annihilationism

[NewCreation435]

But you can't show it. You just keep stating it. When challenged, you need to "look it up". Thanks for illuminating the world how some people get their beliefs.

Member services to talk with you? No thanks. There are mods I would talk to in such an area, you aren't one of them.

Actually I'm going to work right now and don't have the time and I assumed you can read.

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

Adam: 930 years
Seth: 912 years
Enos: 905 years
Cainan: 910 years
Mahalaleel: 895years
Jared: 962years
Methuselah: 969years
Lamech: 777years
Noah: 950years

(During this time the sin nature that some people think gradually limits years must have taken a break)

God makes the statement in Genesis 6:3 that He will limit mans years to no more than 120. Noah took his sons and daughters and their sons and daughters into the ark. How many generations is unstated but at some point God's statement must start coming into force:

Terah: 205years
Sarah: 127years
Abraham: 175years
Ishmael: 137years
Isaac: 160years
Joseph: 110years
Aaron: 123years
Moses: 120years
Joshua: 110years

Taken from search of "years" and "died" : https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=years+died&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

Maybe I missed some my search terms didn't hit, but there are a few things clear:
1) No statement at all linking "sinful nature" to decline in years.
2) Big drop in ages lived after the flood. Nothing "gradual" about it. If there are deaths I missed that are gradually lower, they are only for this period.
3) And most important the "sinful nature" that we are supposed to have inherited from Adam and Eve should still be in it's stated operation today, limiting man's life years more and more if the theory is true.

Does anyone wish to redefine gradual now so they can support their fantasy theories? Lol.

 

[Andrew]

Sigh. Abel was murdered, he didn't die do to some inherited sin nature.

Also Genesis 6:3. God shortens man's lifespan in an instant. No gradual shorter and shorter lifespans. You made that up.

Well I didn't necessarily make it up, records prove that people lived longer, I don't know anyone who lived to 900

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[NewCreation435]

Adam: 930 years
Seth: 912 years
Enos: 905 years
Cainan: 910 years
Mahalaleel: 895years
Jared: 962years
Methuselah: 969years
Lamech: 777years
Noah: 950years

(During this time the sin nature that some people think gradually limits years must have taken a break)

God makes the statement in Genesis 6:3 that He will limit mans years to no more than 120. Noah took his sons and daughters and their sons and daughters into the ark. How many generations is unstated but at some point God's statement must start coming into force:

Terah: 205years
Sarah: 127years
Abraham: 175years
Ishmael: 137years
Isaac: 160years
Joseph: 110years
Aaron: 123years
Moses: 120years
Joshua: 110years

Taken from search of "years" and "died" : https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=years+died&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

Maybe I missed some my search terms didn't hit, but there are a few things clear:
1) No statement at all linking "sinful nature" to decline in years.
2) Big drop in ages lived after the flood. Nothing "gradual" about it. If there are deaths I missed that are gradually lower, they are only for this period.
3) And most important the "sinful nature" that we are supposed to have inherited from Adam and Eve should still be in it's stated operation today, limiting man's life years more and more if the theory is true.

Does anyone wish to redefine gradual now so they can support their fantasy theories? Lol.

What you don't seem to get is that while the Bible has history in it it is not a history book. Rather the Bible is about God's redemptive work with mankind. Even the lineage in Genesis doesn't include everyone nor is it intended to nor does it claim to.
Your posts tend to lead me to think that you see yourself as smarter or better than others which you have correctly seen that I don't like. I don't like your condescending attitude or your efforts to mock my faith or others. Nope I don't like that. I think you need to lose the attitude

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

What you don't seem to get is that while the Bible has history in it it is not a history book. Rather the Bible is about God's redemptive work with mankind. Even the lineage in Genesis doesn't include everyone nor is it intended to nor does it claim to.

So now you seem to be backing away from your false claim. Good. This is a step in the right direction. Truth should always triumph over falsehood. I shouldn't need to remind a Christian of this.

Your posts tend to lead me to think that you see yourself as smarter or better than others which you have correctly seen that I don't like. I don't like your condescending attitude or your efforts to mock my faith or others. Nope I don't like that. I think you need to lose the attitude

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

Smarter than some, and in some areas, dumber than some in other areas. One thing about pride though, it hates pride. Maybe time to do an inventory yourself.

Condescending and mocking faith? Dude, please, grow up. This is a message board, ideas are mostly communicated in text and I've made it clear what I beleive and who I am from the beginning. You don't like that. I ain't changing what I believe because some dude on the internet isn't mature enough to handle it, or can't answer honest inquires into the faith without reading into motives and taking offense at everything he doesn't like.
People like you make message boards intolerable. You come to the interwebs expecting what you should not - that everyone is going to agree with you and contrary opinions that challenge you aren't going to be expressed, and then you get angry when you find out that's not how it works. If you want to live in an echo chamber where only your own views are endorsed, go to a church where people all think the same, and most certainly get off the internet and away from people where you might be challenged to defend those views.

 

[NewCreation435]

So now you seem to be backing away from your false claim. Good. This is a step in the right direction. Truth should always triumph over falsehood. I shouldn't need to remind a Christian of this.



Smarter than some, and in some areas, dumber than some in other areas. One thing about pride though, it hates pride. Maybe time to do an inventory yourself.

Condescending and mocking faith? Dude, please, grow up. This is a message board, ideas are mostly communicated in text and I've made it clear what I beleive and who I am from the beginning. You don't like that. I ain't changing what I believe because some dude on the internet isn't mature enough to handle it, or can't answer honest inquires into the faith without reading into motives and taking offense at everything he doesn't like.
People like you make message boards intolerable. You come to the interwebs expecting what you should not - that everyone is going to agree with you and contrary opinions that challenge you aren't going to be expressed, and then you get angry when you find out that's not how it works. If you want to live in an echo chamber where only your own views are endorsed, go to a church where people all think the same, and most certainly get off the internet and away from people where you might be challenged to defend those views.

You don't have to remind me of anything. I never claimed the Bible was a history book though it has history in it. As far as Genesis 6:3 statement about the 120 years, I never personally interpreted that as relating to the chronology of people's ages. I took that to perhaps mean that this was how many years there would be before God would judge the earth. In fact, I don't know why there was a decline in people's ages. Nor do I know why it seems that the ages changed after the flood. God doesn't tell us anywhere in the Bible. Because that is not the point as I have said. The Bible does not come right out and say that the sinful deprived nature of man has anything to do with the decline in ages. It could have something to do with the atmosphere or any number of other issues. Maybe the earth itself changed after the flood. I don't know. Surprisingly, I wasn't there. I am not quite that old.
As far as admitting something, I never claimed that the Bible was a complete chronology of all people everywhere. Maybe someone else did, but I did not. People are left out of the story. I don't see any lineage of Native Americans or Asian or some other people groups. I never claimed that it was there though. I will agree with you that the ages drop off dramatically after the flood. Why that is I am not sure, but by the time of Moses he lives 120 years which is far different from 900 plus years of Adam and some others.
As far as what would have happened if people would have been immortal and lived forever, I guess we will never know will we? Though the Bible doesn't tell us how long Adam and Eve lived before the fall. Maybe time wasn't even relevant then.
You seem to think you won some points by arguing to death the idea that the ages of people progressively went down. The fact is that they did go down. I don't see how your point proves anything. You seem intent on trying to prove the Bible wrong or discredit the faith. As far as expecting everyone on a forum like this to agree with me, far from it. I just don't like the condescending and arrogant attitude that you have towards anyone that doesn't agree with you. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. If I thought that way I wouldn't even come on a forum like this. Most people on this forum come from very different backgrounds than me yet we get along fine. I have a problem with the attitude that your projecting which is that your better than others and looking down on others. That is consistent in almost all of your posts. Don't like that, then that is fine, but that is the way you come across.

 

[Stravinsk]

You seem to think you won some points by arguing to death the idea that the ages of people progressively went down.

There you go reading minds again. No points were being sought. Time to take that inventory, counselor.

The fact is that they did go down. I don't see how your point proves anything.

Never argued that they didn't. Straw man. However, the position was suggested by another that they went down gradually due to the sin nature, a position you backed. You may not think so, but I'm satisfied that I proved that this is false.

You seem intent on trying to prove the Bible wrong or discredit the faith.

To the point being argued, I was only proving the interpretation you backed wrong. As for the bible in general, there are many parts I believe, and some I don't - which I have been clear about in many places on this board (you can start with my intro on this board where I am clear I don't believe Saul/Paul as being the true blue apostle he claims to be), but otherwise thanks for trying to pigeon hole me with your gross generalization.

As far as expecting everyone on a forum like this to agree with me, far from it. I just don't like the condescending and arrogant attitude that you have towards anyone that doesn't agree with you. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. If I thought that way I wouldn't even come on a forum like this. Most people on this forum come from very different backgrounds than me yet we get along fine. I have a problem with the attitude that your projecting which is that your better than others and looking down on others. That is consistent in almost all of your posts. Don't like that, then that is fine, but that is the way you come across.

Should I be humble and meek and prostrate myself before you as a current staff member who likes to throw his weight around? You constantly accuse me of being arrogant and you hate it oh so much. Again, maybe time to take inventory. Since you love Saul/Paul so much, I hope you don't mind me using a few of his words here to answer you:

Romans 2:1.

 

[NewCreation435]

There you go reading minds again. No points were being sought. Time to take that inventory, counselor.



Never argued that they didn't. Straw man. However, the position was suggested by another that they went down gradually due to the sin nature, a position you backed. You may not think so, but I'm satisfied that I proved that this is false.




To the point being argued, I was only proving the interpretation you backed wrong. As for the bible in general, there are many parts I believe, and some I don't - which I have been clear about in many places on this board (you can start with my intro on this board where I am clear I don't believe Saul/Paul as being the true blue apostle he claims to be), but otherwise thanks for trying to pigeon hole me with your gross generalization.



Should I be humble and meek and prostrate myself before you as a current staff member who likes to throw his weight around? You constantly accuse me of being arrogant and you hate it oh so much. Again, maybe time to take inventory. Since you love Saul/Paul so much, I hope you don't mind me using a few of his words here to answer you:

Romans 2:1.

I am simply telling you how I perceive you coming across. Whether I am a moderator or not makes no difference. I would tell you exactly the same thing. As far as if the sin nature of man had anything to do with the decline in ages, the Bible clearly doesn't say. It doesn't indicate yes or no on that. It may be assumed it had an impact, but we don't know for sure

 

[Stravinsk]

I am simply telling you how I perceive you coming across.

No, you did more than that. You want me to change to suit you. You think I have an attitude problem. You really can't stand the pride that you see, and all the hidden motives that you perceive.

Whether I am a moderator or not makes no difference.

You took issue in this thread because I used someone's words initially to suggest that their belief in the Trinity was nominal at best. Since then, there is a post by Snerfle that claims in the most general terms I am an unbeliever - and this post remains (and I have no problem with that - because, well, it's Snerfle, lol). However, I get a warning on my use of the term "Xian" and the suggestion someone is lying.

You suck at being an impartial mod. Your partiality and your hatred is written all over your posts and your selective moderation.

 

[NewCreation435]

No, you did more than that. You want me to change to suit you. You think I have an attitude problem. You really can't stand the pride that you see, and all the hidden motives that you perceive.



You took issue in this thread because I used someone's words initially to suggest that their belief in the Trinity was nominal at best. Since then, there is a post by Snerfle that claims in the most general terms I am an unbeliever - and this post remains (and I have no problem with that - because, well, it's Snerfle, lol). However, I get a warning on my use of the term "Xian" and the suggestion someone is lying.

You suck at being an impartial mod. Your partiality and your hatred is written all over your posts and your selective moderation.

I hope you realize that when action is taken on a report it is with consensus of the moderators and not just my decision. I don't take action on my own on reports. And there is no hatred. I don't feel that strongly about you to feel that way. I suggested having this conversation in member services area and you declined, so I said what I was thinking. Too bad if you can't handle it. I'm done talking with you about this

I am closing this thread since it has gotten so horribly off track

 

[Lamb]

[MENTION=216]Stravinsk[/MENTION], please begin a thread in the Member Admin Center as soon as you log in to discuss your posting style. It has become unacceptable.