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.
I don't think we know enough about angels to say. Angels really aren't our business.Human has body and spirit,
angle only has spirit.
Is this our difference?
Lucifer was Satan's name - given to him by God - before he became the devil.
This is an example of how folklore and myth can shape people's way they approach things. Here in this modern age with printed scripture for over 400 years and with the internet at our disposal people still cling to myth over knowledge that Satan's proper name is Lucifer.
Lucifer is a Latin word and in the Latin text it is used for both Satan and Jesus. It is just a regular word and it means light bearer but we would rather believe the myth and legend that it's Satan's proper name given to him before his fall. I would rather call Jesus Lucifer .
While it is true there is a tiny "hint" of truth in your statement - it concludes with gross error none-the-less.
As if you had never read Isaiah 14 in your life.
I prefer the actual Bible.
==================== Lucifer -- Satan-- the Devil
Isaiah 14
The Fall of Lucifer
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’
18 “All the kings of the nations,
All of them, sleep in glory,
Everyone in his own house;
19 But you are cast out of your grave
Like an abominable branch,
Like the garment of those who are slain,
Thrust through with a sword,
Who go down to the stones of the pit,
Like a corpse trodden underfoot.
20 You will not be joined with them in burial,
Because you have destroyed your land
And slain your people.
The brood of evildoers shall never be named.
.
No doubt the Isaiah 14 text is figuratively referring to Satan and that is something I have never denied. Literally the text is talking about the King of Babylon
It appears that the literal application is to Lucifer - Satan - and is used figuratively to apply to the King of Babylon -- since it is only literally true of Satan - and can at best be called 'figuratively remotely-true' of an actual human being.
If somone says "that lion over there is king of the jungle and you my friend are like a lion on the basketball court" -- what is literally true of the lion is only figuratively true of the lesser context -- basketball player...
Elvis has left the building.
The bible genre is truth. Evilution is in the fiction dept.
Because the universe and earth don't just have maturity, they exhibit signs of history as well.God created Adam and Eve as mature adults. Why is it so difficult to imagine that God can create a mature universe?
By determining whether they are supported by the evidence God left behind when He created the universe. Viewing Genesis and the Flood as allegorical does not in any way impact the need to accept Christ for our salvation.Hi Zoii, you are definitely correct, the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook. That said, there are many reasons why taking the Bible literally is important.
Perhaps first and foremost is this, if the Creation is considered to be nothing more than a "real nice story", but not true, why should we believe that any of the other "stories" God tells us in the Bible are true? The other question is, if you choose to believe that "some" of the stories in the Bible are true and others aren't (especially when the various stories we are considering are written in an equally believable manner), how do we determine which story is true and which one isn't
I must admit this has always given me problems. How do you balance the omniscience of God with human free will? If God is omniscient then He knows what we will do and there can be no true free will. The only way to have true free will is if God is not omniscient which is directly contrary to Scripture.There is also the matter of "assignments", which is particularly important when we are trying to decide who to "assign" the title of "Author of Evil" to. Because our sin is a universal trait among our race, we know that it has to have a single cause, and if our progenitors are not the cause (as the Bible tells us they are), that means that God must beIOW, if our race doesn't have "first parents" as the proximate cause of our fallen nature, then the way we are now (IOW, by nature, children of wrath .. Ephesians 2:3) is the way God made us!
These are but two of the reasons (and I hope that makes sense to you).
Yours in Christ,
David
Nope! Many of them may have not even gotten out of orbit when being ejected in the flood year and flopped back. Most of them fell in the former state and one feature of that state was that rocks did not get hot as they now do. You simply look at the present rules and try to mold the reality of the past to them.
Because the universe and earth don't just have maturity, they exhibit signs of history as well.
For example, the earth has enough meteor impact craters that if they had all happened within the past 6,000 years, the earth would still be in a mostly molten state.
It makes me sad to see things like this. Being declared a scientific theory is the pinnacle to which any idea in science aspires.As I said in my last post this issue is a smokescreen thrown up by atheists to try to prove God does not exist. if you look at the intelligent design evidence there are theories that fit with the bible as well.
You also need to consider that the whole issue of how these theories arose. Its called the big bang THEORY for the very reason it hasnt been proven.
Do you have any support for these claims? A link? The name of the book? Anything?As I put on another thread recently, I read a biography of Darwin a long time ago in which he admitted that he had been employed to come up with a scientific explanation which would prove that white people are superior to blacks and thereby justify the slave trade. He came up with evolution and that whites are more evolved than blacks to justify continuing with slaves. After reading this biography I gave him my own nickname for him - the "Father of Fascism" as the principles of his teaching and fascism in the third Reich were very similar with teachings of the superior race, etc.
Darwin was employed and funded to do this by people with an agenda.
Where did you read this?The phrase I have heard to describe the theory of evolution was that it "swept the world" but i believe from what I have read that it may have been an agenda led few who pushed it on the whole world to achieve their goals,
Do you have any evidence that the basic physical forces of the universe worked differently in the past?2 Primary challenges of the claim that the universe is "13.8 billion years old":
1. How do they know this? If the claim is based on "Red Shift", this assumes Uniformitarianism, in which is speculation at best.
He could have. But why did he also create the universe with a history? For example why are there supernova remnants?2. Could God have created a mature universe? He created Adam to be an adult male. Why could He (God) have not created a mature universe?
This is called the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy.Because it is God's word. As soon as we start to question how "literal" one thing is... it's a slippery slope down as we try to decide what other things are actually "literal" or not.
If you question the validity of the "literal" Genesis account, then you can question the "literal" flood, the "literal" acts recorded by Moses, the "literal" King David.
Then, you will end up facing the "literal" Christ and His death and resurrection....
Because we don't have the originals of any of the books of Genesis. We are relying on copies of copies of copies and the fallible men who continually translated the previous copies.I tend to look at it this way:
Did He tell us how He did it?
Could God do what He said He did?
Then why would I believe some men instead of believing God?
Do you believe the devil took Jesus to a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world? If so, where is it?There are a lot of things that the Bible was not intended for. However, if this book we call "the Bible" directly states that something happened a certain way, are you going to deny that explanation?
Not a fool to believe the Bible but a little silly to accept an interpretation of the Bible that contradicts the evidence of God's fingerprints He left behind. Especially when that interpretation has no effect on salvation.In the end, we will see that mankind has such a small piece of the puzzle, yet they are telling everyone that they have it all mastered and that you are a fool to believe this old book.
However, as I have already pointed out, the earth and the universe don't just have an appearance of age, they have an appearance of history as well. A history, that if the earth is only 6,000 years old, never happened. Which makes God a deceiver, not something I can accept. Can you?The usual reply is "appearance of age": God created everything in the mature state. Thus He created a universe that appeared ancient, about 6,000 years ago. Genesis 1 is used as support of the idea of creation with appearance of age.
Some models have much more evidence than others, however.Also the statement "astronomers say" is an overgeneralization. The age of the universe as 13-15 billion years is a tentative approximation coming from the inflationary model. It is not a hypothesis without dispute in the academic circles. Many astronomers reject inflationary model; some citing red-shift anomalies as refutation of red-shift as an indicator of recession velocity. Some propose the universe is far less than 13-15 billion years, some far greater (some even propose an infinite universe as the result of "local big bangs").
In other words, no one really knows.
Theory is the pinnacle an idea in science can achieve.I never said they lie, I said they fit the evidence into what they want it to mean. There is a difference in whether they intentionally lie or buy into it believing it is the truth. i can't speak for anyone else on here though.
In your 60 years can you say you have any evidence that absolutely categorically proves either the big bang or evolution? I doubt it otherwise they wouldnt still be called theories.
If the man truly has evidence that DNA can't evolve, then why hasn't he presented it? Someone that comes up with verifiable, reproducible evidence that overturns evolution has a Nobel Prize just waiting for them.I have met someone a few times who is a geneticist and humbly said that he was a speaker at a conference hosting the top 100 or so geneticists in the world as testimony of his achievements. He says he can prove DNA couldnt evolve. He also says I wouldnt understand as I dont have the scientific training to do so, so he wont even try to explain it. The point being there are people who think they can prove evolution is false and want to doscuss it but the mainstream scientific community just get angry and attack the people who say that, which I have seen numerous times in documentaries on the subject.
You mean things like "if you believe in evolution you're going to burn in hell"?There is no even discussing the subject with them and I have seen genuine hate from them.
Name one or two examples.However, as I have already pointed out, the earth and the universe don't just have an appearance of age, they have an appearance of history as well..
You have any they existed even or worked the same? No.Do you have any evidence that the basic physical forces of the universe worked differently in the past?
Barringer Crater in AZ, Chicxulub Crater in the Gulf, and Supernova remnants.Name one or two examples.
You're shifting the burden of proof. It is your claim that the physical forces of the universe worked differently in the past therefore it is up to you to provide evidence for that claim. Not the other way around.You have any they existed even or worked the same? No.
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?