also be willing to state that when the primary audience for Moses -- the "intended reader" read something like "SIX days you shall labor.. and rest the seventh day FOR in Six days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and rested the seventh-day" that they knew this reference to Genesis 2 was really a reference to evolutionism or did Moses intend them to accept it as 7 actual days in your view?

Exegesis is all about determining the intent of the author for his readers.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Done that many times before and am not really interested in going through it again. If you want to start a thread on this topic, go ahead. Depending on the tone of discussion, I might pop in a few posts.

 

//Jesus is returning once, not twice.//

The Bible, book, chapter, verse, version, edition please.
Thank you.

I can show any of the following statements from
the Holy Bible (in any of the fine English Versions
as I'm not skilled in Hebrew nor Greek).

I believe that the Second Coming of Jesus happens
on ONE 'Day of the Lord' that is 7-years long (the 70th
week of Daniel).

Here are some things called:
Day of the Lord, Day of Christ, or Day of God,
or Judgement Day', etc.:

'Day of the Lord' means the appropriate time when
God intrudes in the affairs of mankind.

1. The First Coming of Christ as a Baby in a Manger
2. The Resurrection of Christ
3. The whole Church Age (AKA: Time of the Gentiles) [1768 years & growing]
4. The 7-year Tribulation Period Judgement
5. The second ½ (3½-years) of Great Tribulation Period Judgement
6. The Millinnial (1,000 years) Messanic Kingdom on Earth of Jesus
7. The Great White Throne Judgement at the end of this world

Interesting, 7 'Day of the Lord's. Seven is the number
that denotes perfection .

 

//Ed, departing means departing from the faith.//

I respectfully disagree.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Paul says he is going to speak
of two things. The Second Coming he mentions all
over 2 Thessalonians 2:1. When is the gathering
of the Church Age saints mentioned again?
Why in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: 'falling away' (KJVs),
'departure' (Geneva Bibles & 5 earlier
English Versions); 'the apostasy' in many MVs.

 

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
3 let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,


New King James Version (NKJV)
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,


King James Version (KJV)
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;



Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition,
Note: The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382




Then Paul goes into "more detail". He backs up starting with the present time (His present day)and walks the reader through to the future --

The cure for their error had already been given by Paul - according to vs 5 above.

He points to the present existence of that evil lawless one and takes them through to the future when that lawless one is "revealed" when Christ exposes him at the "appearing" - the "Appearance of His coming"

That completes the sweep of history showing the revelation of not only the wicked one but also the appearing of Christ that follows. He shows that this wickedness continues “until he is taken out of the way” by the appearing of Christ – which as they saw in 1Thess 4 is the moment also of the resurrection of the saints. Because 1Thess 4 has already been give to them all Paul needs to do is point them to the time of Christ’s appearing to solve the problem they are having with the timing of the resurrection.

Then Paul clarifies with more detail about that lawless one.

[quote]2Thess 2
9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,[/b]
[/quote]

No part of this mentions the work of the AntiChrist or man of sin AFTER the appearing of Christ. No activity at all is attributed to the man of sin after Christ appears and puts a stop to it.

Paul points out this important list of events that must preceed the appearing and the resurrection that is associated with it (see 1Thess 4 for the appearing of Christ, our gathering together to Him[/b] and the associated resurrection. Truth already given to the church of the Thessalonians)

 

King James Version (KJV)
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;



Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition,
Note: The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382


John Gill (Author of the first Baptist commentary on scripture)
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=2th&chapter=002&verse=003

2Thess 2:3
except there come a falling away first;
either in a political sense, of the nations from the Roman empire, which was divided into the eastern and western empire; for which, way was made by translating the seat of empire from Rome to Byzantium, or Constantinople; the former of these empires was seized by Mahomet, and still possessed by the Turks; and the latter was overrun by the Goths, Huns, and Vandals, and torn to pieces; Italy particularly was ravaged by them, and Rome itself was sacked and taken:

OR rather in a religious sense, of the falling of men from the faith of the Gospel, from the purity of Gospel doctrines, discipline, worship, and ordinances; and this not of some Jews who professed faith in Christ, and departed from it, or of some Christians who went off to the Gnostics;

but is to be understood of a more general defection in the times of the Papacy; when not only the eastern churches were perverted and corrupted by Mahomet, and drawn off to his religion, but the western churches were most sadly depraved by the man of sin, by bringing in errors of all sorts in doctrine, making innovations in every ordinance, and appointing new ones, and introducing both Judaism and Paganism into the churches; which general defection continued until the times of the reformation, and is what the apostle has respect to in (1 Timothy 4:1-3) where he manifestly points out some of the Popish tenets, as forbidding marriage to priests, and ordering abstinence from meats on certain days, and at certain times of the year: this was one thing that was to precede the coming of Christ, another follows, which should take place at the same time;

http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=2th&chapter=002&verse=003

 

Which point would you be most intersted in?

1. That exegesis is not necessarily the right way to interpret Gen 1-6?

2. That exegesis does not include/insist upon/require that we interpret the text according to the obvious intended meaning that the author had for his readers?

3. That exegesis will show that the primary intended meaning that Moses had in Gen 1-6 for his audience was "evolution"?

I will start the thread that you indicate as representing your view in favor of evolution in Gen 1-2