Chronology

[RandyPNW]

Oh, I'm find with that.

I'm mostly preterist except when I'm partial pretribulational midweek postmillenialist.

You've sent me back to kindergarten with that. I'll be doing lots of research in order to catch up!

[JoshuaStone7]

7 Days

​

Let me begin by saying that I know and understand that there may be questions to what I present here. I encourage all to reply with those differences of understandings one may have. This is how we grow and learn from each other.

With that said, let me present to you what our Lord has given me.

The first chapter of Genesis is a narrative framework for the entire collection of inspired works, the entirety of the Bible itself. The creation days are a framework to understand not only the terminology used throughout the prophetic works it is also designed to tell us exactly when God's kingdom is to come.

As I move forward in this thread, I will be presenting you with evidence that the creation days are not Intended to relate to literal days of the formation of this physical universe and earth, but rather I will be showing you how the creation days represent each thousand-year period in the last six thousand years. The creation days are prophecies spanning six-thousand years and define the terms used throughout scripture, in order to understand events to come.

As I present supporting texts, please understand I only pick one or two, while there are literally hundreds in some cases that verify what I present here. And no doubt, as you read along, many will come to your mind that I don't even mention. Please include them in response, and join in the discussion.

Let me start by pointing out why I use the dates I have for each thousand-year period. In the progression of chronology presented in Genesis, God rested on the seventh day, and that was after the creation of Eve, not Adam. Therefore we want to know the year Eve was created in order to understand the narrative timeline within the creation account.

I believe that there is ample circumstantial evidence to indicate all throughout scripture that Adam was in fact forty years old when Eve was brought to him. In order to save space within this thread, I won't include that subject here; however, I wish to highlight that point so that you may understand why I use the dates I do as I move forward.

Using a creation date for Adam as 4004 BCE, we add forty years until Eve and come to 3964 BCE. I will be using this date as our starting point as we move into this important subject.

Not only does each creation day discuss the main events within each thousand-year period, but they also line up with the dates for each individual within.

Each creation day spanning 1000 years is in accord with God's Word.

Adam was told he would "die in that day," just as he died at the age of 930 years.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen 2:17

The day of the Lord is to be a thousand years.

"The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord." Acts 2:20

"They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Rev 20:4

As a day to our Lord in prophecy is a thousand years.

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2Pt 3:8

"A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psm 90:4

All love...

Joshua

[JoshuaStone7]

In The Beginning

​
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1a

I want to start by saying that the "beginning" in Gen 1:1 of the "heavens and earth" is not the physical ones, but rather correspond with the founding of the world when not only our Lord was chosen, but also those of the elect. The beginning of the "heavens and the earth" were after the fall of mankind and was foreseen in the first prophecy of Genesis 3:15.

"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you." 1Pt 1:20 (ESV)

"Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." Eph 1:4 (ESV)

This first line of the Bible served well as a quick overview of events that would shortly transpire; however, it has also served just as well to highlight that our Lord had indeed created all things in this universe (likely) billions of years ago.

However, our Lord was "chosen before the founding of this world," marking and identifying the beginning spoken of in conjunction with the Word. So then, when were He and the elect chosen? They were chosen after sin entered the world and before the births of Cain and Able; the founding of the world was God's plan to separate light from darkness in Gen 3:15.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jhn 1:1

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring a and hers; he will crush b your head, and you will strike his heel." Gen 3:15

-------

Now as we move into the second part of Genesis 1:1 we see the earth was formless and dark.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Gen 1:1b

Formless - tohu = chaos (1), confusion (1), desolation (1), emptiness (1), empty space (1), formless (2), futile (2), futile things (1), meaningless (2), meaningless arguments (1), nothing (2), waste (3), waste place (2).

What we see here is the state of mankind after their fall. This ideology of darkness and emptiness is carried on throughout all the biblical text for sin and separation from our God and Father.

"I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger." For thus says the LORD, “The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end. “For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark; for I have spoken; I have purposed; I have not relented, nor will I turn back.” Jer 4:23-28

Indeed mankind had entered into the void at their casting out from Eden and the shining glory of God, out into the darkness.

"Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be driven away into darkness." Ish 8:22

"But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Mth 8:12

Joshua

[Athanasius]

Let me begin by saying that I know and understand that there may be questions to what I present here. I encourage all to reply with those differences of understandings one may have. This is how we grow and learn from each other.

With that said, let me present to you what our Lord has given me.

See, this makes discussion difficult. It places you in the position of teacher, and us, in the position of your would-be students.

The difficulty is this: it's not possible to "grow and learn from each other" if what you're presenting is "what our Lord has given me". We would only be able to learn and grow from you. Unless you were open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you say God has shown you? I don't get that sense though. Am I wrong?

You're also copy-pasting from your other forum, so this isn't so much a discussion as it is the repetition of a thread you posted back in October of this year. Over here you've mentioned a couple of times now, the idea of a "one true interpretation". In your other thread you talk about, " I learned many years ago that this forum isn't about agreeing or persuading anyone; it's about sharing differing views" -- with a view to the one true interpretation, right?

It makes me wonder: why bother with the exchange? In that same vein, why should I let you copy-paste a thread from another forum?

[RabbiKnife]

Alas, in all discussions, one must first understand the basic foundational presuppositions in order to understand the context of the communication.

As I fundamentally disagree with an allegorical or  non-historical interpretative model for the reading of Scripture, I'll have to respectfully bow out of this "discussion."

[JoshuaStone7]

See, this makes discussion difficult. It places you in the position of teacher, and us, in the position of your would-be students.

The difficulty is this: it's not possible to "grow and learn from each other" if what you're presenting is "what our Lord has given me". We would only be able to learn and grow from you. Unless you were open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you say God has shown you? I don't get that sense though. Am I wrong?

Curious: I hear Christians all the time saying God spoke to them. I hear Christians saying, "God spoke to me last night, and I want to share that message." These people believe they have direct communication to God and that is excepted, but if I say, "What God has given me," you are stumbled over that?

God has given you the message of the kingdom, has He not? God has given you this day, has He not? We do nothing unless it is through and by His will, do we not?

"Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” Jms 4:15

You're also copy-pasting from your other forum, so this isn't so much a discussion as it is the repetition of a thread you posted back in October of this year. Over here you've mentioned a couple of times now, the idea of a "one true interpretation". In your other thread you talk about, " I learned many years ago that this forum isn't about agreeing or persuading anyone; it's about sharing differing views" -- with a view to the one true interpretation, right?

It makes me wonder: why bother with the exchange? In that same vein, why should I let you copy-paste a thread from another forum?

I certainly did say there is only one true interpretation. There is only one true meaning to every single sentence in scripture, is there not? Was this a personal interpretation on my part?

As well, I never said I had the only true knowledge of scripture. I did say no one on earth had reached that peak of knowledge, didn't I?

I paste to simply save time. However, I completely read through the post again and tweak many things within for the audience before me. So....

Why post? To share God's Word. To be about the business our Lord left us.

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

See, this makes discussion difficult. It places you in the position of teacher, and us, in the position of your would-be students.

The difficulty is this: it's not possible to "grow and learn from each other" if what you're presenting is "what our Lord has given me". We would only be able to learn and grow from you. Unless you were open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you say God has shown you? I don't get that sense though. Am I wrong?

Curious: I hear Christians all the time saying God spoke to them. I hear Christians saying, "God spoke to me last night, and I want to share that message." These people believe they have direct communication to God and that is excepted, but if I say, "What God has given me," you are stumbled over that?

God has given you the message of the kingdom, has He not? God has given you this day, has He not? We do nothing unless it is through and by His will, do we not?

"Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” Jms 4:15

You're also copy-pasting from your other forum, so this isn't so much a discussion as it is the repetition of a thread you posted back in October of this year. Over here you've mentioned a couple of times now, the idea of a "one true interpretation". In your other thread you talk about, " I learned many years ago that this forum isn't about agreeing or persuading anyone; it's about sharing differing views" -- with a view to the one true interpretation, right?

It makes me wonder: why bother with the exchange? In that same vein, why should I let you copy-paste a thread from another forum?

I certainly did say there is only one true interpretation. There is only one true meaning to every single sentence in scripture, is there not? Was this a personal interpretation on my part?

As well, I never said I had the only true knowledge of scripture. I did say no one on earth had reached that peak of knowledge, didn't I?

I paste to simply save time. However, I completely read through the post again and tweak many things within for the audience before me. So....

Why post? To share God's Word. To be about the business our Lord left us.

Joshua

Some good questions there, and I can't resist butting in and offering a response. Many Christians do abuse the idea, "God told me." I'm sure I have too.

And that's because God most often speaks through our circumstances, rather than speak to us directly. It seems to me that He doesn't want to treat us like slaves, but instead puts situations before us to test to see if we choose to live in dependence upon Him and His ways.

Sometimes the direction ahead of us has clear choices, and I might say, "God is showing me this." But sometimes I have to leave open the possibility that God isn't being all that clear about things.

The important thing to note is that God does speak through our circumstances and through our conscience. In whatever place we find ourselves  there is a moral path before us, and we must choose what best conforms to who we see God to be.

Christians, by virtue of their choice for Christ, have receive his Spirit and have a sense of what is moral in every situation. Even non-Christians have this sense of right and wrong, although they don't directly experience what dependence upon God is like. And so their views of right and wrong are somewhat distorted.

[Athanasius]

Curious: I hear Christians all the time saying God spoke to them. I hear Christians saying, "God spoke to me last night, and I want to share that message." These people believe they have direct communication to God and that is excepted, but if I say, "What God has given me," you are stumbled over that?

As it happens, I believe God spoke to me the other day. He told me to start working on the thing I've been avoiding doing, and not to be satisfied with my job. And I'm not satisfied with it, but that was the point: I'm not satisfied because I'm meant to be working on something else. Something I haven't worked on because of the usual suspects: fear, nervousness, risk.

I believe I met Jesus as well, when I was younger. He hugged me, which was significant to me at the time. He showed me a, or maybe the, heavenly city, from a distance. I wasn't allowed in, but I caught a glimpse. An awesome sight that was, and I couldn't hope to explain it to anyone. The words to do it don't exist.

So no, I don't tend to 'stumble' over another person's claim, in itself, that God has shown them something, or given them something. Incidentally, both accounts above are examples of personal truths: they're true for me and entirely unverifiable by anyone else. They aren't objective facts that other people ought to order their lives by.

The stumbling block, although I'd reject that imagery, is this:

let me present to you what our Lord has given me

You're confident that this is something the Lord has revealed to you, and that's fine. I personally like to couch my claims but that's a me thing, and you're you. But what this does mean is that the following is awkward:

I encourage all to reply with those differences of understandings one may have. This is how we grow and learn from each other.

Well, what do you mean by "grow and learn from each other" if what you believe you're conveying is from the Lord? Are you open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you've been given? Even if that were the case, this is such an out-there reading of Genesis that it's hard to see how engagement with the view could lead to merely a revision of it, rather than its wholesale dismissal. Are you flexible on that? Are you open to the possibility that this wasn't revealed to you? This is no small thing you're presenting: it's an understanding of Scripture that you say has been divinely revealed to you. Revealed to you by God, the author of the text, who knows its meaning.

By presenting this view the way you've presented it, we're put in the position of arguing with God, essentially. This is what I'm suspicious of. It would have been different had you said something like:

With that said, let me present to you what I believe our Lord has given me.

That little bit of couching makes discussion possible, provided you're genuinely open to the possibility that you've misunderstood. Because, why would God reveal to someone how the text ought to be understood if in fact that understanding wasn't correct? Such are the problems of phrasing.

God has given you the message of the kingdom, has He not? God has given you this day, has He not? We do nothing unless it is through and by His will, do we not?

"Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” Jms 4:15

God has also given me my giftings.

You know, when I was much younger I prayed daily for wisdom. I wasn't remotely aware of James 1:5 at the time. Day in, and day out. There were only two things I wanted, and one of those things was - heh, is still - annoying to God I'm sure, while the other was wisdom. I've always been introspective and had a knowledge of myself that concerned me. What better thing to pray for than wisdom?

I believe God answered those prayers. I've no doubt about that. There's wisdom in knowing when, and how, to approach an argument, or a discussion, or a view towards how we ought to interpret Scripture. Wisdom, in understanding not just the argument, but where it's coming from. And this has gotten me into trouble with people, and it's caused other people to become very annoyed with me.

But that's their problem.

I don't take Scripture lightly. If someone wants to propose that we interpret it some way because the Lord revealed something to them, then that is an utterly serious suggestion. There's wisdom, then, in wanting to know where that suggestion comes from. Is it up for debate, or is it presented purely with the intention to teach? It's difficult to discuss a view of Scripture that's presented as being from God and not up for debate. I'd say it's impossible unless the presentation is made for the purpose of examination and discussion.

So that's why I asked if you were open to discussion or if you're presenting these views as a teacher, teaching his students. Is it up for discussion?

I certainly did say there is only one true interpretation. There is only one true meaning to every single sentence in scripture, is there not? Was this a personal interpretation on my part?

As well, I never said I had the only true knowledge of scripture. I did say no one on earth had reached that peak of knowledge, didn't I?

But you are saying, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me." You don't believe there are multiple truths. You believe there is one true meaning. You believe the intent of the author is what matters. So where does that leave us, as we interact with what you have to say? Are we students, are we colabourers? Or are we dissenting with God vis-a-vis the view of Genesis you've presented?

Why post? To share God's Word. To be about the business our Lord left us.

Just as it is a Christian's business to examine such views, perhaps in Berean fashion. What matters is this: are you open to discussion, and to the genuine possibility that what you've heard wasn't given to you from the Lord? If you are then we can discuss. If you aren't then I see no reason for you to continue pasting replies because then what you're doing does not satisfy the fact that this is a forum for discussion. We like dialetic.

[JoshuaStone7]

You're confident that this is something the Lord has revealed to you, and that's fine. I personally like to couch my claims but that's a me thing, and you're you.

I've ended nearly every post with, "In my opinion," or, "In my humble opinion."

Is questioning every single sentence I write as to my intentions really necessary? I mean, can we not simply have a discussion about scripture without delving into my psyche every time?

Well, what do you mean by "grow and learn from each other" if what you believe you're conveying is from the Lord? Are you open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you've been given?

I'm wrong all the time. When I find out I'm wrong about something, then I fix it. Sometimes Christians are able to correct me, and I fix my misunderstandings. I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. I've already told you I relish in those moments. Didn't I say that already?

I am wrong today, I will be wrong tomorrow, and I will be wrong until Christ returns.

Is that sufficient to carry on a conversation about scripture rather than my psyche?

That little bit of couching makes discussion possible, provided you're genuinely open to the possibility that you've misunderstood. Because, why would God reveal to someone how the text ought to be understood if in fact that understanding wasn't correct? Such are the problems of phrasing.

By all means, correct me, please... That's why I own a forum. I present something, and you present something, and that's how we learn from each other. I've learned more about what I understand from disagreement than from those who agree. I don't say, "Let's learn from each other," to only mean you must learn from me. Look, I'm not interested in a psychologist; I'm here to discuss scripture.

I mean, I'm spending all this time on why I post rather than scripture because someone doesn't like how I say something. Are you the intentions cop here?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to change who I am or how I speak to suit someone else.

I don't point out what I don't like about what you say. And to be honest, this isn't being sensitive; it's a fellow Christian pointing out that you are awfully nitpicky on what others say, how they say it, and why they say it. I indulged it the first few times, but now I'm saying that's enough.

Look, except that my intentions are genuine or not, I don't care. I post scripture so that others will respond. I expect others will respond with counterarguments. I've run a forum for a decade; you don't think I don't know that?

If I meant for you to learn from me, that's what I would have said. You don't need to pick me apart to try and determine my motives. Just accept my word; if not, then call me a liar.

Can we move on?

But you are saying, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me." You don't believe there are multiple truths. You believe there is one true meaning. You believe the intent of the author is what matters. So where does that leave us, as we interact with what you have to say? Are we students, are we colabourers? Or are we dissenting with God vis-a-vis the view of Genesis you've presented?

Look, I am wrong all the time. I have been corrected many times. That's why I post, to learn from each other. I believe there is one truth we're all getting to. You say God spoke to you, I think that's ridiculous, but I haven't said that till now. So I say God gives me my knowledge, so what, He gives me my food too, and I thank Him for that as well...

Look, if you'd like to have a discussion on scripture, that'd be great, but I'm not interested in a psychologist.

In my humble opinion and all Christian love...

Joshua

PS: I think it's fair to say, that I'm getting what you describe from many on here on the subject of the Trinity. I must believe like you or I'm condemned, right? Several individuals have now claimed that I MUST believe like them or I am condemned and ungodly, and they don't consider me a brother.... Hmmm, who really are the ones being self-righteous here?

Let's not play the psychological game please Athanasius, there is no winner down that road. Let us show Christian love.

[RandyPNW]

You're confident that this is something the Lord has revealed to you, and that's fine. I personally like to couch my claims but that's a me thing, and you're you.

I've ended nearly every post with, "In my opinion," or, "In my humble opinion."

Is questioning every single sentence I write as to my intentions really necessary? I mean, can we not simply have a discussion about scripture without delving into my psyche every time?

Well, what do you mean by "grow and learn from each other" if what you believe you're conveying is from the Lord? Are you open to the possibility that you've misunderstood what you've been given?

I'm wrong all the time. When I find out I'm wrong about something, then I fix it. Sometimes Christians are able to correct me, and I fix my misunderstandings. I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. I've already told you I relish in those moments. Didn't I say that already?

I am wrong today, I will be wrong tomorrow, and I will be wrong until Christ returns.

Is that sufficient to carry on a conversation about scripture rather than my psyche?

That little bit of couching makes discussion possible, provided you're genuinely open to the possibility that you've misunderstood. Because, why would God reveal to someone how the text ought to be understood if in fact that understanding wasn't correct? Such are the problems of phrasing.

By all means, correct me, please... That's why I own a forum. I present something, and you present something, and that's how we learn from each other. I've learned more about what I understand from disagreement than from those who agree. I don't say, "Let's learn from each other," to only mean you must learn from me. Look, I'm not interested in a psychologist; I'm here to discuss scripture.

I mean, I'm spending all this time on why I post rather than scripture because someone doesn't like how I say something. Are you the intentions cop here?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to change who I am or how I speak to suit someone else.

I don't point out what I don't like about what you say. And to be honest, this isn't being sensitive; it's a fellow Christian pointing out that you are awfully nitpicky on what others say, how they say it, and why they say it.

Look, except that my intentions are genuine or not, I don't care. I post scripture so that others will respond. I expect others will respond with counterarguments. I've run a forum for a decade; you don't think I don't know that?

If I meant for you to learn from me, that's what I would have said. You don't need to pick me apart to try and determine my motives. Just accept my word; if not, then call me a liar.

Can we move on?

But you are saying, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me." You don't believe there are multiple truths. You believe there is one true meaning. You believe the intent of the author is what matters. So where does that leave us, as we interact with what you have to say? Are we students, are we colabourers? Or are we dissenting with God vis-a-vis the view of Genesis you've presented?

Look, I am wrong all the time. I have been corrected many times. That's why I post, to learn from each other. I believe there is one truth we're all getting to. You say God spoke to you, I think that's ridiculous, but I haven't said that till now. So I say God gives me my knowledge, so what, He gives me my food too, and I thank Him for that as well...

Look, if you'd like to have a discussion on scripture, that'd be great, but I'm not interested in a psychologist.

In my humble opinion and all Christian love...

Joshua

PS: I think it's fair to say, that I'm getting what you describe from many on here on the subject of the Trinity. I must believe like you or I'm condemned, right? Several individuals have now claimed that I MUST believe like them or I am condemned and ungodly, and they don't consider me a brother.... Hmmm, who really are the ones being self-righteous here?

Let's not play the psychological game please Athanasius, there is no winner down that road. Let us show Christian love.

What a person says is Christian love is not necessarily Christian love.

1) Athanasius has been extremely kind to you, has accommodated some of your difficult beliefs, has empathized with you, and has honestly approached things he had questions about. And you insult him like he's playing a psychologist.

I know you mean well, but I don't believe this falls into the category of "Christian love." It is "your idea" of Christian love, but it isn't really Christian love, in my opinion. It's just a form of you honestly expressing yourself. And I disagree with it--honestly!

2) You've indirectly indicated you think I attack Athanasius and you on the subject of the Trinity when at the same time you claim you don't want a psychologist--you just want the subjects to be dealt with primarily, because you're open to correction.

Yet when I do just this, giving my opinion on the Trinity and on salvation, you refer to it as some sort of persecution, and infer that it is judgmental. That also is *your idea* of Christian love, but in my opinion, it is not. It's just your honest assessment. And of course, I honestly disagree with it.

The problem is, you have divergent beliefs that remove you from the "full Christian deal." You may think you have salvation, and not really have it--I don't know. I don't know you personally.

You have some love from God, you have a nice personality, you're very cordial, and you say a lot of nice things. But there's always a bomb hanging off the tail of every discussion, just waiting for a new bombshell belief to be revealed!

So yea, let's discuss honestly, but let's allow for Trinitarians to put forward their honest views, without being accused of being overly sectarian and judgmental. That's accusatory, and not my honest idea of "Christian love." 

The nature of Religion is to be sectarian and to discern what is true about that religion, and what is not. That doesn't mean I have a judgmental spirit--I don't. Please keep your good character. But when you ask for an honest assessment of subject, such as on the Trinity and on the qualifications for Salvation, don't stab me in the back by inferring I'm persecuting non-Trinitarians. I'm not--this is just the convictions that belong to classic Christianity.

[JoshuaStone7]

The problem is, you have divergent beliefs that remove you from the "full Christian deal." You may think you have salvation, and not really have it--I don't know. I don't know you personally.

And you just continue to double down on your judgement seat.

Is it you're place to continually determine whether I have salvation or not? If I didn't you should have shown love and guided me, that's your job in the Lord, isn't it? But you condemned me in The Temple Sanctuary thread and said I was ungodly.

Look, as I said before, I don't need a judge. My relationship with Christ Jesus is just fine, thank you.

Joshua

[RabbiKnife]

Actually I think I’m the one that called you ungodly and questioned your relationship with the true Jesus.

[JoshuaStone7]

Actually I think I’m the one that called you ungodly and questioned your relationship with the true Jesus.

Cogradulations...

I hope your seat of judgement isn't held against you either.

Joshua

[RabbiKnife]

I’m good with that risk

[Athanasius]

I've ended nearly every post with, "In my opinion," or, "In my humble opinion."

You didn't say it here, though. Should we assume you meant to? What if we do, only to discover that you actually distinguish between those other views, which are your opinion, while this view you believe you received from God, which is not your opinion?

Is questioning every single sentence I write as to my intentions really necessary?

Yes, I'm exceptionally rigorous. With everyone, including myself.

I mean, can we not simply have a discussion about scripture without delving into my psyche every time?

We most certainly are not delving into your psyche.

I'm wrong all the time. When I find out I'm wrong about something, then I fix it. Sometimes Christians are able to correct me, and I fix my misunderstandings. I am the first person to admit when I'm wrong. I've already told you I relish in those moments. Didn't I say that already?

Yes, but that doesn't mean you take the same attitude towards what you believe is a view of Scripture shown to you by God.

I am wrong today, I will be wrong tomorrow, and I will be wrong until Christ returns.

Is that sufficient to carry on a conversation about scripture rather than my psyche?

If you're saying that the view in question isn't necessarily divinely revealed, then sure. Again, we aren't conversing about your psyche. We could if you wanted to, but I don't think you'd survive that.

I don't say, "Let's learn from each other," to only mean you must learn from me. Look, I'm not interested in a psychologist; I'm here to discuss scripture.

I don't know your motivations, which is why I'm asking. There are plenty of people who would do exactly this on a forum.

Again, I haven't been psychologising.

I mean, I'm spending all this time on why I post rather than scripture because someone doesn't like how I say something. Are you the intentions cop here?

The intentions cop? Don't be silly. No no. I'm a guy who wants to ensure this forum remains a place of discussion. You know, especially when someone shows up from another forum, puts an Amazon link in their signature, and copy/pastes posts from elsewhere.

On the point I'd rather be overzealous.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to change who I am or how I speak to suit someone else.

No one's asked you to, darling.

I don't point out what I don't like about what you say. And to be honest, this isn't being sensitive; it's a fellow Christian pointing out that you are awfully nitpicky on what others say, how they say it, and why they say it. I indulged it the first few times, but now I'm saying that's enough.

Good for you? You've been free to point any of that out this entire time. It's not a new set of complaints, mind you, so I guess we'll have to continue to live with my... character flaws, as you put it.

you don't think I don't know that?

That's the thing, I don't know. You didn't consider how your words in the other thread could have been received, so why would I assume that you've fully considered how others would take the posts in question you've presented?

Can we move on?

We could have moved on a while ago.

Look, I am wrong all the time. I have been corrected many times. That's why I post, to learn from each other. I believe there is one truth we're all getting to. You say God spoke to you, I think that's ridiculous, but I haven't said that till now. So I say God gives me my knowledge, so what, He gives me my food too, and I thank Him for that as well...

You're quite free to think what I said was ridiculous, that's why it's a personal truth. It's not a prescriptive truth for others to follow, like God-given knowledge about how we ought to interpret Scripture would be.

Are you saying you've worked yourself up over your own poor phrasing? Assuming you mean that God gives you knowledge in the same way that He gives you food. Well, assuming that God doesn't directly deliver food to you...

Look, if you'd like to have a discussion on scripture, that'd be great, but I'm not interested in a psychologist.

I don't know, maybe you should be? I'm no psychologist, but a good one can be quite helpful.

PS: I think it's fair to say, that I'm getting what you describe from many on here on the subject of the Trinity. I must believe like you or I'm condemned, right? Several individuals have now claimed that I MUST believe like them or I am condemned and ungodly, and they don't consider me a brother.... Hmmm, who really are the ones being self-righteous here?

You're on a forum for orthodox Christians (who may or may not be "true believers") and you're commenting on 2,000-year-old hot button topics: the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity. To add to that, you're posting unusual views on Genesis. You've also returned the compliment.

Let's not play the psychological game please Athanasius, there is no winner down that road. Let us show Christian love.

Heh.