The ice age and the flood

[Keachian]

The point I made is not dependent on how good the commentary is though, is it?

Why would I have a commentary from a snake oil salesman? It's like me asking you why don't you have the latest and greatest Mormon/JW commentary on the Bible?

 

[Keachian]

Greg1234

And what is its continuous act of creation?
​

progmonk

the same as it has always been, through what scientists call natural processes.


Cupid dave:

Yes, the ever unfolding Reality, (the almighty), continuously unfolds the next frame of what is Truth, (our savior), out of all the possible next stages of Universe could have been.

This is the Father who sires the son, endless, from the beginning, they have been with one another.




John1:1
In the beginning was the Word, (i.e.; Truth: [John 14:6]), and the Word, (Truth, itself), was (synonymous) with God, (i,e.; Reality), and the word, (Truth: [John 14:6]), was (indistinguishable from Reality), God (almigty for all men).

Dave meet Greg, you're both Kabbalists, discuss.

 

[Greg1234]

Creation itself testifies to how it works, to say that we can't understand it is to say that God is not a rational being.

Hm. So what does it testify to?

 

[Keachian]

Tell that to Georg Ernst Stahl.

The more we investigate the more we find out, he obviously didn't investigate enough.

 

[Keachian]

Hm. So what does it testify to?

Ask a scientist in whatever relevant field you want to find out about. Oh and Creation Science is not a legitimate field of Science in much the same way that Astrology isn't, but then you accept both as science don't you?

 

[Greg1234]

Ask a scientist in whatever relevant field you want to find out about. Oh and Creation Science is not a legitimate field of Science in much the same way that Astrology isn't, but then you accept both as science don't you?

Why you no tell me?

 

[Keachian]

Why you no tell me?

Because I have only one relevant field of interest in this discussion that of theology.

The fields that I actively study and want to take an active role in are those of Computation and Logic, and Theology, I make no claims on expertise in these fields let alone expertise in fields that are outside of my main interests, I suggest you go ask people who are seeking to specialise in the fields that you want to know about, I defer to them in all matters concerning their field, just as I'd expect them to defer to me if I become active and a leader in the fields of study that I am pursuing.

 

[Greg1234]

Because I have only one relevant field of interest in this discussion that of theology.

The fields that I actively study and want to take an active role in are those of Computation and Logic, and Theology, I make no claims on expertise in these fields let alone expertise in fields that are outside of my main interests, I suggest you go ask people who are seeking to specialise in the fields that you want to know about, I defer to them in all matters concerning their field, just as I'd expect them to defer to me if I become active and a leader in the fields of study that I am pursuing.

 

[Keachian]

This is how the world actually works in regards to knowledge, it's not everyone for themselves, the rise of specialisations and specialists has furthered our knowledge and helps us to survive, Jack of all trades master of none is rather fitting, you see it quite a bit when biologists such as Dawkins comment on theology, or when creationists comment on biology.

 

[Phred]

Is there anything more useless than a degree in theology?

 

[Keachian]

Is there anything more useless than a degree in theology?

A degree, any degree from a Creationist "university"

 

[tobewan]

What a dizzying array of silly comments by those that make like they don't know anything, those who oppose Creation, the Bible, God, etc. in their unbelief, while those who acknowledge belief are trying to be serious.
I'm seeing I'm too old to appreciate all the 'bantering' going back and forth, so I'll leave you to your ping-pong gaming. Adios.

 

[AV1611VET]

Take the miraculous stopping of the sun by Joshua, it says that the sun stopped not that the earth stopped,

Let's see what Mr. Morris has to say again, shall we?

One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth.

And please don't whine that 'the point of the observer' is not in the Bible, or I'll scream.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would I have a commentary from a snake oil salesman? It's like me asking you why don't you have the latest and greatest Mormon/JW commentary on the Bible?

That commentary could have come from Micky Mouse for all I care.

It showed that the idea did not originate with me, like you implied it 'seemed' to have done.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation itself testifies to how it works,

Tell that to Georg Ernst Stahl.

The more we investigate the more we find out, he obviously didn't investigate enough.

So the proper view of God's creation is only for the end times, is it?

 

[Keachian]

Let's see what Mr. Morris has to say again, shall we?

And please don't whine that 'the point of the observer' is not in the Bible, or I'll scream.

And what use would the sun having stopped for Joshua if the Earth didn't stop either? Like, sure the Sun could have stopped but that wouldn't have had the described result of the miracle.

 

[Keachian]

So the proper view of God's creation is only for the end times, is it?

Isn't that what 1 Corinthians 13 says?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what use would the sun having stopped for Joshua if the Earth didn't stop either? Like, sure the Sun could have stopped but that wouldn't have had the described result of the miracle.

Do you have a legitimate critique, or are you just playing the naive card for fun?

 

[Keachian]

Do you have a legitimate critique, or are you just playing the naive card for fun?

You're not a literalist, and you have an inspired prophet by the looks of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't that what 1 Corinthians 13 says?

Your profile says:

Christianity plays a large part in who I am and I will devote considerable time here writing about what and why I believe what I believe.

Why don't you spend more time telling us what you believe, rather than critiquing a brother in Christ, eh?

I mean, it's certainly up to you what you want to do, but frankly, I don't have much patience for those who argue against good points so quickly.

You actually trip over yourself to make your next point, and I really don't think you're trying to understand.

In other words, your apologetics is sloppy.