Evidence for God from Science

Jac, you disagree with Heiser, but you also don't agree that we inherited Adam's sin? I would think assessing why, pre-fall, Adam and Eve did not sin. Why? HOW? Do you agree with Heiser on his views as to how that was possible? As well as why this changed for ALL afterward - that ALL, post Adam and...

Biology cannot be understood apart from teleology, so no, I am not. I mean exactly what I wrote. Our genes do not give us and do not determine our human nature. That statement is backwards. Our genes are what they are and function the way they do because of their relation to the human nature. Put st...

Of course. To put it more precisely, our nature is the formal cause of our genes being what they are. Our genes are in no way the cause of our human nature being what it is. Our genes our the material expression of our nature -- so the old statement, the soul is the form of the body.

PaulSacramento wrote: And how does one receive human nature from another?
It is passed down in our genes.

That's incorrect. Our genes are so configured becaues of the nature we have. You've got the cart and the horse backwards.

Hi Jac, You seem to be misrepresenting what Heiser says, ex: Now, let it be said that I am not an Augustinian by any account, but we must be fair. And Heiser is not. Heiser is simply misrepresenting Augustine in a way that is embarrassing. For Augustine nowhere claims that all persons are in Adam. ...

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to suggest than an empire can be thrown into a lake of fire with Satan and be tormented forever and ever. The beast and the false prophets are men, jenna.

***oh really? what human man would you say this is? y:-? The one called the Antichrist and his false prophet, of course. ***no, they are referring to an empire. Impossible, by your standards. Empires can't be ridden by women or have horns. i am aware of Daniel, as i mentioned it above. what human m...

so now i am ridiculous, laughable, No, your positions are ridiculous and laughable, as is your poor attempt to deal with what I actually said. As is your habit, you don't actually respond to what people believe but rather silly inventions of your own. and dont follow through? It's been your habit n...

I'm not. Waiting. Much less with bated breath. The beast and false prophet aren't human. It's laughable. Besides, she has a tendancy not to follow through, anyway. But, regardless, this is why these discussions are actually helpful. If anyone actually reads this, they'll see how far someone has to g...

No one should ever read Heiser. He is a shoddy theologian, and this garbage is exactly why. Just for fun, and because I wrote extensively on this very verse (available on my blog on the papers page), I'll comment on these links: *cracks knuckles* --------------------------- http://drmsh.com/romans-5...

Games over parts of speech aside, Rev 20:10 proves the point: "they [the devil, beast, and false prophet] will be tormented day and night forever and ever." That's eternal punish ing . No burning up and out of existence. But Jenna's argument is that's only for the devil, beast, and false ...

the beast and false prophets are humans. THEY -- those humans -- will be punished forever and ever, tormented without end

Gerund or regular old noun (punishing v punishment), Rev 20:10 proves the point: "they [the devil, beast, and false prophet] will be tormented day and night forever and ever." That's eternal punishing. No burning up and out of existence.

A good comparable translation to my own, the NET (major and very high end scholarship behind this one):

• And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are too, and they will be tormented there day and night forever and ever.

then you say "where the beast and the false prophet ARE". the correct usage is WERE, not are. You are mistaken. The word "were" is not in the Greek text. Greek does not require a state of being verb in this sentence. English has to supply it. "Were" is only appropriate...