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.com
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 stone
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?
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.
"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.
Drawing circles and writing little 'ages' in them shows nothing of the kind. Really.
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.
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.
Appeal to popularity now?
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
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"?
Was Adam the first man. Was Eve the first woman? I know that the answer to both questions is "YES."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
