Search results

It's all a system. Not only did He make a clockwork of the sun and moon, but they serve other purposes as well. Life needs sunlight, and the Earth needs the moons counter-gravity to help support life. What you have is a bunch of gears working with one another and producing a consistent reality...

And you believe those people? I'm sure if the popular idea of Hell was about hopeless wandering through oblivion, people would say they experienced that instead.

The depiction of Hell as commonly described is a sad assumption that caught on when the Romans used it for control over people. The fact is that the contexts, when studied, hardly indicate a fiery hell at all. Hell is completely different. Not pleasant, but different. Of course, it's a...

Genesis doesn't call the sun day, He calls it a marker to indicate days. He calls the light 'day', and the darkness 'night'. But the passages state 'there was evening, there was morning- the x day' It does not say there was night, there was day. So the passages themselves show that evening...

The sun indicates morning to the half of the Earth facing it. But the moon can be seen at times on the same side as well. Does that mean that it is night and day at the same time? It doesn't. And even the local observer at the time would have been aware of that, and it seemed to fit perfectly...

The one thing that I am not understanding about what is being argued about the word day, is that the word was debated among AiG and OEC's such as Hugh Ross. They both reconcile the fact that a day is constant through the passages. It would have to be for all of it to be grammatically correct...

The short answer is that there are huge differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't see how that's not obvious for some. Protestants don't even agree with each other, to boot.

Colossians 1:16-17 does not omit Genesis. It's not even relevant. It's a biblical one-liner that TE's stick to that is somehow supposed merit all of their conclusions. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is completely sterile of theistic evolution, and yet has plenty to say on the contrary...

Every single TEist I have ever spoken to in my life have demonstrated that that it does not stand up to the Bible in any way. It's abundantly clear that if one takes Genesis as a historical document, there is no way of including common descent. It's just that simple. It should be like...

You seem to be challenging YEC's, and so I should be able to speak in any way I want about it. YEC's should not be assumed that they take the context utterly literal. There are many things in the contexts that they reconcile and do not take literally. That's just part of reading the Bible. I...

No it doesn't, at least not in the sense of what TE's claim science to be. Science is knowledge, and knowledge begins with God. TE's science does not begin with God, it begins with a naturalistic approach. Therefore, TE's use a science that is doomed to it's own subjective conclusions.

Why not call a creationist a creationist? Why something as negative as literalist? It's negative because it gives an impression that creationists do not know how to interpret the Bible. Creationists do not take the Bible literally, they just take it how it's been taken since it's canonization...

Being called a literalist is more derogatory then meaningful. It's pretty much God painting existence. I do not really understand what it is about light needing to travel 13 billion years, for example, that TE's and atheists argue. Painting a picture of the universe., does one take 13...

I take it 'literally', but literalism is a negative way of putting it. I don't think any smart creationist actually takes the entire context literally. If they did, then the universe would be a big ball of water. See what I mean? Some creationists take the waters as being central to Earth, and...

God is not the author of confusion. That is also something to reconcile if one concludes that the Creation accounts were issued by Him. That would mean that the context must be taken into account thoroughly, even if it doesn't mean to take it literally.

The word evolution is used too loosely. What we observe in organisms is completely different then what we expect with common descent. Is common descent supposed to be evolution, yes. But common descent is due to a completely different mechanism that we have not only not observed, but are lost to...

From what I gather, we can only assume that the author was given this enlightenment from God rather then actually witnessing it.

Yeah, I think a Trinity just limits God. Personally, I believe God exists in everyone who heeds Him, and that He is the counterbalance of our carnal desires to our will to be righteous. Jesus just happened to be the seed of God, therefore being wholly endowed with Him. If he hadn't, it would...

Well, there is such a thing as carnal influence. Muslims uphold this idea very firm. But I do not think that is something that has to be biologically tied into us, by an adversarial angel anyways. Rather, all we have to have is the knowledge and the desire. One of the defenses for Jesus...

I think where people even got the idea from in the first place is the 'forbidden fruit' and the serpent coming to Eve. It's just wishful thinking, nonetheless. I think it is as attempt at explaining why we have sin nature in a way where we are actually descendants of the angel himself. But...