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.
But the line is from the beginning. Literally speaking, the meaining isn't the same.
When we've been there ten thousand years; bright, shinning as the sun. We've no less days to sing God's praise, than when we first begun.
That is an extra verse taken from:Was it John Newton who said:
That is an extra verse taken from:
UNCLE TOM'S CABIN CHAPTER XXXVIII: Harriet Beecher Stowe(1885)
It seems you give yourself some leeway in how you interpret scripture, that you do not see a difference between "at the beginning" and "in the beginning". This appears to be at odds with your definition of literalism.
More evidence that an IQ in the genius range isn't necessarily correlated with, well, anything, really.
That does not necessarily mean it was written to be taken literally. Do you take Psalms and Jesus' parables literally because they were written?Because He is the One Who wrote Genesis 1 - (through a human author).
Um ... Jesus created it ---
[bible]Colossians 1:16-17[/bible]
She runs into a lot of people on Internet message boards who claim to have scores higher than this, but, oddly, they never seem to be able to recall which test it was that identified them as supergeniuses...
I'm still waiting for you to prove your assertion that Genesis 1 was intended to be taken literally...
Obviously he didn't given the fact that Jesus does not know how the Earth was created. If Jesus interprets Genesis literally he couldn't be the creator.
Sounds like you just got pwned. Thanks for showing that your interpretation is based on nothing more than your personal fantasies, with zilch in reality or in the Bible to back it up.Enjoy the wait.
Why won't you provide your evidence? I don't understand - we (I) have provided evidence and you are then able to view it and comment, why can we not expect you to provide your evidence so we can comment on it?Enjoy the wait.
Enjoy the wait.
Would you like other people to believe as you do? (ie do you think it is "true and accurate"?)
Why? That attitude sounds decidedly un-Christlike.Some time ago, someone once said to me that many people here who are now atheists, once started out believing as I do.
My response was --- "I hope so."
Some time ago, someone once said to me that many people here who are now atheists, once started out believing as I do.
My response was --- "I hope so."
Has this been confirmed yet?By today's standards, I don't doubt that. From what I understand, if one takes the Rorschach Test, and sees an abundance of Christian symbols, he is diagnosed (or prognosed) along the lines of "delusional." (Maybe someone in this field can confirm this either way.)
There’s an entire world covered in what you claim are million year thick sedimentary layers. Yet for some reason the layering today is constantly changing as weathering occurs and transports material from different areas. No strata today is forming of the same type anywhere over a few inches thick......I am always happy to hear or read constructive criticism of science and the scientific method; it can only make science better.
Hears a bit of constructive criticism for the religious method.
Before you hypothesise that there was a global flood or that the Earth is 6000 years old
FIND SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?