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.
AV1611VET. I guess AV1 is a better short name
No, we just call him AV for short. He's fine with that.
AV is what is used.
So if we look at a rock 2 days old that He created and say that He created it billions of years ago how is that having God in it?Nobody has left Him out of it.
Or, the intelligence to know He is not a liar and created just as He said.We can agree that He made everything. And that includes the intelligence to work out how old things are.
Not if the tree was here on creation day 4. The rings would not help tell us the age.If you have a tree then we can tell how old it is by counting the growth rings
In Eden that was not true. And Eden was only something like 6000 years ago. We know it just didn't appear a couple of days ago.
Someone looking the the example rock in the OP who said that they could date the rock billions of years old would be talking foolishnessSimilarly, we can date rocks. So we know when God created it.
What trees? Trees that are now 30 years old? No. Trees they might claim are more than 6000 years old? Yes One size does not fit all in creation issues.Do you doubt the age of trees?
Not at all. I dismiss so called ages by the naturalonlydunnit crowd. The person declaring the newly created rock billions of years old would not be dealing in realityOf course not. But you doubt the age of rocks.
Yes.So you accept the science when it doesn't contradict Genesis, but you do when it does.
They are saying He lied in Scripture and that the apostles, prophets and Jesus did not know what they are talking aboutThat's the only difference. Nobody is arguing about whether God exists or not.
Yes Jesus said so. Scripture is evidence. The natural only tea reader fantasy folks cannot deal in evidence for creation! Tell us how you get a sample of the universe if it took, say, three hours to create?The argument is that you are interpreting Genesis literally. And the evidence doesn't support that view.
What will change your mind from using only the physical to tell us what God the Spirit did? You not only get last week wrong, but billions of imaginary years!Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. And evidence that you are wrong will just be discounted by saying 'God made it that way'. It's called Last Thursdayism: Last Thursdayism.
No. You can't. We know Jesus was not here last week. Look at a calendar and any school child could see that the first Christmas or even last Christmas was not last weekUsing your exact same argument I can say that everything was created by God last Thursday.
Hi. Are you alive , back after a time away, or is someone else using your username ?
If it's you , good to see you back....
I new you were a Vietnam Vet.I combine AV1611 with Vet, since I'm a Vietnam Era Vet.
Thanks. I didn't know that.Phil is my real name.
If the rock is two days old, then He made it two days ago. If the rock is billions of years old then He made it billions of years ago. You can interpret the bible as you see fit. People who interpret it in the same way that you do will think that you are right. Those that don't know that you are wrong.So if we look at a rock 2 days old that He created and say that He created it billions of years ago how is that having God in it?
Says who? Are angels created? Does man have a spirit? Can the world not be affected as needed by God anytime?God's not physical, but this Creation is.
OK. So you don't deny that only the natural is used by science to tell us where we came from as some non bible believing Christians here do.Yes, I use only what God's own Creation, as Created by God is showing us.
I'm not a Christian.
If you are not a Christian, then of course who you pray to in not the God of the bible. There is no deception except inside the minds and schemes of natural only dunnit it modern science devotees.If your into having God as a deceiver?...that's not the God whom I pray to.
To a point. Solomon studied creation and birds and bugs, and it all pointed to the wisdom of God. To leave God out of creation is not studying the world it is working with half a deck of cardsSince you seem to have such a low opinion of science, I'll ask something I asked on the other thread to another poster: is God's creation, the Earth, worth studying then?
OKAV is what is used.
Good, it seems like one of your friends was offended at getting it wrongI'll answer to anything!
The rock in question is itself showing that it is billions of years old.So if we look at a rock 2 days old that He created and say that He created it billions of years ago how is that having God in it?
Or, your making God out to be a deceiver by creating something (actually all of the Earth) that looks old but isn't.Or, the intelligence to know He is not a liar and created just as He said.
The tree rings show actual age. Trees can not deceive.Not if the tree was here on creation day 4. The rings would not help tell us the age.
In Eden that was not true. And Eden was only something like 6000 years ago
Not at all. God's own Creation, as Created by God is showing us a multi-billion time frame.Someone looking the the example rock in the OP who said that they could date the rock billions of years old would be talking foolishness
Only if deception in involved.What trees? Trees that are now 30 years old? No. Trees they might claim are more than 6000 years old? Yes One size does not fit all in creation issues.
That IS reality!Not at all. I dismiss so called ages by the naturalonlydunnit crowd. The person declaring the newly created rock billions of years old would not be dealing in reality
The Biblical Creation story is from an ancient middle-eastern tribe, that's what they believed at the time. Today we know better.They are saying He lied in Scripture and that the apostles, prophets and Jesus did not know what they are talking about
Bring that the Universe came into being some 14 Billion years ago, the physical evidence paints a very different picture than your scripture.Yes Jesus said so. Scripture is evidence. The natural only tea reader fantasy folks cannot deal in evidence for creation! Tell us how you get a sample of the universe if it took, say, three hours to create?
Nothing. God's Creation, as Created by God can not lie.What will change your mind from using only the physical to tell us what God the Spirit did? You not only get last week wrong, but billions of imaginary years!
Yes, as would be the case in the OPIf the rock is two days old, then He made it two days ago.
We know when it was made that is not an issue. The false dating using the naturalonlydunnit philosophy is the issueIf the rock is billions of years old then He made it billions of years ago.
And creation is part of that. You can't get a hammer and bang that off of Scripture.You can interpret the bible as you see fit.
And the ones thinking I am wrong have to admit they do not know and that their conclusion was based on an unsupportable belief that the natureonly is sufficient to tell us about creationPeople who interpret it in the same way that you do will think that you are right. Those that don't know that you are wrong.
Angels are spiritual.Says who? Are angels created? Does man have a spirit? Can the world not be affected as needed by God anytime?
That would be true.If you are not a Christian, then of course who you pray to in not the God of the bible.
There is a deception of age and history to those who experience God's Creation as Created by God devotees.There is no deception except inside the minds and schemes of natural only dunnit it modern science devotees.
I like a good discussion. It's why I joined the forum. But you repeating exactly the same thing post after post is the very opposite of a discussion. So I'll leave you to it. There's a couple of people around who will agree with you so you'll have someone to talk to.Yes, as would be the case in the OP
We know when it was made that is not an issue. The false dating using the naturalonlydunnit philosophy is the issue
And creation is part of that. You can't get a hammer and bang that off of Scripture.
And the ones thinking I am wrong have to admit they do not know and that their conclusion was based on an unsupportable belief that the natureonly is sufficient to tell us about creation
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?