Search results

Why? What advantage did it offer them?

Is that a current answer, or one that has always applied?

I don't always agree with @Clete and you, JR, but I agree that was a stellar post.

Howdy!

And Paul says the Gentiles are brought into something that used to be uniquely Jewish. Ephesians 2:11-13 (KJV) 11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at...

This is all very interesting, but pretty far off topic.

I drove through Boston once. Does that count?

I'd say he's very trying.

But he was speaking to "men of Israel".

Because it had to evolve to get where it is today?

Before you move on to your example, can you address my contention? Your example is decidedly post-Darwin.

I'm more inclined to see that as the gospel, but I agree that it was the same for Jews and Gentiles.

I'll take your silence as a negative response. @Idolater, back to you.

You were responding to my posts, where I was talking about how the other lands might have been populated after the flood, to avoid the necessity of other people surviving the flood.

MAD as a means of dividing believers into Jew and Gentile is already problematic, except where it sees the church as an in between state when the outer court is trampled by the Gentiles for a time times and half a time, perhaps, or something similar.

Do you have scripture for that assertion?

I'll let you look it up, as I did. Josephus is a good place to start.

Only if you think of "highly compelling" as pretty much the same as "analogies and common sense".

After the flood?

Seeing creatures "change" and assuming all creatures derive from a single common ancestor is the ultimate in And you rightly say they are not evidence.