There is not enough erosion of the continents for them to be many 10s of millions of years old.

[Colt]

Please prove one.

2 different versions of Jesus healing the Centurion’s servant. In Luke the Centurion sends Jewish elders to talk with Jesus. In Matthew he goes and talks to Jesus directly.

Luke 7:1-10

English Standard Version

​

Jesus Heals a Centurion's Servant​

7 After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.2 Now a centurion had a servant[a] who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him.3 When the centurion[b] heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, 5 for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” 6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well.

Matthew 8:5-13

New King James Version

​

Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant​

5 Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, 6 saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”
7 And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”
8 The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

The Bible is full of such human error (as should be expected) it was written and rewritten by humans not a Deity dictating!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Augustine had many heretical beliefs.

It is far more likely that your beliefs are heretical. I need to remind you that you keep claiming that your God is a liar.

 

[Polymath257]

Augustine had many heretical beliefs.

Name one church father that didn't. Oh wait, maybe Tertullian: Believe *because* it is absurd!

Yeah, that's the ticket!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Name one church father that didn't. Oh wait, maybe Tertullian: Believe *because* it is absurd!

Yeah, that's the ticket!

See how you do not understand the word of God or the Bible. There are no church fathers. Just the word of God alone. So, prove your point with the King James Bible.

 

[Polymath257]

See how you do not understand the word of God or the Bible. There are no church fathers. Just the word of God alone. So, prove your point with the King James Bible.

You mean the one translated 1600 years after the fact, based on texts for which better originals have been found?

Hmmm...and what do people who don't speak English do for a Bible?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You mean the one translated 1600 years after the fact, based on texts for which better originals have been found?

Hmmm...and what do people who don't speak English do for a Bible?

Who said that the word of God is only in English?
But that is the only language I know.

 

[Polymath257]

Who said that the word of God is only in English?
But that is the only language I know.

You pointed to a specific translation of the Bible which happens to be in English.

Are the original texts from which the translation was made more reliable than this translation?

Is it possible a translation into, say, French, might be more reliable than KJV? How about Latin? Aramaic?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

He was talking about astronomy, but also mentioned biology. The creationist view is precisely the modern version of what Augustine was warning against.

Really,

then please explain how it is that the Apostle Peter, a far greater authority on the bible than St Agustine, stated the following regarding the casting of Satan and his angels out of heaven, the world wide flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorah:

2 Peter 2

4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,a placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c 7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.​

​

​

​

Now i dont know if your comprehension of scripture and understanding of its theology is adequite, however, what the above means is that the Apostle Peter claims that the above events are literal history.
Before you now attempt to earbash the Apostle Peter as being someone who didnt know science, you have another huge problem with that claim...Peter received his revelation about the scriptures directly from Jesus Christ...face to face during Christs ministry...so its impossible that Peter did not understand what Christ meant when revealing this to him!

There is another far more difficult issue that TEism faces in trying to call the writings of Moses an allegory...

God reveals Himself to us in a number of ways...the bible, the holy spirit, the world around us, and in vision. Its this last one that completely demolishes the TEist argument regarding Genesis being an allegory. A number of new testament writers speak of literal creation and the global flood...the claim these writer didnt know science and couldnt understand what God was revealing to them fails because in vision, the viewer is given a visual revelation of the events...so its not possible that these writers didnt understand what God was revealing to them!

Famous examples of revelation through visions are obviously the Prophets Moses and Daniel, the apostle Paul and in particular John the Revelator.

One cannot use Augustine as a resource to discredit the bibles own revelation.

The verse of scripture referenced in 2 Peter Chapter 2 is direct revelation through a plain reading of the text and it clearly proves that the apostle Peter believed the fall of Satan, Noahs flood, and the desctruction of Sodom and Gomorah are literal historical events. None of it is my interpretation.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You have no such knowledge yourself. Your.ignorant claim was refuted

oh turn it up...

Encylopedia Britannica​

Isaiah (Hebrew prophet)​

Isaiah prophet after whom the biblical Book of Isaiah is named (only some of the first 39 chapters are attributed to him), a significant contributor to Jewish and Christian traditions. His call to prophecy about 742 bce coincided with the beginnings of the westward expansion of the Assyrian empire​

​

Wikipedia​

The traditional view is that all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by one man, Isaiah, possibly in two periods between 740 BC and c. 686 BC, separated by approximately 15 years.​

​

Another widely held view suggests that parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) originated with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah 100 years later, and that the remainder of the book dates from immediately before and immediately after the end of the 6th-century BC exile in Babylon​

​

You have zero support for your claim...absolutely none. I on the other hand have both Britannica and Wikipedia on my side...so who is the more well referenced claim here, yours or mine? You can blindly go on calling my referenced post a lie...but no one is going to believe a claim like that which has zero references over a referenced one. So if you wish to provide actual supporting evidence id suggest you do so because as it stands your ship is sinking very quickly.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

It actually wasn't.
I know creationist like to spread that lie though.

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning (in 1912), the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953.

Does it really matter if i said 40 years or 50? That fact is, the fraud was run by secularism for more than 4 decades. This is not a YEC fraud...it was a naturalism one.

We should not forget our friend Eugene Dubois who also defrauded us all in his hiding the Java man fossil for over 30 years. It was claimed to be the missing link but the truth is it is not.

Despite Dubois's argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional form between apes and humans.[1] Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. Java Man - Wikipedia​

I could go on with more of that mans lies if you like...theres plenty more of them.

Finally, lets not forget, Dubois was not even a trained paleontologist...the man has no formal training in any kind of geology either and yet, he is viewed by naturalism as being one of their shining lights on the human ancestory fossil record! Strangely enough, the "shining light award" appears to have been credited to him in recent times as

he died embittered in 1940.[7] He was buried in unconsecrated ground on 16 December 1940 in Venlo, "Algemene Begraafplaats", grave number NH2\26\-\BR. Eugène Dubois - Wikipedia​

​

embittered

1. very angry about unfair things that have happened to you: 2. very angry…

dictionary.cambridge.org

embittered
adjective
very angry about unfair things that have happened to you:
They ignored all her pleas and she became very embittered.
He died a disillusioned and embittered old man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh turn it up...

Encylopedia Britannica​

Isaiah (Hebrew prophet)​

Isaiah prophet after whom the biblical Book of Isaiah is named (only some of the first 39 chapters are attributed to him), a significant contributor to Jewish and Christian traditions. His call to prophecy about 742 bce coincided with the beginnings of the westward expansion of the Assyrian empire​

​

Wikipedia​

The traditional view is that all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by one man, Isaiah, possibly in two periods between 740 BC and c. 686 BC, separated by approximately 15 years.​

​

Another widely held view suggests that parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) originated with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah 100 years later, and that the remainder of the book dates from immediately before and immediately after the end of the 6th-century BC exile in Babylon​

​

You have zero support for your claim...absolutely none. I on the other hand have both Britannica and Wikipedia on my side...so who is the more well referenced claim here, yours or mine? You can blindly go on calling my referenced post a lie...but no one is going to believe a claim like that which has zero references over a referenced one. So if you wish to provide actual supporting evidence id suggest you do so because as it stands your ship is sinking very quickly.

You were not talking about the book of Isaiah. You were talking about the Isaiah Scrolls. Those are two totally different things. Your nonsense about the Isaiah Scrolls was refuted here:

There is not enough erosion of the continents for them to be many 10s of millions of years old.

that is a valid question Subduction and deserves an answer. I will try my best to keep this short... Genesis = God creates a new heavens and new earth...they are both an extension of, and revelation of his character Satan attempts to corrupt both heaven and earth and ruins Gods character...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning (in 1912), the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953.

there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning

Does it really matter if i said 40 years or 50? That fact is, the fraud was run by secularism for more than 4 decades. This is not a YEC fraud...it was a naturalism one.

I didn't say it was a YEC fraud. It was just a fraud, period. And it was shown to be a fraud by science.
What's the problem?

We should not forget our friend Eugene Dubois who also defrauded us all in his hiding the Java man fossil for over 30 years. It was claimed to be the missing link but the truth is it is not.

Despite Dubois's argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional form between apes and humans.[1] Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. Java Man - Wikipedia​

I could go on with more of that mans lies if you like...theres plenty more of them.

Finally, lets not forget, Dubois was not even a trained paleontologist...the man has no formal training in any kind of geology either and yet, he is viewed by naturalism as being one of their shining lights on the human ancestory fossil record! Strangely enough, the "shining light award" appears to have been credited to him in recent times as

he died embittered in 1940.[7] He was buried in unconsecrated ground on 16 December 1940 in Venlo, "Algemene Begraafplaats", grave number NH2\26\-\BR. Eugène Dubois - Wikipedia​

​

embittered

1. very angry about unfair things that have happened to you: 2. very angry…

dictionary.cambridge.org

embittered
adjective
very angry about unfair things that have happened to you:
They ignored all her pleas and she became very embittered.
He died a disillusioned and embittered old man.

Java man was not a fraud. At best, there was controversy on how to classify it.
Later many more fossils of the species were found which turned out to be Homo Erectus.

This is how science works. Finds are met with rigour and skepticism and people look for additional evidence.
In the case of Piltdown, that additional evidence showed it to be a fraud.
In the case of Java man, that additional evidence confirmed it as genuine and being Homo Erectus.

All you are doing here is showing that science works.

 

[Polymath257]

Really,

then please explain how it is that the Apostle Peter, a far greater authority on the bible than St Agustine,

Um, the Bible didn't even exist when Peter wrote this. So he was certainly NOT more of an expert on the Bible than Augustine.

stated the following regarding the casting of Satan and his angels out of heaven, the world wide flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorah:

2 Peter 2

4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,a placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c 7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.​

​

​

​

Now i dont know if your comprehension of scripture and understanding of its theology is adequite, however, what the above means is that the Apostle Peter claims that the above events are literal history.

Understood. And that is what makes his writings unreliable. The people that wrote the Bible were ignorant of a great many things, both of history and of science. Their writings should be taken as *their* beliefs and not as absolute fact.

Before you now attempt to earbash the Apostle Peter as being someone who didnt know science, you have another huge problem with that claim...Peter received his revelation about the scriptures directly from Jesus Christ...face to face during Christs ministry...so its impossible that Peter did not understand what Christ meant when revealing this to him!

Well, that is the claim, isn't it. That all of this is reliable and certain. Of course, that claim has absolutely no basis.

Jesus was a man. The legends grew after his death, gradually adding divine characteristics, until at the end, centuries later, he was considered to be co-equal with God. But that was certainly NOT the original view of his followers, even after his death.

There is another far more difficult issue that TEism faces in trying to call the writings of Moses an allegory...

God reveals Himself to us in a number of ways...the bible, the holy spirit, the world around us, and in vision. Its this last one that completely demolishes the TEist argument regarding Genesis being an allegory. A number of new testament writers speak of literal creation and the global flood...the claim these writer didnt know science and couldnt understand what God was revealing to them fails because in vision, the viewer is given a visual revelation of the events...so its not possible that these writers didnt understand what God was revealing to them!

Well, again,it is a *claim* that these people received divine inspiration and fully understood it. Given that the Bible itself describes many cases where they *didn't* understand what Jesus was talking about, this is a pretty big claim. There is NO evidence, even in the Bible, that Jesus was able to transmit revelation and understanding directly in visions.

Famous examples of revelation through visions are obviously the Prophets Moses and Daniel, the apostle Paul and in particular John the Revelator.

One cannot use Augustine as a resource to discredit the bibles own revelation.

The verse of scripture referenced in 2 Peter Chapter 2 is direct revelation through a plain reading of the text and it clearly proves that the apostle Peter believed the fall of Satan, Noahs flood, and the desctruction of Sodom and Gomorah are literal historical events. None of it is my interpretation.

We *can* use Augustine as a reference when talking about how people like to read scriptures in a way that is counter to fact that that this is easily seen in the more general populace.

 

[Polymath257]

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning (in 1912), the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953.

And what happened to reveal the fraud? Well, the author of the fraud refused to allow other scientists to closely consider the 'fossil'. And, as more and more *actual* evidence for human ancestors came to light, it became more and more clear that Piltdown was an anomaly. It didn't fit into the evidence for *evolution* that was discovered afterwards.

This is a good example of how science corrects itself over time and deals with fraud. It is certainly possible for individual scientists to commit fraud. But, when that happens, further evidence always shows the fraud to be contrary to what everything *else* is saying. At that point *someone* will reconsidered the fraudulent item and figure out that it is, in fact, fraudulent.

In addition, scientists also make honest mistake. They can misunderstand, misjudge, and generally get things wrong. But, again, further evidence is *always* being looked for and compared to previous evidence. Over time, the truth wins out because falsehoods simply don't fit the evidence found.

In the case of creationism, that was the falsehood that was overturned by evidence about 200 years ago. People believed it (mostly because of religious teachings) but the actual evidence has shown it to be simply false.

Does it really matter if i said 40 years or 50? That fact is, the fraud was run by secularism for more than 4 decades. This is not a YEC fraud...it was a naturalism one.

We should not forget our friend Eugene Dubois who also defrauded us all in his hiding the Java man fossil for over 30 years. It was claimed to be the missing link but the truth is it is not.

Despite Dubois's argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional form between apes and humans.[1] Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. Java Man - Wikipedia​

When there is little evidence, there is a lot of debate about that evidence. As more evidence is collected, those debates get resolved and debate moves to the next topic. Dubois should not have 'hidden' Java Man, that is certainly true. But JM is hardly the only fossil of Homo erectus. Many other fossils of this species have been found and we have learned a great deal about them. It is now clear that H erectus was, indeed, a human ancestor. We don't need the missing Java Man fossil to establish this.

I could go on with more of that mans lies if you like...theres plenty more of them.

Finally, lets not forget, Dubois was not even a trained paleontologist...the man has no formal training in any kind of geology either and yet, he is viewed by naturalism as being one of their shining lights on the human ancestory fossil record! Strangely enough, the "shining light award" appears to have been credited to him in recent times as

he died embittered in 1940.[7] He was buried in unconsecrated ground on 16 December 1940 in Venlo, "Algemene Begraafplaats", grave number NH2\26\-\BR. Eugène Dubois - Wikipedia​

​

And, once again, trained scientists *have* found more fossils of the same species and figured out how it relates to modern humans. We don't rely on Dubois's views for our modern understanding.

embittered

1. very angry about unfair things that have happened to you: 2. very angry…

dictionary.cambridge.org

embittered
adjective
very angry about unfair things that have happened to you:
They ignored all her pleas and she became very embittered.
He died a disillusioned and embittered old man.

Sounds like way too many fundamentalists.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Um, the Bible didn't even exist when Peter wrote this. So he was certainly NOT more of an expert on the Bible than Augustine

First 5 books of the bible are the oldest - Torah(Hebrew)/Pentateuch(Greek) recorded by Moses more than 1000 years B.C

Second oldest - Nevi'im which would have been collated sometime during the Maccabean period of 400 years to Christ as we know that Christ read from the Isaiah scrolls in the temple and we have a copy of this scroll dated at least 100 B.C despite Isaiah having lived at least 100 years before Babylonian captivity.

Third oldest - Ketavim which, given it includes the book of Daniel, would have been completed after the Persian captivity commenced because Daniel died during the Medo Persia captivity.

Then we have the Tanakh - all three combined.

Now whilst you may debate its formal cannonical date, that is irrelevant as that has no bearing on when the writings of the Old Testament cannon were original recorded by their respective scribes!



You stated"the bible didnt even exist when Peter wrote this " [his epistles]...

We know that the Apostle Peter referenced the Old Testament writings as did Christ (the isaiah scroll was quoted by Christ directly in the Temple...so your claim there is ignoring and opposed to some very well known facts to the contrary.

Next, you make the claim "he was certainly NOT more of an expert on the Bible than Augustine"

The Apostle Peter was the first leader of the Christian church...do you not recall Christ making the statement "upon this rock will i found my church"?

Matthew 16

15...Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”​

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”​

​

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah!b For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”​

Peter himself states

16For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”c 18And we ourselves heard this voice from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.​

19We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.​

​

So when you make the claim St Augustine is more authoritative than a bible writer [in this case Peter] Augustine read the scriptures...he didnt write them. As for the assumed interpretation part of your comment, that too is debunct by Peters statement in vs 20!

 

[AdamjEdgar]

That is true, however, in the case of the Piltown Man it wasnt honest was it?

Nor was it honest that Dubois withheld the Java man from close examination for almost 30 years so that he could ensure that his earlier "missing link" fossil claim would not be challenged under scrutiny of the latter fossil. The only reason he suddenly started publishing about the Java man 30 years later was to try to debunct those later claims of similar fossils found by others that would discredit his original "missing link find"!

BTW another problem... overlap between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens. If the latter evolved from the earlier, why the 500,000 year overlap? That kind of overlap doesnt fit the survival of the fittest evolutionary model at all.

Next we have the problem of Kow Swamp...which is likely Homo Erectus and not Homo Sapien.

Then lets look at the Cossack skull 2000 miles away from Kow swamp and almost 3000 miles away from the Java Solo people. The Cossack skull has a maximum age of 6500 years and a minimum age of a few hundred years and yet its clearly not Homo Sapien...its Homo Erectus! The Cossack skull is evidence that Homo Erectus might very well have walked the earth as late as the 18th century...around the time of the colinisation of the eastern part of the Australian continent in 1788!

The point is, more scientists are now suggesting, indeed even demanding that Homo Erectus is not morphologically distinct enough to have its own classification as it does not represent a true evolutionary ancestory in the timeline. There are at least 78 examples where this species dates in complete contrast to the evolutionary model!

Michael Day writes...
"Of the three stages we know of the evolution of man (the australopithecine ape-men, Homo erectus the first true men, and early Homo Sapiens our own species) Homo erectus of the Middle Pleistene would have seemed the most clearly understood and the most taxonomically stable of them all a relatively few years ago - not anymore. Important new finds as well as new ways of thinking about hominid taxonom have thrown this species into the same turmoil as all of the others." ("Homo turmoil", Nature 348 (20/27 December 1990): 688.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First 5 books of the bible are the oldest - Torah(Hebrew)/Pentateuch(Greek) recorded by Moses more than 1000 years B.C

Really, you are going to start off with a claim that no Bible scholar would take seriously? Moses is a fictional character of the Bible. Ask an archaeologist about the Exodus. Modern Bible scholars will tell you that those books were written during the Babylonian captivity.

Second oldest - Nevi'im which would have been collated sometime during the Maccabean period of 400 years to Christ as we know that Christ read from the Isaiah scrolls in the temple and we have a copy of this scroll dated at least 100 B.C despite Isaiah having lived at least 100 years before Babylonian captivity.

Third oldest - Ketavim which, given it includes the book of Daniel, would have been completed after the Persian captivity commenced because Daniel died during the Medo Persia captivity.

Then we have the Tanakh - all three combined.

Now whilst you may debate its formal cannonical date, that is irrelevant as that has no bearing on when the writings of the Old Testament cannon were original recorded by their respective scribes!

I do not care so much about these.

You stated"the bible didnt even exist when Peter wrote this " [his epistles]...

We know that the Apostle Peter referenced the Old Testament writings as did Christ (the isaiah scroll was quoted by Christ directly in the Temple...so your claim there is ignoring and opposed to some very well known facts to the contrary.

Do you though? Both of the epistles of Peter are thought to be pseudepigraphal, in other words they were written by someone else claiming to be Peter. The number one reason was that Peter did not have the education according to other parts of the Bible that would have enabled him to write, in Greek, those letters. The case for the second epistle is even stronger since it appears to have been written after his death. And I have doubt about your claim of Jesus quoting from the Isaiah Scrolls. Do you even know what those were? You would need to substantiate that claim with proper references.

Next, you make the claim "he was certainly NOT more of an expert on the Bible than Augustine"

The Apostle Peter was the first leader of the Christian church...do you not recall Christ making the statement "upon this rock will i found my church"?

Matthew 16

15...Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”​

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”​

​

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah!b For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”​

Peter himself states

16For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”c 18And we ourselves heard this voice from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.​

19We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.​

​

So when you make the claim St Augustine is more authoritative than a bible writer [in this case Peter] Augustine read the scriptures...he didnt write them. As for the assumed interpretation part of your comment, that too is debunct by Peters statement in vs 20!

But once again, that was almost certainly not written by Peter. We really do not know what Peter believed. He probably did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but we really do not know how or why since the record handed down to us is not trustworthy.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You were not talking about the book of Isaiah. You were talking about the Isaiah Scrolls. Those are two totally different things. Your nonsense about the Isaiah Scrolls was refuted here:

no, we are not talking about two different things...you are the one who went down that pathway not me. I have not once wavered from my original statement...the writings of Isaiah (the prophet) whilst dated to a century or so before Christ, clearly represent the writings of a man who lived prior to the Babylonian captivity...even Wikipedia, which i cited as a direct reference, agrees Isaiah lived at least 100 years prior to the Babylonian captivity in about 600 B.C.

You can make up all the rubbish you want, no one will agree that the language of Isaiah is younger than pre Babylonian captivity!

You continue to timewaste barking up trees with inrformation that is not only incorrect, its mostly not even relevant!

Stop trying to go down this rabbit warren, you are just making and *** of your claims. If you dont believe me...do yourself and everyone else a favour and actually do a search for the prophet Isaiah on either wikipedia or britannica. It will do you a lot more good than these wives tails you keep posting.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Really, you are going to start off with a claim that no Bible scholar would take seriously? Moses is a fictional character of the Bible. Ask an archaeologist about the Exodus. Modern Bible scholars will tell you that those books were written during the Babylonian captivity.

Subduction honestly...grow some brains. I cited references from authoritative sources...the dates are scholarly accepted dates even from publications such as wikipedia and britannica.

You need to actually read references provided to you...it is very clear from quite a number of responses from you that you do not read any references anyone cites. What you are doing is demonstrating the habits of an individual with little or no formal academic training or experience. An individual with such training, would not continue with this kind of stupidity. You do not appear to be a stupid individual to me, so i suggest you stop being lazy, regurdgitating yesterdays food, and start actively engaging in the debate in a manner that others can learn from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no, we are not talking about two different things...you are the one who went down that pathway not me. I have not once wavered from my original statement...the writings of Isaiah (the prophet) whilst dated to a century or so before Christ, clearly represent the writings of a man who lived prior to the Babylonian captivity...even Wikipedia, which i cited as a direct reference, agrees Isaiah lived at least 100 years prior to the Babylonian captivity in about 600 B.C.

You can make up all the rubbish you want, no one will agree that the language of Isaiah is younger than pre Babylonian captivity!

You continue to timewaste barking up trees with inrformation that is not only incorrect, its mostly not even relevant!

Stop trying to go down this rabbit warren, you are just making and *** of your claims. If you dont believe me...do yourself and everyone else a favour and actually do a search for the prophet Isaiah on either wikipedia or britannica. It will do you a lot more good than these wives tails you keep posting.

The term "Isaiah scrolls" refers to the first Dead Sea Scrolls found. You used poor terminology:

Isaiah Scroll - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The age that I gave was for those scrolls. I was not talking about how old the book of Isaiah was. I doubt if you can find a link for that supports the use of the term as you meant in your post.