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 never claim it was ideal (as noted about resources) but only possible in numbers as you have shown yourself.means men between 15-64 = 458 million
to get 200 million man army would mean to draft 1 out of every 2 men in China between 15 and 64, hardly a possibility.
let alone have plenty to spare.
now why can't you work out rough statistics like this before making something up.
In other words, does literalism apply at both ends of the Bible?
Belief set A
- Many events of the 20th and 21st centuries suggest that we are now living in the unique period of the end times
- Israel will play a special part in world events at the end of time
- I believe that there will be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth
- I believe that Christians will be removed from earth prior to the great tribulation
- A literal antichrist will arise and lead the entire world astray near the end of time
- Current events in the middle east are very significant for biblical history
- Revelation is a book that speaks of mainly literal events that are yet to happen (or are currently happening)
I never claim it was ideal (as noted about resources) but only possible in numbers as you have shown yourself.
Evolutionists believe in huge claims is possible like "the little eyeball that could" story without real numbers or hard evidence to back it up.
Yeah ,right.Except scientists have many different examples of eye evolution by comparing extant creatures and also use the fossil record to back their claims . They also publish their work and evidence in peer reviewed papers. So, no evolutionists don't make up claims like you just did, they use the scientific method to support their claims.
OKAgreed due to how Revelation is divide : Rev. 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen (chapter 1),
Umm, no. When John wrote, "the things which are" were the seven churches which were in existence in Asia Minor. Interpreting the seven churches as seven eras of the church age puts the chapters among the "things which shall be hereafter" not "the things which are".and the things which are (church age chapter 3 & 4) ,
As Young's literal Version puts it: "the things that are about to come after these things" 'These things' are God's dealing with the seven churches John wrote to. The events from chapter 4 on are what was about to happen after that.and things which shall be hereafter (after the church age chaper 4 and on).
Yeah ,right.
Replace " the science method" with " their imagination".
bingoUmm, no. When John wrote, "the things which are" were the seven churches which were in existence in Asia Minor.
Yet Rev. doesn't actually state there are seven eras yet chapters 3 and 4 dealt with the seven churches (Gentiles churches at that) which most chruches will fall under.Interpreting the seven churches as seven eras of the church age puts the chapters among the "things which shall be hereafter" not "the things which are".
Which so happens not to mention the church (which were gentiles churches was address in chap. 3 and 4) but once again turn to the nation Isreal and the Jewish people.The events from chapter 4 on are what was about to happen after that.
looking at the physical world with physical eyes appears to have a restraint of the imagination that looking at the Bible with spiritual eyes does not.
Yet it's the evolutionist who came up the with " The little eyeball that could" story.
which could mean scientists are too dogmatic with their imagination.the extraordinary uniformity of the scientific community across cultures, languages, religions etc can be contrasted with the extraordinary division in the church in spite of clear Biblical commands to be one body, in spite of very uniform culture, language, socio-economic class, race etc etc. the church divides over very similiar ideas.
science propose none. science is extremely overrated when it comes to origins. Scientists are trying to use science to prove something that's very likely to be way beyond science.how many different ways does science propose the formation of the human eye?
Yet Rev. doesn't actually state there are seven eras yet chapters 3 and 4 dealt with the seven churches (Gentiles churches at that) which most chruches will fall under.
and a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages Rev 7:9Which so happens not to mention the church (which were gentiles churches was address in chap. 3 and 4) but once again turn to the nation Isreal and the Jewish people.
Like what, Smidlee?Scientists are trying to use science to prove something that's very likely to be way beyond science.
from: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/DIO_DRO/DOGMA_Gr_Sbypa_from_b6aeiv_to_s.htmlDOGMA (Gr. Sbypa, from b6aeiv, to seem; literally " that which seems, sc.
good or true or useful " to any one) , a
term which has passed through many senses both
general and technical, and is now chiefly used in
theology. In
Greek constitutional
history the decision of—" that which seemed good to "—an
assembly was called a bl ypa (i.e.
decree), and throughout its history the word has generally implied a decision, or
body of decisions or opinions, officially adopted and regarded by those who make it as possessing authority. As a technical term in theology,
The Apostles wasn't told how long the church age was so of course "thing that are" was written to the 1st century churches. Yet the doesn't leave out these chapters was dealing with the church as a whole especially since seven represent the number of completeness.[/color]
Just as individual Christian find they are Marys or Marthas Peters or Thomases, but the account of the gospels are about believers in the 1st century AD no matter how well we can apply them. in the same way, the letters in Revelation are addressed to 1st century churches in Asia Minor dealing with evens and people in those churches at that time. The rest of Revelation is what happens after that. Or at least that is what the book says.
and I'll continue the verse ".....stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands." Of course there will be gentiles saved in the trib (by the 144,000 Jewish preachers) but it still doesn't mention the church. The are hints of the apostate church being around during the trib.and a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages Rev 7:9
I agree with what Michael Crichton stated :it is curious that you would label scientific consensus --- dogma which is a word currently most commonly used to describe the church's doctrine.
It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.
But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.
...
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
...
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
...
I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.
That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended.
...
As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?
And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.
When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?
...
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.
The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.
...
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.
Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.
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?