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.
"Look" old?Why would it be necessary to make a new thing look old?
-snip-
Why would it be necessary to make a new thing old?
-snip-
Like the triune Godhead?It is not possible to make a new thing old, its a contradiction in terms.
Im not sure what point you think you are making. But anyway, I dont belive in god(s).Like the triune Godhead?
The triune Godhead ... are you familiar with it?Im not sure what point you think you are making.
The triune Godhead ... are you familiar with it?
You might know it as the Trinity.
So if contradictions in terms bother you, I'd stay away from debating Christians.
Mark 10:31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
2 Corinthians 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
Do you expect logical answers to basic questions when discussing basic doctrine?I'm actually quite velversed in theology ...
Already explained and if there is a problem with new and old then simply use a different term. Like developed.Why would it be necessary to make a new thing look old?
I was addressing Adam and Eve.We're talking about the garden of Eden here.
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Can't you look at it if even in theory?Non-sentient animals wouldn't care and sentient animals would know it's a deception.
There is no deceit and i don't know why you would say that. Are you trying to make some sort of logic claim or another appeal to outrage of some sort? If you want contradictions then the assumptions all life is from nonlife is the real contradiction. And then dragging science into it all to gussie it all up is downright criminal. That being without one shred of corroborating empirical evidence to back any of it up. So i have to ask what exactly is your problem with deceit in the first place?So what possible reason would there be for the deceit?
Do you expect logical answers to basic questions when discussing basic doctrine?
If you do, then just how velversed are you?
According to True Science the global flood took place around 200 million years ago when Pangea was broken up. They refer to this as plate tectonics today. Noah's flood is just a shadow and a type of what took place at the time of the dinosaurs.True science; old earth, no global flood
You must have a good memory if you still remember wristwatches. If you had a watch that only lost or gained two or three min a month you were doing really good. If you add that up to 30 min a year then the watch would be off about 5 hours after 10 years. The atomic clock has only been off about 3 seconds over 10 years.What does your wristwatch look like after ten years?
He is pretty much a fundy. Even if he prefers his own personal twist on things.You are, from what I can gather, not velversed in theology at all.
I know quite a few pastors that are very good at explaining the meaning of everything in the Tabernacle. All of the Bible has meaning for us today.I love to study the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.
"Possibly necessary" is not an explanation.Already explained and if there is a problem with new and old then simply use a different term. Like developed.
Do you know where Adam and Eve were created? It was in a certain, well known gardenI was addressing Adam and Eve.
Who (or what) would God be deceiving if not the denizens of the Garden of Eden?What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Can't you look at it if even in theory?
So making a thing look like something it's not is not a deceit? Shall we call it duplicitous instead?There is no deceit and i don't know why you would say that.
The moment you present a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claims about the Genesis story you will be in a position to make that accusation against others. Until then you're just being hypocritical.That being without one shred of corroborating empirical evidence to back any of it up.
I consider it immoral. Do you consider deceit to be acceptable?So i have to ask what exactly is your problem with deceit in the first place?
QV please:Because you want to deceive others?
Adam Clarke's Commentary said:It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.
Call it what you will.So making a thing look like something it's not is not a deceit? Shall we call it duplicitous instead?
Are you breaking the rules here? That is OK, i will not report. I would say the Bible is empirical and has multiple accounts, so it appears you do not know what evidence is. There is also extra Bible sources attesting to the existence of Adam and Eve. It is snapshots into what they believed including Jesus so why is Jesus wrong and you right? That being, Jesus is around 2000 years closer to the events in question and modern critics 2000 yrs removed? Do you know the moderns were wrong about Jesus myth and King David myth? So why are they right about say, Moses or Adam? How many times are the moderns allowed to be wrong before they lose credibility? Even the kings of Europe traced their ancestory back to Adam. So why are they all wrong and you right?The moment you present a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claims about the Genesis story you will be in a position to make that accusation against others. Until then you're just being hypocritical.
No, and don't practice deceit if you consider it unacceptable. Although i would like to know, as an atheist under what objective basis do you consider deceit immoral? Or is it simply a subjective opinion you impose but do not follow? Do as you say and not as you do?I consider it immoral. Do you consider deceit to be acceptable?
No i don't know and i doubt you know where the first life originated on Earth so what is your point? Do you know how it happened? Can you locate the magical prebiotic soup in which life came about? Why do you ask these questions when you can't answer them yourself? Are you assuming we have to and you don't?Do you know where Adam and Eve were created? It was in a certain, well known garden
Is that a rule violation?Because you want to deceive others?
I'm not breaking any rules - I'm allowed to say you're being hypocritical if that's what you're doing. Perhaps you should read the rules before you start accusing people of breaking them. It's also apparent that you don't understand the word "empirical". Allow me to educate you: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." The bible is not empirical. Commentaries on the bible are not empirical.Are you breaking the rules here? That is OK, i will not report. I would say the Bible is empirical and has multiple accounts, so it appears you do not know what evidence is.
Are you accusing me of deceit? That would be reportable unless you can point to where I've attempted to deceive you.No, and don't practice deceit if you consider it unacceptable.
2 things here:You did not address my assertion about all life from nonlife.
It's bad manners to ignore my response and simply repeat yourself.That being without one shred of corroborating empirical evidence to back any of it up. So I have to ask what exactly is your problem with deceit in the first place?
If you make a claim you need to support it. If you can't then don't make the claim.Why do you ask these questions when you can't answer them yourself? Are you assuming we have to and you don't?
QV please:QV please:
It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.
Looking old and being physically mature are not the same thing.Why would it be necessary to make a new thing old?
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?