Reviewing The Book of Genesis

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

...........  what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

It means, you cannot use Allegations, slander, innuendos or lies to prove anything.
You cannot use any document to prove itself.
If you want to prove the bible, go ahead. I feel no need to.
A Spiritual belief may not be 'provable.' It's meant to be not provable

i'm seeing this technique quite a lot lately.    you start this and then somehow magically turn it around to hamstring your opposition.  Is this a new alinsky rule for radical or just a twist of an existing one?

i don't think that squint understands that the bible IS God's innering word.  and yet he doesn't seem to believe it or that it proves itself and disproves all other false beliefs.    Squint should be...if he is what he claims, reveling in the innering, unchanging Word of God.  

It's amazing isn't it.
Here is a book written 2000 years ago. Probably the most influential book ever written.
I am sure if I read it a 4th time, cover to cover, it would be illuminating for me.
I can confidently bet on that. It is a very personal book.
Many people have become Christians as a result of reading the Bible in order to prove it wrong.
It has been misquoted to commit or justify crimes. That is not the fault of The Bible. That is humans.

I do not see this as being a case of 'either believe in The Bible or believe in Science.'
Most Scientists have been Christians.

Some of the claims muslims use against it are surprisingly false.
I have discussed a few with them over the years.

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

It means, you cannot use Allegations, slander, innuendos or lies to prove anything.
You cannot use any document to prove itself.
If you want to prove the bible, go ahead. I feel no need to.
A Spiritual belief may not be 'provable.' It's meant to be not provable

i'm seeing this technique quite a lot lately.    you start this and then somehow magically turn it around to hamstring your opposition.  Is this a new alinsky rule for radical or just a twist of an existing one?

i don't think that squint understands that the bible IS God's innering word.  and yet he doesn't seem to believe it or that it proves itself and disproves all other false beliefs.    Squint should be...if he is what he claims, reveling in the innering, unchanging Word of God.