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.
There are 14,800 differences between the Codex Sinaiticus and the KJV. But I'm sure you have an explanation for that too.Because this "supernatural power" is in charge of His own words. Not academia's.
God doesn't firewall any of those Alexandrian translations.
Instead, He preserves His Antiochian ones.
Well, that would make 14,800 differences between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian texts, wouldn't it?There are 14,800 differences between the Codex Sinaiticus and the KJV. But I'm sure you have an explanation for that too.
YOU claim to go by the 1611 KJV Bible, do you not?Well, that would make 14,800 differences between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian texts, wouldn't it?
(You do know that Egypt is a type of the world, don't you?)
Yupper -- the last of the official Antiochian texts.YOU claim to go by the 1611 KJV Bible, do you not?
... and the racism which Darwin expressed in the Descent of Man should be disgusting to anyone on this forum.
I'm guessing you are using the colloquial definition of "survival of the fittest", not the real one...This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.
Science SHOULD have a monopoly on human scientific knowledge. No?I don't think we're on the same wave length. You seem to assume that science should have a monopoly on all human knowledge.
I'm not sure what that means. only via the perspective of science is my point. science has no capacity to "see" God. God is by definition immeasurable so science can't measure God ergo science cannot see God.Only on paper.
Science does not try to disprove God. Science can be used to show that certain versions of God do not exist. And please don't fool yourself into thinking that there is only one Christian "God". Different Christians can have quite different versions of God.I'm not sure what that means. only via the perspective of science is my point. science has no capacity to "see" God. God is by definition immeasurable so science can't measure God ergo science cannot see God.
if there are versions of deities that are based in this space-time continuum (STC), like for example the FSM, then it is possible for science to disprove them. the concept of competing gods is not sustainable and "God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.Science does not try to disprove God. Science can be used to show that certain versions of God do not exist. And please don't fool yourself into thinking that there is only one Christian "God". Different Christians can have quite different versions of God.
Maybe I will misinterpret your minimum qualification for God here, but when you say all powerful you aren’t including a personal agent that can make changes to its foundational power right? For example if I were to call the sun all powerful (as far as life on Earth is concerned) I would just be claiming that if the sun were to vanish then all life on Earth would crumble, but I’m not claiming that the sun could make a decision to produce a brutal heatwave one summer to punish humans for an evil & violent year. Is that how you’re defining God here, without adding the quality of being an intervening personal agent?if there are versions of deities that are based in this space-time continuum (STC), like for example the FSM, then it is possible for science to disprove them. the concept of competing gods is not sustainable and "God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.
"God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.
Christianity defines God with 3 characteristics: omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient or all-powerful, everywhere and all-knowing. These characteristics are immutable so however, they were before creation they are the same what after creation. each in a sense describes each other. ie. one cannot be omnipotent without being omnipresent and omniscient too.Maybe I will misinterpret your minimum qualification for God here, but when you say all powerful you aren’t including a personal agent that can make changes to its foundational power right? For example if I were to call the sun all powerful (as far as life on Earth is concerned) I would just be claiming that if the sun were to vanish then all life on Earth would crumble, but I’m not claiming that the sun could make a decision to produce a brutal heatwave one summer to punish humans for an evil & violent year. Is that how you’re defining God here, without adding the quality of being an intervening personal agent?
You said a common ancestor can be reconciled through science.I'm not sure what that means.
We must have about ten different moons then.And please don't fool yourself into thinking that there is only one Christian "God". Different Christians can have quite different versions of God.
Science has its own rules so if you want to judge something through science you need to play by it's rules.You said a common ancestor can be reconciled through science.
Only on paper.
If you disagree, then consider this:
What part have computers played in keeping Darwin's tree growing?
Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.
If we are speaking of the source of all things then looking to that source should benefit it, even if it is beyond its capacity. But it's more like the flatland analogy science cannot comprehend what's beyond it.So, nothing there with which science needs to concern itself.
Science can take a hike if its rules try to trump God's rules.Science has its own rules so if you want to judge something through science you need to play by it's rules.
Science can take a hike if its rules try to trump God's rules.
According to science, miracles are impossibilities because they violate the laws of nature.
If we are speaking of the source of all things then looking to that source should benefit it, even if it is beyond its capacity. But it's more like the flatland analogy science cannot comprehend what's beyond it.
Yes, that is how it works.Thats not how it works.
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?