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.
If y'all did not disagree with the premise about YEC, then you would probably feel differently about the well educated and very intelligent scientists who have been and are writing on creation.comI was being generous.
I've been to that site before. It never fails to fail.
OK, but you said that explains how people walked on top of water. Also, I am not sure Peter was quite at the state of 'infinite divine love' when he walked on water. After all, he would deny Jesus after this, and the guy doubted as well, so he started to sink like a stoneYour still looking at it upside down. "Infinite Divine LOVE" opens a person soul towards the Divine.
Ok so now we seem be be getting some gravity related details. You seem to feel that 'infinite love' in a person forms some sort of force that is opposite of gravity?Try being aware of what the effects of God's "Infinate Divine LOVE" might be like rather than a focusing on gravity. One is a spiritual pull towards the Divine, the other is a pull towards the Earth. Two different things there.
Let me paint you a picture then. Jesus confirmed Scripture was of God and also that creation happened. He verified the existence of the first man and woman created. Then we add all the books of the bible that also speak of that event and how God created it all etc. What we then have is a rock solid clear account that God stands behind. That account tells us when (more or less) that first man lived all the way down to modern history. So if anyone (no matter how big they think their britches are like science) tells us anything different, we know they are wrong. God cannot lie. Let God be true but every man be found a liar. You simply cannot say that Jesus and Scripture are wrong about creation. The people saying that are wrong. Wrong in their assumptions. Wrong is what they accept as evidence. Wrong in how they interpret it. Etc. They are not capable or authorized to call God wrong.I just do not under the idea that what God's own Creation is showing us about itSelf is making God out to be a liar.
"It" being, in your example, the area of Yellowstone. Yes He created it, and it subsequently went through a whole lot as well. What is NOT His creation is the ages someone drew on the map! That is people that left God out of the picture and came up with some whopper as a result.That makes no sense to me. It's God's Creation after all.
Drawing circles and writing little 'ages' in them shows nothing of the kind. Really.And when the Earth is showing itSelf to be of a very old age, that's God's Creation as Created by God that's showing us that Truth.
If y'all did not disagree with the premise about YEC, then you would probably feel differently about the well educated and very intelligent scientists who have been and are writing on creation.com
Jesus followed it. How would anyone deny the creation by God as we are given it in the book? Jesus said the from the beginning man and woman were a certain way, referring to Adam and Eve. Why would we pretend that Jesus was confused or wrong?
Do not call simple faith ego.
No, you are offering an an "argument from authority." I have evaluated the authority and rejected it. If you think I am wrong, pick your favorite argument from the site, bring it here in your own words and we can discuss it on its merits.If y'all did not disagree with the premise about YEC, then you would probably feel differently about the well educated and very intelligent scientists who have been and are writing on creation.com
It's quite straightforward. Sin and death entered the world when man developed the self-aware intelligence necessary to consider the consequences of his acts and contemplate his own mortality.Are you doubting the factual genealogy in Luke chapter 3? The "as was supposed" is specifically talking about Jesus being the son of Joseph. In the first century, those who knew about Jesus but didn't know He was born of a virgin believed He was the biological son of Joseph.
May I ask how you interpret Romans 5:12-19 along with Genesis chapters 1-3.
So we would say Jesus (God) is wrong because we are not God? No. Jesus said things and we know He is not a liar.Because A) we are not Jesus
In other words the way you deliberately chose to interpret what man can see of creation today as meaning there was no creation as Jesus said. Ever consider getting another interpretation?, and B) despite your claims, the Creation of God does not match up with the Word of God in any way shape or form.
Or your whole way of interpreting things is wrong. Let's put these together and see what we have then. We have, on one side of the scale, your way of interpreting (devoid of God, the bible or allowing for more than the physical) the natural world. On the other side we have God, and Scripture that Jesus verified was from God, though men were used. I might toss in some men of science that interpret things differently that the godless mainstream of science as well for good measure here.So one must be wrong (the bad worse case scenario) or that the Word of God, as written by fallible men, is not 100% perfect but the message is not diminished (the best case scenario).
Appeal to popularity now?No Christian group, except for strange fringe groups started in the Americas, require that a reading of the Bible be 100% literal and inerrant.
I see. So you have no ability to comprehend humour either. Fine. The humour was that I called it flattery to be compared with AVII wasn't calling simple faith ego. I was calling your claim that I was flattering you ego.
You need to work on your interpreting skillsYou need to pay more attention to what people write.
Do you and others who use interpretation of scientific evidence as put forth by evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists also offer an "argument from authority"?No, you are offering an an "argument from authority." I have evaluated the authority and rejected it. If you think I am wrong, pick your favorite argument from the site, bring it here in your own words and we can discuss it on its merits.
Was Adam the first man. Was Eve the first woman? I know that the answer to both questions is "YES."It's quite straightforward. Sin and death entered the world when man developed the self-aware intelligence necessary to consider the consequences of his acts and contemplate his own mortality.
So we would say Jesus (God) is wrong because we are not God? No. Jesus said things and we know He is not a liar.
In other words the way you deliberately chose to interpret what man can see of creation today as meaning there was no creation as Jesus said. Ever consider getting another interpretation?
Or your whole way of interpreting things is wrong. Let's put these together and see what we have then. We have, on one side of the scale, your way of interpreting (devoid of God, the bible or allowing for more than the physical) the natural world. On the other side we have God, and Scripture that Jesus verified was from God, though men were used. I might toss in some men of science that interpret things differently that the godless mainstream of science as well for good measure here.
Basically we have the spiritual aspects of creation that you cannot see, let alone interpret, and God Almighty's word on how He created things against your truly unsupportable little method of godless interpreting. Ha.
Appeal to popularity now?
I might point out that Jesus was not accepted by anything other than fringe folks! He was killed by mainstream 'believers'.
I see. So you have no ability to comprehend humour either. Fine. The humour was that I called it flattery to be compared with AVI
You need to work on your interpreting skills
No, we expect the interpretation to stand on its own legs and don't accept it just because some person calling himself a scientist said so.Do you and others who use interpretation of scientific evidence as put forth by evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists also offer an "argument from authority"?
For me, if I doubt the many different passages of the Bible in the OT and the NT which teach that Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans in the Garden of Eden, then I will also doubt the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the doubt the rest of Scripture.God's Creation speaks for itself. I nor anyone has any reason to accept a literal, inerrant reading of the Bible, and I am under no onus to believe in a literal creation account nor anything associated with it, Biblical or extra-Biblical like the tread topic of embedded age, to be a believer in Christ.
Therefore, it stands to reason that one should also doubt the interpretations of scientists who don't believe in the Lord God, OR believe that that God created the earth billions of years ago.No, we expect the interpretation to stand on its own legs and don't accept it just because some person calling himself a scientist said so.
Etymologically," Adam" and "Eve" are descriptors which have retrospectively become names through common usage. Would you have this difficulty of the Bible referred to them subsequently as "the first man" and "the first woman?" Would that still cause you to doubt texts written centuries later in a different language by different authors with a different literary agenda?For me, if I doubt the many different passages of the Bible in the OT and the NT which teach that Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans in the Garden of Eden, then I will also doubt the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the doubt the rest of Scripture.
No, we only doubt scientists whose interpretations seem logically at odds with the evidence. In any case, the existence of God and His authorship of our being is not at issue in this forum. Some believe and some do not, but the science is the same in either case. I might add that for me, the texts of Scripture derive their authority from their divine inspiration, as Paul tells us, not from their adherence to any arbitrarily selected literary genres.Therefore, it stands to reason that one should also doubt the interpretations of scientists who don't believe in the Lord God, OR believe that that God created the earth billions of years ago.
It doesn't matter to me what names are used for the very first man & woman. However, the Apostle Paul also, by God-breathed inspiration, refer by name the first man as Adam in Romans chapter 5.Etymologically," Adam" and "Eve" are descriptors which have retrospectively become names through common usage. Would you have this difficulty of the Bible referred to them subsequently as "the first man" and "the first woman?" Would that still cause you to doubt texts written centuries later in a different language by different authors with a different literary agenda?
The interpretation of the evidence about creation in both the geological records and also the biological evidence makes perfect sense to myself with a YEC belief. Also, the various different passages of related Scriptures in the Bible about Genesis 1-3 makes much more perfect sense to me when understood from a YEC perspective.No, we only doubt scientists whose interpretations seem logically at odds with the evidence. In any case, the existence of God and His authorship of our being is not at issue in this forum. Some believe and some do not, but the science is the same in either case.
If it doesn't matter what names are used, why not just accept the descriptors used by Paul and Luke?It doesn't matter to me what names are used for the very first man & woman. However, the Apostle Paul also, by God-breathed inspiration, refer by name the first man as Adam in Romans chapter 5.
Adam is also named in Luke chapter 3.
I was giving my personal opinion answering your question. However, I choose to use and believe by faith the NAMES that the Lord God inspired Luke and Paul to use.If it doesn't matter what names are used, why not just accept the descriptors used by Paul and Luke?
That's fine, if you think YEC brings you closer to Christ. No one else needs to find it either convincing or necessary.The interpretation of the evidence about creation in both the geological records and also the biological evidence makes perfect sense to myself with a YEC belief. Also, the various different passages of related Scriptures in the Bible about Genesis 1-3 makes much more perfect sense to me when understood from a YEC perspective.
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?