Higher education?

 (This post is the elder sister to ‘the links of  knowledge’)

https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/the-links-of-knowledge/

https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/andromeda-you-must-watch/

Higher education is a worthy goal. Sandwiched between this post and the previous one was a short clip highlighting the dazzling display of Andromeda; it was a link of understanding and it was CLEAR.  It was not placed as a filler. In the context of men seeking to dismiss  God and His word, I only ask:

The universe in all its glory is not enough?

 

Man should be humbled at such significance, but no, we want more proof,  and yet, is not the song of creation  heard by the deaf?

Who are you to deny a Creator by asking for proof when everything is proof. Yes, WHO are you, and are you not embarrassed at such indifference? By what right of nature can you deny a Creator, when you can’t as much create a fingernail?

WHAT,  outside of everything will convince you? Will the sting of death not silence your doubt? WHO  then are you?

‘To the writing of books there is no end,’ and it is true that ‘knowledge will increase,’ (God’s word is correct as always,) and this is a blistering  indictment against learning apart from God, for unbelief thrives in proportion to knowledge. Why? Because you have esteemed the voice of the Professor above your conscience. Pride is the father of unbelief, and is fueled by the influence of stature and ‘many books.’

The idea was brought forth (in post one) that asking for ‘more’  help to verify God’s word, is a condescending insult to He who is the Word.  Mind you, these requests are coming from people who say Adam never lived, Moses was a myth, and Christ, if He lived, was just an ordinary joe. (perish the thought)  New findings are sought to perpetuate the alleged instability of scripture.

Maybe we should call on the dignitaries of higher education for the correct answers on the existence of God and credibility of His word. Meanwhile, ‘Higher education’ encourages the accusation of ‘weakness’ in the text, while men run to us and say: ‘defend the scriptures!’

God’s word needs no defense.  

Why do I say this?

It IS the defense

It is self proving. The sun above is temporary, but the word of God abides forever, as it is settled in heaven. Yet, believers are asked to defend it because theological professors find fault. Really?  

The genealogies are undisputable. The records are infallible. The words are convicting. The prophecies are sure.  There is no book on earth which presents man as the word of God does, after all, God knows what is in man.  No other book on earth reveals the Lights and Perfections of the living God. Then there are the ‘living epistles,’ the lives of men, read by all.

It is the eternal anvil which has not only withstood, but wore out every hammer against it. Remember the great bible scholar Satan? Yea him. His attack on the word of God left Him empty as He had the audacity to twist and quote scripture to the Lord of glory. And the Lord simply magnified His authority with the exemplary response: ‘It is written again,’ and the arch-enemy was reduced to the slithering creature that he is.

The Lord gave no explanation,  no credibility to the assault, whose only dialog was:  ‘It is written, again.’ Period.

For thousands of years, the word of God has been attacked and called into question as if God cannot keep a good record of his own words. Peruse the internet, or books from the libraries of the world, and you will find plenty of pit bulls trying to devour the word of God, as they are all currently without teeth, because the rock of ages endures. In blogsville also, countless people have condemned Genesis as simply a book of myths. 

Higher learning has an interest in the good book as there are many schools doing wonderful things. There are missions to embark, grants to be had, professions to follow, manuscripts to unravel, debates to win and others to lose, languages to learn, ministries to begin, even spouses to find. The influence on society has obvious and great blessings.

Like most things there is good and bad, and the study of divine things is not exempt. One side finds so-called mistakes, additions, subtractions, textual evidence, a lack of textual evidence, lost papyri, found papyri, all designed to ‘prove the unreliability’ of the word of God.  Schools of theology are cited as sources from men who have found alleged faults with the scriptures.

These men of learning  are deemed scholars while at the same time they will tell you the Genesis account is poetry,  Cain did not murder his brother, Sarah did not give birth at an old age, they will tell you homosexuality is the new word for tolerance, they will tell you the ‘legend’ of Jonah is a bit more creative than Aesop; they will tell you the furnace of Daniel’s three friends was merely a ‘pressure situation’ where the writer used great liberty and expected no person of sane mind to believe it, and they will tell you Paul the apostle was delusional.  Higher learning?

What then is the value of the scholarship which does not trust scripture?

Please think about this before you continue.

Some so-called men of renown have stated there was no exodus, which lateral result calls into question the promises of God to the nation of Israel and further, to cite the Lord Jesus Christ as a madman.  No small feat for a bible teacher, or any body for that matter, to say this with a straight face. 

Some dare say sin is ah, er, well, um, not sin,  that Christ may have risen, but not bodily, others will say the gospel of Luke is unreliable, and the spiritual malfeasance abounds from some of the higher schools of divine thought, while at the same time handing out laurels to such enlightened minds. Ouch.

So yea, not too impressed with many schools of higher learning.  

The other side  has decided by vote that the scriptures are in fact true. They too however have gone on record saying certain things are not to be believed.  What’s the point?

If a person must rely on the testimony of men to give approval of the scriptures, then that person will always be at the mercy of another mans learning.

This is not God’s way as He demonstrates the power in His word  that men’s faith be not in men. 

You have seen the arguments:   “What about this verse?’ ‘What about this new find?’ What about this scholar?’ ‘What about this link?’ ‘What about this video?’ Utter foolishness as if there is a weakness in the text.

Who dares to bring a charge against scripture? May I remind you the devil had nothing…

The insincerity by Pilate in asking the Lord ‘what is truth?’ is proof enough that some interrogators deserve absolute silence as the correct and only answer.

God’s word IS the defense

If five thousand so-called scholars said the gospel of Matthew cannot be trusted, I would show you five thousand  liars, and God’s word correct. If seven thousand so-called archaeologists said Nazareth did not exist, and that there were not tombs of the Gadarenes,  I would show you seven thousand liars, and God’s word correct.  

When men of ‘higher learning’ sit in judgment of God’s word,  as if they can add to the veracity of scripture, Christ is brought down from above. Not a good idea. The word spoken some time ago: ‘For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe of me; for he wrote of me,’ is a fine example of the truth of the text simply not being believed. The defect was in the hearts of the readers; there was never a question as to the life and times of Moses, nor of the scriptures which spoke of him.

Let’s summarize and connect the dots with ‘the links of knowledge.’ There is a bizarre phenomenon captivating the interest of unbelievers worldwide. There is a concerted effort to find fault with the scriptures and to hurl people of faith with slanderous innuendos. Am I sure? Let’s have a second look:

A person tells you the bible is a fairy tale. He says you are a lunatic if you believe ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’ He thinks you are insane if you actually believe there was confusing of languages in Babel,  he tells you Abraham never existed, he tells you Sodom was not a real city, and he tells you sin is a fabrication. He then tells you the death of the son of God was a joke. He informs you  that the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’ is a deluded hope. He tells you men of higher learning have found errors with scripture.

He then finishes by informing you there are mistakes in what he calls the book of myths, and pleads with you to answer his endless charges. He ridicules people and their precious faith, and he enjoys spreading the poison ivy of unbelief and hopes it is contagious.   Hmm, seems I read that somewhere.  

The source for the end of all strife and the knowledge of the beginning of wisdom are noble pursuits in higher education.

Where is higher than heaven?

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in The word of God and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to Higher education?

  1. David says:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      You may want to use Latin or Greek so we can get the drift, there is a sister post, there is…

      Like

      • David says:

        “You may want to use Latin or Greek so we can get the drift.”

        Huh? I think I missed the point of your comment.

        Like

      • David says:

        “Your english is unclear. Who is the protesting lady?

        Well, my English is Shakespeare’s, so…

        Anyway, you are the protesting lady. So many words, so many font sizes, bold type and italics just to say…that you believe that the Bible is the absolute, perfect and inerrant word of God, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, regardless of any evidence or reasoning they may present.

        See? You just needed one sentence. Very simple. Why so much “protesting?”

        Like

        • David says:

          “How can you be wrong on something so obvious? Geez David.”

          Yes, I understand that you are not literally a lady. There was never a doubt about this in my mind. I’ve known this since I first stumbled upon your blog.

          However, In the original Shakespeare quote, the word is “lady”, and I wanted quote
          The Bard accurately. I did not intend for this quote to be taken so literally. I thought that you would get that point without a modification of the original words.

          Surely you are familiar with the way in which this quote is used to describe those who protest too much when their cases are weak, regardless of the actual gender of the protester? Perhaps not.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          oh ok, its just that you are the second person in a week that thought for some reason I was of the fairer sex, thats all.

          I’m glad there is no ambiguity.

          Like

        • David says:

          …In any event, my original point remains. You use far too many words to say what can be said in one sentence. You protest too much.

          Like

  2. sage_brush says:

    Amen. The Bible does never argue the existence of God – because it is so obvious. How He condescended to give us the Written Word, forever brings grateful tears to my eyes.

    Like

  3. Neat post, Colorstorm! You make some good points. I had a clever reply planned out, but I think you covered everything I would have said.
    Also, the links at the beginning don’t appear to point where they say they do, for some reason… Just so you know.
    Peace to you. 🙂

    Like

  4. Wow. Just wow. I love it. You’ve rendered me speechless, a rare feat indeed 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Why thank you very much ib!!

      Would you believe it was much loooooonger. Thought about making two posts, but the flow needed to be one, sounds like you agree 😉

      Anyway, appreciate your dedicated attention in reading, and I’ll save your accolade in a warm place.

      God’s word is very good. (I don’t want you speechless though)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. tellthetruth1 says:

    Reblogged this on The love of God and commented:
    “If a person must rely on the testimony of men to give approval of the scriptures, then that person will always be at the mercy of another mans learning.”

    Well said!

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Yea t-truth1, that’s God’s way, as he is always eons ahead.

      Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “But the scriptures ARE “the testimony of men,”

      EXACTLY!

      Like

    • tellthetruth1 says:

      All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16

      Liked by 2 people

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        So says a man – Paul – but by your own admission, a man can be wrong, and so it could well be, if THIS one was, that all Scripture is NOT God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

        Like

      • David says:

        Oh. So the Bible says it’s God-breathed, and so that proves that it wasn’t written by men?

        Like

      • sage_brush says:

        David:

        2 Peter 1:20-21

        20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.

        21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

        Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          And yet, Sage_brush, your entire quotation from Pete (EDITOR NOTE: THE WORD IS PETER) 2 was written by a man, and therefore “If a person must rely on the testimony of men to give approval of the scriptures, then that person will always be at the mercy of another mans learning.” still applies!

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          arch-
          Sage and tellthetruth won’t mind here, whether they post or anybody else, but you are 100% wrong in your understanding, and that is ok.

          You are helping others see the futility of not trusting God’s word completely.

          ‘God inspires His word,’ the words are HIS words using mens hands.’

          It was irrelevant if they understood what they were writing, and that’s the point.

          They were to be faithful scribes as it were, with fidelity to Another’s message.

          Scripture confirms scripture, that’s why we need not look outside its pages for the answers.

          Hence as was pointed out ‘ALL scripture is God breathed,’ its kinda clear.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          God inspires His word, the words are HIS words using mens hands.” – What you clearly don’t understand, Colostrum, is that it is men – INCLUDING YOU – who are saying this. I told you much earlier, in one of your earlier posts, that your god never says ANYthing in the Bible – MEN say that god says things, and yet your earlier commenter cautioned us against believing what men say. But none of you can seem to see that that is EXACTLY what you’re doing!

          Like

      • David says:

        Sage Brush,

        Yes, I understand what the Bible says.

        Like

      • David says:

        “Scripture confirms scripture.”

        You see, this was my point. In just three words, you’re presented the only argument you’ve made or ever will make.

        So why many words, so many font sizes, bold type and italics? Why protest so much?

        You’ve gone down into the fallout shelter, passed through a dozen airlocks, screwed each hatch shut behind you, and now you sit in the dark, eating crackers and awating the apocalypse.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          I pointed out an error in understanding, for which you and your brethren should be appreciative…………a small but critical detail, now here’s a suggestion for ya:

          Rather than try to find fault with what I or anybody else say, use the same energy in actually reading and studying the book; look for truth perhaps, you may surprise yourself at what good you will find, and what ‘bad’ is non existent.

          But as the post submits, you want higher learning? Read the book.

          Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        …Not that you really, deep down, believe what you are saying, but that’s another story.

        Like

      • David says:

        “Rather than try to find fault with what I or anybody else says…”

        In this case, I wasn’t really trying to “find fault.” I was simply pointing out what you’ve done and what you will continue to do, and that you could state your position in the three words, not three thousand. It was a simple observation. You may draw your own conclusions about whether there is a fault to be found here.

        “Use the same energy in actually reading and studying the book…”

        Have you not read a word I’ve written? Again with the “read the book?” How do you think I got here?!

        All my life’s a circle,
        Sunrise and sundown,
        Moon rolls through the nighttime,
        Til the daybreak comes around.

        All my life’s circle,
        I can’t tell you why,
        Seasons spinning round again,
        The years keep rolling by.

        Requiescat in pace, Harry.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          david-

          You said: ‘And that you could state your position in the three words, not three thousand.’

          And oh by the way, as to your ‘three words,’ perhaps you also missed the other three words in the post:

          WHO ARE YOU?

          Like

      • David says:

        I’m Gumby, dammit.

        Like

  6. mzpresser says:

    Lovely. Such a provoking and thoughtful post!

    Like

  7. Ahh, I’m still enjoying your refreshing words. Trying to figure out which is my favorite part. I think I like this the best, “If a person must rely on the testimony of men to give approval of the scriptures, then that person will always be at the mercy of another mans learning.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “If a person must rely on the testimony of men to give approval of the scriptures, then that person will always be at the mercy of another mans learning.”

      Testimony of men? Another man’s learning? What, the women have nothing to say here?

      You don’t have to be at the mercy of another person’s learning. Just think for yourself.

      Like

      • “What, the women have nothing to say here?”

        LOL, oh speak to me of the learned ones who lecture women about not thinking for themselves, as if we haven’t got the wherewithal to already have done so without them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was not in the least suggesting that women lack the wherewithal to think for themselves. If this was you’re conclusion, then I think you made a mistake.

          I was simply taken with ColorStorm’s choice of words. It was ColorStorm who spoke of the “testimony of MEN” and “another MAN’S learning.” I was just wondering when and if he would speak of the testimony and learning of WOMEN, too.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Not that it will matter in the least to you David, but maybe you missed the place at the top of this very page that read: ‘this post is the elder sister…..’

          In addition,, most people understand the word man as all inclusive, ie, mankind.

          Like

        • David says:

          Speaking of understanding what is intended by a choice of words, did you intend for the phrase “learned ones” to be a derisive one?

          Like

        • David says:

          “this post is the elder sister…..”

          Yes, and this is also an odd choice of words, but then I understand that you are a lover of metaphor.

          “Most people understand the word man as all inclusive, ie, mankind.”

          Yes, but you didn’t use the word “mankind”. You used man and men. Most people also understand that using “man” and “men” as a way of referring to all humans is a somewhat outdated use of these words, because the words can also be interpreted as referring to a single gender and/or interpreted as favoring a single gender. After all, in practice, “man” and “men” almost always do refer to a single gender.

          Now, personally, if the goal is to refer to all humans, then I think it’s better to chose words that reduce confusion and that clearly refer to everyone. Obviously, this is your choice. It’s not a major concern, I just find this an odd choice of words in the year 2015.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          I invite one of my kinsman (ha) to answer your concern

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I just find this an odd choice of words in the year 2015.” – Now THAT’S what you’re having a difficult time understanding, David – on Colosrtrum’s blog, it’s always 1984!

          Like

        • I’m rather fond of men and do not feel the least bit excluded by the word “man.” Men are actually a part of women, fathers, brothers, husbands, sons. We love men, we marry them, we give birth to them. The two genders exist in a rather delightful symbiosis.

          In truth, it actually starts to offend me when people insist we use gendered pronouns, as if women are not already such a significant part of the equation, we actually require no special mention.

          Liked by 2 people

        • David says:

          …And lest my point be get lost (as I meant the “man” thing as a bit of a sidebar), you use far too many words to say what can be said in one sentence. You protest too much.

          Like

        • David says:

          “I’m rather fond of men and do not feel the least bit excluded by the word “man.”

          Glad to hear it. However, you are a sample size of one.

          Like

        • “Glad to hear it. However, you are a sample size of one.”

          And yet I am “the one” in this discussion who bears the correct plumbing to decide whether or not I am offended, while I presume you do not.

          So what makes you so almighty and self righteous to judge your own opinion as carrying more weight than mine? Does that attitude not betray your own belief in your alleged inherent superiority?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Glad to hear it. However, you are a sample size of one.” – Actually, David, I doubt that she’s the only victim of Stockholm Syndrome out there – I’ve seen several others on this blog alone.

          Like

        • David says:

          One last pedantic point.

          If you insist on using the word “men” to refer to all humans, at a minimum, the word must be capitalized. Otherwise, the word really does refer to a single gender.

          The grammar police will now bow out.

          Like

        • David says:

          “So what makes you so almighty and self righteous to judge your own opinion as carrying more weight than mine? Does that attitude not betray your own belief in your alleged inherent superiority?”

          I did not say that your opinion did not count as much as mine. What I’ve been trying to suggest is that there are many beyond the the world beyond this particular discussion who would consider ColorStorm’s use of the words “men” and “man” to be outdated for reasons given above. This is not just about about my opinion or how I personally feel about the way certain words are used. It’s about the way in which certain words are currently used in circles beyond this blog.

          Please notice that I did not say that I, personally, was offended by ColorStorm’s choice of words. By contrast, your response specifically stated how you, personally, felt about the words. In my comments, I was referencing the broader world, while you only referenced yourself in your response. So I was simply pointing out that there is only one of you. No personal superiority on my part was implied. My apologies if you interpreted my comment in this manner.

          Like

        • “Please notice that I did not say that I, personally, was offended by ColorStorm’s choice of words..”

          I know. instead you attempted to speak on behalf of all women everywhere and when called out on that you proceeded to try and include another group, the entire world, including, “circles beyond this blog.”

          You also have now typed hundreds of words attempting to affirm your point that there are too many words being used here. That is somewhat amusing.

          Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          Sorry, typo in a sentence above. Should read…

          What I’ve been trying to suggest is that there are many in the the world beyond this particular discussion who would consider ColorStorm’s use of the words “men” and “man” to be outdated for reasons given above.

          Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          Sorry, one more clarification.

          I did say that I had a preference with respect to word choices, but in addition, I was also trying take this beyond my personal opinion.

          Like

        • David says:

          “I know. instead you attempted to speak on behalf of all women everywhere and when called out on that you proceeded to try and include another group, the entire world, including, “circles beyond this blog.”

          Wrong interpretation of what I’ve been trying to say. Yes, it takes a lot of words when I’m constantly misunderstood.

          Like

        • David says:

          “You also have now typed hundreds of words attempting to affirm your point that there are too many words being used here.”

          My point about word usage is quite independent of my main point about CS using too many words to argue that the Bible is true, he believes it and that settles it.

          Two different issues, so you’re comment doesn’t really make sense.

          Like

        • “My point about word usage is quite independent of my main point about CS using too many words..”

          My comment makes complete sense. It is you who are confused because you cannot see your own projection.

          You are not being misunderstood here, you are simply wrong.

          Like

        • David says:

          “My comment makes complete sense. It is you who are confused because you cannot see your own projection.”

          This is very simple. Different issues require different number of words, especially when one is misunderstood. No projection to be seen.

          “You are not being misunderstood here, you are simply wrong.”

          Could you be more specific?

          “I know. instead you attempted to speak on behalf of all women everywhere and when called out on that you proceeded to try and include another group, the entire world,
          including, “circles beyond this blog.”

          I didn’t not say “all women”, I said “most people”. See the difference? I was not even specific as to gender, and I certainly did NOT say “all women”. I’m not even trying to “speak on behalf” of anyone. I’m just trying to point out that some consider CS’s use of certain words outdated. Get it?

          Further, I did not say “the entire world”, I said “circles beyond this blog.” Circles beyond this blog does not mean the entire world. Is this clear now?

          You both misinterpreted and exaggerated what I said, and you put words in my mouth. This is why I’ve had to expend so many words on a sidebar issue.

          Like

        • “You both misinterpreted and exaggerated what I said, and you put words in my mouth”

          I did not. Your words speak for themselves, you just do not like what they say.

          Like

        • David says:

          Your words speak for themselves, you just do not like what they say.”

          I’m not in the least bothered by what I actually said.

          Ok, I’ll try this one last time.

          Please show me the words that indicate that I “attempted to speak on behalf of ALL women EVERYWHERE.”

          Please show me the words in which I included “the ENTIRE world.”

          Show me the error of my ways.

          Like

        • “Show me the error of my ways.”

          You’ve shown yourself the error of your ways. One of those errors is to needlessly quibble over grammar, word length, and the use of the word “man” rather than to address the content of this post. Also, if you truly disagree with what’s been written here, there are some 58 million other blogs on WP for you to visit.

          We’ve taken up enough room on this blog, however, so peace out.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Perfectly concluded ib, just what i was thinking as to straining at the gnat and camel thing.

          Like

        • David says:

          One of those errors is to needlessly quibble over grammar, word length, and the use of the word “man” rather than to address the content of this post.

          Wrong. I have addressed the content of this post. Repeatedly. Let me repeat myself.

          …And lest my point be get lost (as I meant the “man” thing as a bit of a sidebar), you use far too many words to say what can be said in one sentence. You protest too much.

          See how many time I made this point in the comment thread. Would you like to discuss my comment about the content of this post?

          Unfortunately, it’s others who wanted to drag out this “quibble” over word usage.

          “We’ve taken up enough room on this blog, however, so peace out.”

          Yeah, that’s what I thought. I asked you to show me where I was wrong. I asked you to back up your statements. I asked you to show me where I said what you claimed I said. And you can’t. Yeah, peace out, indeed.

          Like

        • David says:

          “Perfectly concluded ib, just what i was thinking as to straining at the gnat and camel thing.”

          Well, ColorStorm, nobody want to respond to my non-gnat comments. So, what can you do?

          Like

        • David says:

          “Also, if you truly disagree with what’s been written here, there are some 58 million other blogs on WP for you to visit.”

          So, one should not comment at a blog unless one agrees with the post?

          Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Good morning friend (ib) Dang, you beat me to the comment cafe. 😉

      Yea, you picked up one of my favs too there. We are not discounting God given gifts, just giving Him ALL the credit, and rightly so.

      (I do like too the idea of the fingernail; oh the arrogance of man)

      Like

  8. Pingback: Floundering Thoughts | Amusing Nonsense

  9. Planting Potatoes says:

    powerful read! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrt message! So very well put! Love this: “If a person must rely on the testimony of men to give approval of the scriptures, then that person will always be at the mercy of another man’s learning.” Non-believers make the mistake that when Christians witness to them of God, that they, in some way, need to be able to “prove” what they say or somehow the whole thing is bunk. God doesn’t need anyone to “prove” his existence to anyone – he just wants us to be witnesses of the fact that he does, in fact, exist. I feel God has blessed you with some higher learning of the Godly type!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. This post and its companions were A-Maze-ing!! God and His Word stand and truly need no defense and everyone is free to choose or reject. The Bible has been argued and ridiculed for centuries and this will not change until Jesus returns and every knee will bow, some in terror and some in worship – choose this day whom you will serve.
    ColorStorm, your choice is obvious and God has given you much wisdom, you are a worthy opponent in this chess game!! Thanks for writing!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Yes Betty it is a never ending story. If we could press one thing, it would be the observation you agreed with, ‘God’s word stands alone,’ always has, always will.

      This company of bloggers we rub shoulders with are very good people, and like you said, we all have a purpose, and we really do sharpen and challenge each other. To God be the glory.

      tkx betts

      Like

  11. Wally Fry says:

    I see Bert and Ernie have been busy again

    Like

  12. 1 Corinthians 1:25 – For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. Appreciate the passionate “sermon”. =)

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Foolishness of God? Always a discussion in that truth! Tkx

      Maybe a sermonette eh, Appreciate your time and attention D-

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Appreciate your time and attention” – Especially the attention – he thrives on the dopamine rush it gives him!

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Arch-

          Do you EVER bring daylight? Are you capable of seeing ANYTHING except through a dark lens?

          Shall we then speak of your record setting bizarre comments as ‘attention getting.’ Shall we speak of your intended videos and pics that blaspheme the worthy name of Christ?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I bring daylight whereever I go – you may not recognize it, as it isn’t much like the artificial daylight you peddle.

          Like

  13. Well, CS, I stayed tuned. I’m a bit disappointed in the route you took.

    “Who are you to deny a Creator by asking for proof when everything is proof.” I could respond just as easily to this by saying that everything is proof of there being no God. Matter behaves in predictable ways, and we see no exceptions in the Universe. None of these predictions requires a God or gods to work. Both points of view can see a galaxy as being beautiful, but for admittedly different reasons.

    Neither, however, intrinsically points to one side or the other. They need inferences laid upon them in order to do what minds want them to do. So, while there is beauty in Nature, Nature itself thankfully does not reduce herself to satisfy the petty whims of mankind.

    I am saddened by your condemnation of those who think about the Bible in different ways than you. Calling them liars is a tall order. It doesn’t speak of God’s grace or mercy. One can’t simply disagree with these scholars. No, they have to be liars, worthy of condemnation. Because if they found out any truths, it would be a threat to one’s views.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Hey sb-

      You probably recall this word:

      ‘Let God be true, and every man a liar.’ My opinion is irrelevant as to His assessment.

      The context of course was what is revealed in scripture. You saw the examples cited. Did Nazareth exist? If you say it did not, you are lying. Its pretty simple. Same goes for the ‘scholar,’ and this point was drilled in the post. It is GOD’S word not mine.

      Condemnation? Hardly. There is a reason man is not to ADD or take from His word.

      As far as creation, sorry you cant see.

      Like

      • CS-

        Actually, your opinion is critical to His assessment. Without your belief that the Bible is true, this post is meaningless. It becomes an arbitrary rant against people who disagree on the validity of a religious text. It would be like a rant from someone decrying how Zeus is revealed to be mythological.

        If God is an Emperor, these scholars are only pointing out His new clothes…

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sirius-

          You have heard it said:

          God said it
          I believe it
          that settles it.

          While the intention is good, its not entirely correct. It better reads this way:

          God said it.
          That settles it.

          Its settled whether I believe it or not.

          But yes, you are correct, I believe the scriptures are true.

          Like

    • David says:

      “I’m a bit disappointed in the route you took.”

      I agree. This was a bit disappointing. So, what can one expect?

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Interesting? Hardly.

        How about just recognizing the perpetual disingenuous and willfull maligning and misinterpretation of things that are decent.

        I changed nothing. I did remove the nefarious intention. This is not a landfill for all garbage under the sun, as the comment policy clearly suggests.

        Like

      • David says:

        “Perpetual disingenuous and willfull maligning and misinterpretation of things that are decent.” Huh? What? You’re making some mighty big assumptions here.

        There was no “nefarious intention.” I was making a serious point. You really do assume that you have traits that are normally assigned to gods.

        Like

  14. Pingback: In defense of higher education | Random thoughts

  15. ColorStorm says:

    If you understand why Moses had different names, this is much easier.
    How many names do you have?

    Obviously both geneologies are correct. Your hammers keep wearing out.

    Like

  16. Tim Shey says:

    Sometimes I think that higher education is nothing but a big cult. As long as you believe we evolved from apes and say amen to liberal brainwash, then you will graduate with honors.

    “Education doesn’t make you smarter.”
    –Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Yea, somebody said ‘what value is scholarship which doesn’t trust scripture………….’

      You certainly would want a skilled surgeon from higher education, but you make the point as to liberal mumbo jumbo with no absolutes.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Pingback: The links of knowledge | The Lions Den

  18. Pingback: Peat and repeat… | The Lions Den

Comments are closed.