Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, and after all of this time, I can clearly see that affinity you have.
If you want to use the KJV 1611, that's fine by me, but don't lip thrash me if I use other versions.
I don't prioritize pastors or scholars, let alone find complete agreement with entire works (books, videos, articles) of anyone. I apply critical thinking as I survey and compare and contrast a wide plethora of positions, and then I amalgamate points that I think are true or have veracity.
If that were true, I'd think that would change what light is. And that's not possible. Unless perhaps God is messing with us?
The whole thing is just a cope dreamed up by some DI conartist using a "loophole" in SR to solve exactly 1 claim against a 6000-year-old Universe, that light from distant objects "en route" by permitting an infinite light-travel-speed (and zero travel time) toward us. Unfortunately (for them) it doesn't eliminate the "falsely made to look old" claims since we still have a redshift-age-distance relation, where here age becomes "how old it appears to be". Instead of having the divine deception be light with a history that didn't happen, it becomes objects that appear to be less evolved states of the Universe being further away (and redshifted) to again deceive those astronomers to think the Universe is expanding and structure and forms are changing.
Isn't light both a wave and a particle which covers a wide spectrum? I'd think that the basic physics of light would have to change for there to be a change in speed. Radio waves, Microwaves, Infrared Light, Ultraviolet Light, X-Rays, Gama Rays, they are all light.
That's a polemical, loaded question and it carries within it an ambiguous referent to things I didn't assert or believe. However, the answer to it is "no, I do not prioritize myself." Prioritizing any one person isn't something any of us HAS to do. So, I don't.
Now, you're being obnoxious. You don't know who my "LUMINARIES" are, so it would be more copacetic with the idea of Virtue Epistemology for you to refrain from using polemical speech-acts.
Think a little harder about why it doesn't follow that they would all "come to the same conclusion" and, then, think harder about why I don't completely and utterly absorb myself with any particular individual's set of assertions.
