Jipsah said:

Exactly. I use the normal English meaning, while you have an ad hoc definition to make it suit your doctrine.

Click to expand...

You’re insisting on using your ‘normal English’ meaning, but that’s exactly where annihilationist's go wrong. The Bible defines life and death, not your personal dictionary. Scripture makes it clear: life is union with God through Jesus, death is separation from Him. John 17:3: ‘Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.’ Romans 6:23: ‘The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ To be with Jesus is life; apart from Him is death. So stop twisting definitions to suit your argument and start letting God’s Word define life and death.

If a fundamentalist is someone who insists on strict adherence to what he regards as the foundational principles of a belief system and resists reinterpretation, accommodation, or revision in light of modern thought, culture, or scholarship, then I am a Christian fundamentalist.

The search for the shooter continues.

Factotum said:

I don't think Exxon Mobil nor Shkreli showed up to sit at any defendant's table, in this similar circumstance:

"Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren’t deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren’t audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid... Trump’s lawyers argued that many of the case’s allegations were too old... The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved." Trump's massive civil fraud penalty for exaggerating financial statements is thrown out by appeals court


You can do better research next time, to avoid excluding vital info.

Click to expand...

That's completely irrelevant. You claimed New York had "never...experienced this type of crime until Trump was charged with it." I showed you the law, and two recent examples of prosecutions based on that law. Neither Trump's defense in that case nor that the judgment against Trump was tossed changes anything, Trump was still found guilty of fraud under New York Executive Law § 63(12), just as Shkreli was.

New York Executive Law § 63(12) is not some obscure law that has not been used in 105 years, as you asserted.

-- A2SG, nor has that law anything to do with the failed indictments of Letitia James....

lismore said:

How far do historical writings go back in time?

Click to expand...

Not as far back as human societies. If Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, that would be ~3976 BCE. It would take another several hundred years for written language to appear (c. 3300 BCE), but large human societies already existed. Jericho and Tell Qaramel had been around for ~5,000 years by that point; Nevali Cori had been around for nearly as long; Catalhoyuk was over 3,000 years old by that point. (And this is just Mesopotamia.)

So, yeah, human societies pre-existed written records by thousands of years; even Adam and Eve existed ~700 years before writing. (They entered a world full of human societies, from the ancient Near East to the North American plains.)

A2SG said:

Incorrect. New York Executive Law Section 63(12) has been on the books since 1956, and has been used to successfully prosecute many cases, including Exxon Mobil in 2018 and Martin Shkreli.

-- A2SG, that was very easy to debunk, you need to do better research....

Click to expand...

I don't think Exxon Mobil nor Shkreli showed up to sit at any defendant's table, in this similar circumstance:

"Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren’t deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren’t audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid... Trump’s lawyers argued that many of the case’s allegations were too old... The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved." Trump's massive civil fraud penalty for exaggerating financial statements is thrown out by appeals court


You can do better research next time, to avoid excluding vital info.

1Tonne said:

Some who embrace annihilationism tend to focus on a complete non-existence because they are uncomfortable with the reality of eternal judgment

Click to expand...

A little verbal chicanery there again. You say "eternal judgement" to mean "eternal torture", which is what your lot actually teach. Actual death is just as eternal, and it doesn't requite changing any word definintions, or turing God into a pitiless fiend.

1Tonne said:

making it more about their own sensibilities than what Scripture clearly teaches.

Click to expand...

Funny, that's precisely my opinion of damnationist doctrines. They're unsupported by Scripture, and there's apparently some emotional satisfaction to be had in imagining those vile sinners (not at all like us) writhing in torment in a fiery hell while we're shouting hosannas in Heaven. Oh yeah, we get the last laugh!

Double

Pain

Dale said:

Many creationists firmly believe that the earth cannot be more 6,000 years old. I am not going to discuss the age of the universe but I will discuss the development of civilization on earth. … Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old.

Click to expand...

Since I already agree with your opening post (more or less), I will be hanging out here mostly to engage young-earth creationist defenses.

However …

Dale said:

The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

Click to expand...

That statement is false, I’m afraid, if it means that Scripture doesn’t narrate real events in space and time—because it does. Just off the top of my head: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Literal history. Paul stakes the truth of the gospel on a public, datable event: “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty” (1 Cor. 15:14).

Large portions of Scripture are historical, from patriarchal narratives to monarchic histories, from Babylonian exile to their eventual return, and so on. Luke explicitly frames his Gospel as an orderly “account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,” including “accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:1-4).

If by “historical” you mean exhaustive chronology, neutral description, or detached analysis, then it’s not historical. Scripture is theological, covenantal, and teleological. Events are narrated because of what God is doing with and through them, never because the author is trying to reconstruct the past for its own sake.

I think it would be a category mistake to treat “history” and “theology” as competing genres. (I am not saying that’s what you are doing, but it is often done around these parts.) In Scripture, history is theology. God reveals himself through acts, and those acts are interpreted within the text itself. Natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, while it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, all things pointing to Jesus Christ for the glory of God. Scripture contains real history, but it’s unique as a divinely authored, covenantally ordered witness to God’s redemptive acts, narrated for faith, obedience, and worship.

As for Genesis? I would call it a historical-covenantal account with symbolic narrative elements. Adam and Eve in a sacred sanctuary God prepared in Eden? Historical-covenantal. Its eastward orientation, God “walking” there, humanity “to serve and guard,” Adam made of dust, talking serpent, guarding cherubim? Symbolic narrative elements (a lot of temple architecture and language used elsewhere in Scripture).

1Tonne said:

You should watch the video. It is only 20 odd minutes

Click to expand...

Pass.

1Tonne said:

, and it explains where people who believe in annihilation go wrong.

Click to expand...

In other words, some bloke tells you what he thinks. Pass.

1Tonne said:

(Though I do not agree with everything he says in the vid, I still think he is pretty onto it and does very well with refuting annihilationism.)

Click to expand...

If you're willing to simply wiling to change the meaning of words en masse to make them fit your beliefs. Still rubbish.

1Tonne said:

Those who are sent to destruction do not get eternal life.

Click to expand...

If not, then hell is simply a matter of roasting dead bodies, innit?

1Tonne said:

They get eternal death.

Click to expand...

Except then have to be alive to be properly tortured, don't they?

1Tonne said:

I think the real difference between us is how we understand “death.”

Click to expand...

Exactly. I use the normal English meaning, while you have an ad hoc definition to make it suit your doctrine.

1Tonne said:

We actually agree that those sent to destruction do not receive eternal life.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the dead can't be tortured.

1Tonne said:

Where we differ is what eternal death means.

Click to expand...

No, it's just about what "death" means. I say it means "dead". Yiou say it't means "alive but being tortured".

1Tonne said:

Your view seems to treat death as a finality.

Click to expand...

Yep.

1Tonne said:

When the body dies (the shell), this is a finality in the physical. So, your understanding of “eternal death” is understood as extinction, the person is gone forever.

Click to expand...

Yep, dead really means dead.

1Tonne said:

My view is different.

Click to expand...

So yeah. Julius Caesar is "dead", but he's still alive, but you don't say he's alive because he's being tortured which is what "dead" really means as opposed to meaning, just, you know, actually dead.

1Tonne said:

Scripture shows that when the body dies, it is not the end of the person.The spirit/soul continues but sleeps in the grave, unconscious, awaiting the resurrection Eccl 9:5; Ps 146:4

Click to expand...

Funny that you'd choose those two, because the dead in those Scriptures are straight up dead. That's the OT viewpoint. John is essentially of the same view except he anticipates the dead being resurrected to face judgement.

1Tonne said:

John 5:28–29). Earthly death is therefore not final; it is temporary and preparatory.

Click to expand...

And the according to Scripture, the righteous will receive the gift of God, which is eternal life, and the rest will receive the wages of sin, which is not eternal life under torture, but death, as in death. You really believe that God gives the damned the gift of eternal life just so He can keep them around to torture them? He erases them from space and time. How do I know that? Easy: " I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’". If God never knew them, they never existed. That's dead dead.

1Tonne said:

Because death is not final in the first sense, I don’t see the second death as annihilation either.

Click to expand...

That's because you have to play games with the language to allow your doctrine to survive contact with Scripture.

1Tonne said:

It is eternal death because it is eternal ruin, eternal separation, and eternal loss of life with God

Click to expand...

Say so right there on your doctrine, which requires you to redefine words when they provce inconvenient. At best it's intellectualy dishonest.

1Tonne said:

, not because the person ceases to exist

Click to expand...

Dang, how do they continue to exist if God never knew them? Does Gos have selective amnesia? And if they are still around, why? Does God take pleasure in their torture? I ain't buying that for an instant.

1Tonne said:

. Death, biblically, can be an ongoing state of ruin, not merely a moment where something stops existing.

Click to expand...

Baloney. Again, that's jutst made up ad hoc. Sounds real pious, but's it's just just a matter of making up a doctrine and then making it sounds as though it kinda makes sense when in fact it doesn't, at all.

1Tonne said:

So yes, the wicked do not receive eternal life.

Click to expand...

Or rather they do, in your doctrine, live forever, but you don't say that they do.

1Tonne said:

They receive eternal ongoing death/ruin.

Click to expand...

Yeah, God keeps them around for..., what? Why would He? He's not some ancient despot impaling His enemies on pikes or boiling people in oil. He suffered torture Himself, and now now he's condemning people to eternal torture Himself? What happened to "Father forgive them"?

1Tonne said:

Eternal death is not non-existence; it is the eternal opposite of life with God.
That’s the core difference in how we’re reading the texts.

Click to expand...

The core difference is that you have to make up your own lexicon to make Scripture "say" what your denom needs it to in order to keep it from messing up their doctrine. I say a fig for their doctrine.

Bob Crowley said:

While it is obvious that a Moslem terrorist cell was behind this massacre,

Click to expand...

Why is that obvious? There are plenty of CHristian antisemites.

SabbathBlessings said:

Of course, the notion we can disobey God and thats an example of faith is not found in our Bibles. So no one should be teaching we do not have to keep God’s commandments- and let Him be the one to sort out who is doing it for the right reason because He only taught if you love Me, keep My commandments, never once taught if you love Me, don’t obey Me.

Click to expand...

When Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15), He is not reducing love to rule-keeping, nor is He singling out one commandment in isolation. In that same conversation He goes on to say, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Love, expressed in a life shaped by Him, is the center.

The New Testament consistently teaches that love for Jesus is first a matter of trust and allegiance, not perfect observance. “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Our obedience flows out of grace; it does not create it (Ephesians 2:8–10).

Regarding the Sabbath specifically, the early church wrestled with this question. Paul writes, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). He also warns against judging one another “with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Colossians 2:16–17), saying these were a shadow pointing to Christ.

Jesus Himself reframed the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” and “the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27–28). He consistently showed that mercy, restoration, and life are at the heart of God’s commands (Matthew 12:7).

So, do Christians who do not keep Saturday holy love Jesus? According to the New Testament, yes—if they are trusting in Him, receiving His grace, and seeking to follow Him in faith and love. Love for Jesus is not proven by flawless law-keeping, but by abiding in Him (John 15:4–5), walking by the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23), and growing in obedience over time.

At the same time, Scripture allows room for conviction. If someone honors Saturday unto the Lord, that can be an act of love and faith. If another honors Christ without observing that day, that too can be an act of love. The warning is not to turn either practice into a measure of salvation or a test of genuine love (Romans 14:10–12).

We love Jesus not because we perfectly keep every command, but because He has loved us first—and that love, over a lifetime, teaches us how to obey.

The word of their testimony is their martyrdom. Their death is the "word" by which they conquer.

For who "they" is go back to verse 10; "our brothers and sisters," in context, those who have been martyred.

Oblivious.

civilwarbuff said:

Sounds as if the D's are willing to partner up with criminals in order to win elections. Isn't that something that can be prosecuted under RICO statutes?

Click to expand...

Gee, remind me again, in the last election, which party ran a convicted felon and which ran someone who prosecuted criminals?

-- A2SG, so easy to forget these things....

SabbathBlessings said:

my posts speak of keeping God’s laws as a consequence of faith. Rev 14:12 Rom3:31

Click to expand...

Do you believe that your faith is more genuine than a person who worships on sunday?

eclipsenow said:

So given how clear this is, how do you know your other "Dark Sun" passages are about Isaiah's unimaginably far, far future - when here he is clearly writing about the Assyrians (in previous chapters) and Babylonians and Persians?

Click to expand...

Because: other than the smoke from their rape and pillage, the sun was not darkened when the A's, B's and P's, conquered Israel and Judah.

When we see a specific Bible verse saying the sun and moon will do something unusual and unprecedented, as Isaiah 30:26a does, is it right to just fob it off as 'it must have happened in the past', or 'it's just allegorical and meaningless'. ?
People who do that are guilty of playing fast and loose with scripture. Making it suit their preconceived beliefs.

eclipsenow said:

15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”
Note that they are NOT saying "Oh no - look what the sun has done!"
They're saying, "Oh no - GOD is here!"

Click to expand...

The great Day of the wrath of God and the Lamb comes and people dive for cover. Why? Because they see the approaching mass exploded out from the sun. Ezekiel 21:7 is a verse which tells us how people will be terrified as they see what is about to strike. They wet their pants in terror.
Rev 6 never says the people actually see God on His Throne.
We too, are warned to get under shelter, from the extreme temperature, earthquakes, storms and tsunamis. Isaiah 26:20-21

SabbathBlessings said:

Not anything said by me or even remotely insinuated, my posts speak of keeping God’s laws as a consequence of faith. Rev 14:12 Rom3:31

Click to expand...

That is what your posts reflect when speaking to others who say we are saved by grace but are not keeping the commandments the way you feel they should. Unless I misuderstand you. Are you willing to agree that Christian brothers and sisters who worship on Sunday can be saved by grace if they accept the gift of perfection from Christ?

NxNW said:

DOGE found so much fraud that nobody was indicted for fraud.

Click to expand...

Remember at the Musk voter money give away rally where he announced impending fraud indictments?
He even stated while on stage, "Yes. In fact, I believe someone is going to be arrested tomorrow,"
That never happened either.