Search results

No it doesn't. From BLB.org: The KJV translates Strong's G1484 in the following manner: Gentiles (93x), nation (64x), heathen (5x), people (2x). The contrast is between "heathen" and "circumcision". Unless you are suggesting that all of those Jews going to synagogues Paul preached at were...

But Peter did know about the grace of God in Acts: [Act 15:11 KJV] But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Peter was talking about the gospel he had preached to Cornelius: [Act 15:9 KJV] And put no difference between us and them, purifying...

Then you're saying Paul backed out of the agreement, since he went to Ephesus. Just as Paul agreed to limit his ministry to the Gentiles. Now you're telling me he preached to a Jewish church? And Paul shared his gospel with those scattered twelve tribes. Either the agreement was binding on...

If they were preaching that Christ died and rose again, then they were preaching the gospel of the grace of God AND the gospel of the kingdom. The kingdom gospel required the death burial and resurrection of Christ, though it could be preached in a limited form prior to the DBR.

Paul never went to Ephesus? Are you serious?

At least part of Revelation was written to GENTILE churches. It certainly doesn't say "to the angel of the church of Jerusalem..." anywhere.

Same idea. Isn't it an honor to be accepted into the presence of a king, or of God? Plus, it's actually stated here (different translation, but that's the whole idea, that one word might substitute for the other): Psalm 15:4 NASB20 — A despicable person is despised in his eyes, But he honors...

But that passage, as has been pointed out before, doesn't talk of 2 different gospels, but two different people groups. Note that the second use of the word "gospel" is added by the translators for better readability. You can tell this is the case because of the use of italics in printed...

I didn't say it proved it. I said it is worthy of the assumption, remember? You jumped in on a conversation where it wasn't necessary to prove infallibility. We can talk about that aspect now, if you like. But first, let's establish together that we both agree that "science" is fallible. I'll go...

For one, it asserts it. like here: Psalm 119:160 KJV — Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. If it asserts that it is true, and it is false on any point, then the whole thing is worthless. You can't cherry-pick the passages you'd like...

Do you think "larger truths" would mean the words would be confusing people into believing a different thing happened than actually happened? I don't see a struggle there at all. Unless you're assuming infallibility in both sides (science and the bible). Seems that only one side deserves that...

A theory cannot be a piece of knowledge.

Really? More than the pet owners themselves? I actually raise beef cattle. So I think from the above we wouldn't cancel each other out. I've heard seeral of them describe personality traits, including nurture-based ones, i.e., where the animal was treated poorly even just once and developed...

My turn to take a second bite. Most dog owners would disagree with you here. I'm not one (anymore) but I can kind of see their point. Dogs exhibit personality (animality?). Maybe a lookalike with the same personality could be found, like when a child loses a beloved pet, and you want to replace...

I equivocated a bit between the two uses, in an attempt to draw out @Halster's meaning, to show that it was fallacious. I agree with you that that God includes factual details, and I would equate that with scientific details. But I don't really know what Halster means by "scientific details." I...

God may not be intending to lay out scientific details, but if He's laying something out for our understanding, which any passage on the generations of something (see Gen 2:4) would be expected to do, it will contain scientific details. And if He's laying out scientific details, one would either...

Why is occasionalism helpful to anyone?

double understatement

https://babylonbee.com/news/pros-and-cons-of-ai

Yes, because the sequence is at a different point each subsequent time you call it. The sequence is repeatable if you start with the same seed, even if you call it multiple times.