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.
This from archaeologisti see by this response of yours that you practice what Jesus taught you about showing brotherly kindness, love to others, being a peacemaker and other sermon on the mount tidbits.
Someone may help me to solve this problem:
We see the sunlight after a few (eight?) minutes after the photon left the sun. The 8 minutes is the time perceived by us. But for the photon, it travels at the speed of light, how long does it take to reach the earth? This is the time perceived by the photon.
Would the time be nearly instant?
If so, how much time is needed for the light to reach the earth from xxx million light-years away if the time is measured "on the light"? Would that also be instant?
why should i be reported. all i said was 'depends on how you look at it' which is quite true. and non-maligning.
yes but if you read 1 john you will see that being saved doesn't allow you to change God's word, declare it allegorical or metaphorical and so on, when you want it to be.
when one becomes saved, they become the servants of God not His master thus the servant is not at liberty to change the message, or style because it does not suit his perspective and desires or to stop looking foolish.
Who gives you the authority to decide that the story is literal
You think you are so wise, that you assume that the literal reading is what benefits the spirit, but as a blind man you do not see the spiritual bread, you pray for the worldly bread instead.
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
I don't pursue secular thinking. You pursue it when you bring secular thinking into the word, by seeking science in the word, that is the one who has comprised and corrupted scripture, but don't accuse me of your brethren's black stains.
Oh, Nevermind. I know the answer now
This from archaeologist
From what I see, we TE's tend to preach and teach the full gospel of Christ and God's grace. We don't add anything to it. You creationists are the one adding the requirement of believing in a particular interpretation of Genesis
let's take this in another direction then since you cannot answer the previous post.
is adding evolution to genesis 1 deceptive?
Indeed, as others have said, nobody has ever tried to "add" evolution to Genesis 1. Just as you have interpreted statements like "the sun stopped in the sky" and "the sun rises and sets" as figurative because of prior knowledge of the universe, we have taken the clear poetic form of Genesis 1 to show that it was never meant as a purely historical account and used our knowledge of the universe to determine that since it is not factually accurate (just as the phrases cited above) the truths imparted must be non-factual in nature.let's take this in another direction then since you cannot answer the previous post.
is adding evolution to genesis 1 deceptive?
We don't.
God used evolution.
The fact that God used evolution really isn't "deceptive" in any sense of the word I know
we have taken the clear poetic form of Genesis 1 to show that it was never meant as a purely historical account and used our knowledge of the universe to determine that since it is not factually accurate
If anybody is adding to Genesis, you're adding an ultra-factual meaning that was never intended and is, in fact, false.
yes you do.
please quote the scripture, in context, where it states that He did.
since evolution does not exist, how could He use it?
how does you knowledge of the universe determine what God did, when no one was present when God did it?
did you ever stop to think that what some of secular science has discovered was the way God designed things to work AFTER He created everything and was not what governed is Work?
so you are calling all the Bible passages which speak on creation false? i have added nothing but stayed with what scripture says.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts
i would like to hear some concise, credible points as to why God creating as He did in genesis (6 24 hour days) would be considered deception if things looked like they had age.
i would like to hear some concise, credible points as to why God creating as He did in genesis (6 24 hour days) would be considered deception if things looked like they had age.
Out of six billion people, would it make any sense to judge "deception" by what some people think about how things appear? God deceiving some people would thus be required, since someone will always be deceived.
And if God is always "deceiving" someone, should we not, like the disciples, ask, "Is it I Lord?" rather than trying to prove to a certain interpretation of scripture by this baseless use of science?
There is no credible argument based upon "deception
The only argument is that some people of this age think the earth is of a certain age and that, therefore, the BIble cannot be read a certain way. And of course, I disagree greatly with that view
why only 6 billion? there were a lot more thanthat on this earth.
1. for God to be declared a deceiver, He would have to be demoted to equality with the devil and that isn't so.
2. for God to be a deceiver His word would have to say something it doesn't and try to convince people that the false words were true
3. for God to be a deceiver, one would have to understand how God did things, His intent, purpose and so on then compare that with the reality as one knew it provided that the reality as one knows it is perfect and without sin.
in examining God's word maybe those who doubt it should remind themselves...'they who are without sin cast the first stone...'
maybe then they will realize thatsecular science is fullof sin andis not following God and their eyes will be opened to God's reality.
depends. when one discounts and omits the working of the evil one then that may be the case but...
all we have are the words, 'in the beginning...' both OEC and YEC make mistakes when tryng to determine how old the earth is. science doesn't and can't know, nor can we guess because we do not know.
My argument is that this is just not a workable choice of terms in the first place. God apparently does "hide" some things from the wise and reveals it to babes.
Interesting come back
It more readily supports the need for revealed truth from God in His WOrd..
Well, the Bishop Ussher thing is much better approximation than any other. And six days is just what it says.
plus basing everything on geneologies seems to be basing conclusions on a very limited resource. i would suggest maybe 10,000 years myself due to the evidence that we do have but still that leaves out how much time in the garden did adam and eve spend before the fall and other such events.
to be safe, i would stick with 'in the beginning' when talking about age.
You don't create a car to eventually grow into a car, when you create a car, it is a car.Y.E.C.'ers claim that God created with age, in your mind would that be deceptive or practical? why?
for the record i feel that it would be practical but let's hear what others have to say.
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?