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.
Mmmh- even Wikipedia documents wooden ships without steel that were up to about 340 feet long. I know this isn't quite as big as Noah's arc (450 feet), but at least we're within the ballpark of feasibility.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand the science you're assuming here. So Earth2 is one that didn't have a global flood.
1. Why would it have a water canopy surrounding it? The present earth is 2/3 water and would be entirely underwater if the world was flat- so wouldn't that be more than enough water to cause flooding of Biblical proportions?
2. Why would there necessarily be uniform temperatures when the fact is that the earth is a sphere, which means that the sun's rays strike different areas of the globe at a greater or lesser angle, therefore always assuring that temperatures will be variable.
3. No rain??? As long as there is a sun and oceans, there will be heating, and there will be evaporation, which will eventually bring rain.
Servant, please don't take this question wrong, but how long have you been saved?
This stuff is very basic Theology, and you're coming across like you've never heard it before.
If there were uniform temperatures and no rain for an extended period of time then we know that the earth must have reached an incredibly high entropy, and be suffering localised heat-death. Shame.
It may surprise you, AV, but you're in the minority.
It seems kind of silly for God to create natural laws just to break them....You mean like when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego burned up in the furnace that was heated seven times beyond its capacity?
I think he's referring to your fundamentalismDon't count on it.
Who's in the minority here ---or
You might thing we yanks don't teach this stuff, but then you have a big pond to cross.
It seems kind of silly for God to create natural laws just to break them....
Because it's redundant, and there's no evidence that if a God exists, he has ever done this. Why doesn't he break fundamental laws of nature *now*?Why?
Redundant?Because it's redundant,
Now THAT is a question I would love to see answered (or at least answered without adding personal interpretation to objective evidence or even the bible)Why doesn't he break fundamental laws of nature *now*?
Why doesn't he break fundamental laws of nature *now*?
Yeah, I was probably seeking another word. "Nonsensical" would work, but it's basically what I said a few posts ago. I'm multitasking and I unfortunately am doing too many things to think up the perfect word, for lack of a better term.Redundant?
How is God breaking the laws of nature redundant?
Redundancy is a repition. Redudant systems are really (at base) nothing more than back up systems. Redundant phrases are just phrases that state the same thing, redundant equipment is nothing more than back up equipment in case the primary equipment fails.
It all comes down to repetition.
God breaking the laws he created is not redundancy.
Perhaps you were seeking another word?
Now THAT is a question I would love to see answered (or at least answered without adding personal interpretation to objective evidence or even the bible)
Now THAT is a question I would love to see answered (or at least answered without adding personal interpretation to objective evidence or even the bible)
Eh, don't hold the fact that I'm 15 against me.I could explain this (and I have several times), but no offense, you're only 15 and probably wouldn't understand, as you're getting into Theology that even adults haven't had exposure to. (And please, I mean no offense by this.)
But for the record, study what Ontological Subordination is (or even Dispensation Theology).
A very short answer to your question is this:
Currently this world is subject to the Third Person of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit), and He doesn't work that way.
Do you have any objective sources (this would rule out the bible) that stated that Jesus had supernatural powers?Jesus, the Second Person of the Godhead, when He was the active Member here, demonstrated His mastery over nature many, many times.
And did you know that you're famous?Jesus, the Second Person of the Godhead, when He was the active Member here, demonstrated His mastery over nature many, many times.
Eh, don't hold the fact that I'm 15 against me.
About the Holy Spirit, why? Why is the world subject to only one of the three-part God?
And if this is true, why do people still claim that miracles happen now?
And did you know that you're famous?
You've got two of the top 100 most idiotic things that fundies have said, ever.
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx
Just ctrl-f your screen name : )
Then is it just coincidence that as it gets closer to the present, the "miracles" become more and more rational, to now, when there is science, we can say something as simple as people being cured of a sickness as a "miracle"?I'm not --- I was 15 once myself.
That's the way God operates. One Member is in the forefront, while the other Two play a subordinate role.
In the Old Testament, when the First Person of the Godhead (Jehovah) was active, the other Two made what we would call "cameo appearances."
Because they do --- only they are not nearly as high-profile as when Jesus or Jehovah walked the earth.
When the Holy Spirit works a miracle, someone gets healed.
When Jesus worked a miracle, someone rose from the dead.
When Jehovah worked a miracle, waters parted.
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?