Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Imagine how meaningful it would've been if God had actually said any of that!
Upvote
0
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.
Well then -- here is what God has to say on that point:
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
That doesn't sound to me like He thinks they don't carry any weight.
I don't have to imagine it, I've got several results of that promise on my bookshelf.Imagine how meaningful it would've been if God had actually said any of that!
I'm sure you do. Doesn't mean any of them are true.I don't have to imagine it, I've got several results of that promise on my bookshelf.
Oh you're right. The Bible is beautiful.And if you're a literature professor, like you say you are -- (and I believe you) -- I'm sure you've taught Its beauty in the literary genre as well.
I don't have to imagine it, I've got several results of that promise on my bookshelf.
And if you're a literature professor, like you say you are -- (and I believe you) -- I'm sure you've taught Its beauty in the literary genre as well.
Unless they are under the umbrella of God's providence, no.Ah, but only one is the real McCoy, right? the ones that don't bear the "KJV 1611" stamp aren't pure, now are they?
Where I'm going, beauty and purity are nearly synonymous.Are we talking beauty, or purity? Kindly keep the goalposts in one spot.
"Good" is subjective. IMO, Professor Tolkien's creation myth is much better than Genesis. *shrug*
I don't mean the typical YEC approach of "The Bible said it, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible is right" (even though the use of the Bible as a defense of something as dishonest as YEC is near blasphemy). Nor do I mean taking something about the ToE that we don't fully understand yet and God of the Gaps-ing it. And not something that just shows you have a misconception of evolution (i.e. giving examples of crabs or whatever that haven't evolved for millions of years).
I'm curious and would like to hear evidence for YEc.
In this case, the good is absolute.
Try, what would you create first if you are in charge of doing it from the beginning? If you don't create "the heavens and the earth", how would you do in different?
Where I'm going, beauty and purity are nearly synonymous.
Unless they are under the umbrella of God's providence, no.
If you could just get around that mental block called 'evolution' long enough to see that everything isn't a mutant-copy of its predecessor, you just might be able to see that.
Where I'm going, beauty and purity are nearly synonymous.
You would if you didn't know what you were doing, which is true of the people who wrote it.Well i wouldn't create light on the first day and the source on the fourth, that is for sure.
Oak coffin -- 90
(Assuming I live long enough to die.)
Do you have any theological reason to believe that the KJV1611 is under "the umbrella of God's providence" (at least anymore so than any other version), or is it juts a matter of convenience that you believe so?Unless they are under the umbrella of God's providence, no.
If you could just get around that mental block called 'evolution' long enough to see that everything isn't a mutant-copy of its predecessor, you just might be able to see that.
Do you have any theological reason to believe that the KJV1611 is under "the umbrella of God's providence" (at least anymore so than any other version), or is it juts a matter of convenience that you believe so?
In a thread that asks, "is there ANY solid creation evidence?" you want me to once again provide evidence that "chance" and "necessity" create man.
For the evidence to not have been against Darwinian evolution. These were already given.Man... like all other creatures on the earth evolved to become what he is. Randomness played a part, yes. I have no idea what you mean by "necessity" so I can't offer you any evidence there at all.
What do you consider "evidence"?
Mike, let me let you in on a little secret here.
In the beginning, God had 40+ put His eternal words down on "paper".
These were called the 'autographs' -- written in the handwriting of the men who wrote them.
Over time, these writings dried up and blew away due to age -- but before they did, they were meticulously recopied into a 2nd-generation and 3rd and 4th sets of writings called 'originals'.
Now -- in the meantime -- Satan is also busy plagiarizing God's words, and his set of secretaries also copy the autographs down into their own set of books.
Over time, those who were well-versed in the True Writings wouldn't touch the plagiarized writings, and so they were never really put into circulation.
These writings are what scholars today are finding and calling 'the originals'.
They are available to be found, because they were never used by true believers.
No... Behe tried to show irreducibly complex structures and failed. So far there aren't any. And you have yet to show a "theory of intelligent design" or any evidence for such a thing. You haven't shown us what this "intelligent design" states, what it calls for or what it predicts. Basically, you just keep using those two words together as if it means something.Intelligent design shows that there are irreducibly complex structures.
And at every turn creationists have been thwarted in their attempts to show design in living systems. The Kitzmiller trial was particularly damaging.This is an outgrowth from the integrated complexity of living systems and a characteristic of design reaffirming the implementation of intelligence.
I know you like to say "Darwinism" but there isn't such a thing. Darwin wrote a couple of books that set us on this trail but much of his work has been eclipsed already. There isn't an 'ism' involved in accepting evolution.Secondarily, it is also evidence against Darwinism.
What tests? I'm going to insist that you show us these or stop lying about their existence.Tests show that chance and necessity is inadequate when it comes to the assembly of living systems.
But we have found no evidence of any need for an intelligence. No evidence of any intelligence. No evidence of anything but natural processes at work. So what requirement of an intelligence are you referring to? Your desperate desire to find one? That's the only thing I can think of.The relegation of purely naturalistic processes as the factors responsible for the creation of living systems is a testament to the requirement of an intelligent force in the assembly of living systems providing evidence for intelligent design.
You make these things up and profer them as if they are real. There is no need of an independent outside force and no evidence of one having acted at any point in the history of this planet. Unless you'd like to provide that evidence?It also happens to be evidence against Darwinism. The limitations experienced in the adaptation of living systems shows that a mere continuance from a single organism is not enough and an independent outside force is required to build living systems.
It would, if it existed.This also fits the prediction of intelligence and design. But it just so happens be evidence against Darwinism.
When one line of translations stands out head-and-shoulders above the others as far as wording is concerned, that's a good tip that the Arab phone didn't ring much.Do you have any theological reason to believe that the KJV1611 is under "the umbrella of God's providence" (at least anymore so than any other version), or is it juts a matter of convenience that you believe so?
Without looking it up, I believe it was either the AV1568 Bishop's or the AV1534 Tyndale.So what did the translators use in the time of King James?
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?