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.
Would you know the difference if you saw one?
Then why did you make such an egregious error here:I've never had a problem with doing so before.
Could it be that your attitude towards Genesis 1 being mythical, coupled with your attitude that certain terms are "pseudoscience," that it has clouded your thinking?Ex nihilo - from nothing God creating animals in Genesis 1 and 2.
ex materia - from existing parts - God creating Earth in Gen 1, and Eve in Gen 2.
Including imbedded fossils which look like they are part of a series prodced by evolution.
Do you have an infallible detector for when
to take the words exactly literally?
I dont think so, seeing how you dealt with
the Pi question.
I really don't think their problem is with the math.Yes I do actually it’s called common sense. Let’s say your going to measure the circumference of a cup that has a lip or brim on it with a string, do you realize how difficult it would be to measure the circumference of the brim compared to the edge right below the brim? You’d have to hold that string in about 50 different points to measure the brim, why not just measure right below the brim it’s much easier to do? That solves the math problem you presented in 1 Kings 7 perfectly and makes perfect logical sense at the same time.
You said its impossible to form a rock in a day.
I gave an example to show you were mistaken.
Its no Christian sin to graciously accept that you
were mistaken.
Rocks dont tend to form at the surface either, though
volcanic ash may form " welded tuff", and of course,
there's basalt.
Theres nothing to gain from snarking at me with
tries at knowing more geology. You've your skill
set at work or elswhere: I've mine.
No put down at all was intended when i said geology
isnt yours.
Nor in suggesting you might learn some.
It is way interesting! A start might be a roadside geology
book for your state.
It would identify specific roadcuts where you can stop,
read about and look at what is there.
Theres certainly nothing ungodly in understanding
and appreciating the world around you.
So 99.9 percent of all pre flood species became extinct in the flood?No they are the result of the flood
Probably just as well, since you don't even know that the loaves and fishes were created ex materia. They might have been ordinary loaves and fishes brought from elsewhere in some way. Exactly where and how the food originated is not material to the story.Fair enough.
I'll stick to the terms creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia then.
It is a possible answer, but far from perfect, for lo:Yes I do actually it’s called common sense. Let’s say your going to measure the circumference of a cup that has a lip or brim on it with a string, do you realize how difficult it would be to measure the circumference of the brim compared to the edge right below the brim? You’d have to hold that string in about 50 different points to measure the brim, why not just measure right below the brim it’s much easier to do? That solves the math problem you presented in 1 Kings 7 perfectly and makes perfect logical sense at the same time.
What's this then?Probably just as well, since you don't even know that the loaves and fishes were created ex materia. They might have been ordinary loaves and fishes brought from elsewhere in some way. Exactly where and how the food originated is not material to the story.
Yes, the numbers are literally true?So, the q. Is still- are you going to take the numbers as literally true?
But still, it is nothing but a rationalization and not something found in the text. It neglects the most obvious explanation--that the author(s) simply didn't care about presenting an exact ratio of the circumference of a perfect circle to its diameter expressed in a unit of measure which was always only approximate anyway. You are reading into the text a precision--and a need for precision--which simply isn't there and is not material to the meaning of the narrative.Yes I do actually it’s called common sense. Let’s say your going to measure the circumference of a cup that has a lip or brim on it with a string, do you realize how difficult it would be to measure the circumference of the brim compared to the edge right below the brim? You’d have to hold that string in about 50 different points to measure the brim, why not just measure right below the brim it’s much easier to do? That solves the math problem you presented in 1 Kings 7 perfectly and makes perfect logical sense at the same time.
Solid aurum.But still, it is nothing but a rationalization and not something found in the text. It neglects the most obvious explanation--that the author(s) simply didn't care about presenting an exact ratio of the circumference of a perfect circle to its diameter expressed in a unit of measure which was always only approximate anyway. You are reading into the text a precision--and a need for precision--which simply isn't there and is not material to the meaning of the narrative.
Right. The bread was provided--that's the point. Trying to rationalize exactly how the bread was provided misses the point altogether.What's this then?
Matthew 16:7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
No it doesn't.Right. The bread was provided--that's the point. Trying to rationalize exactly how the bread was provided misses the point altogether.
I really don't care, and I don't think that is the point of Matt 16:7No it doesn't.
Not if the point is whether the bread was created ex nihilo or ex materia.
According to Valentine, it was created ex nihilo.
According to me, it was created ex materia.
Break the tie.
It shows.I really don't care,
Of course its not the point of the account.But still, it is nothing but a rationalization and not something found in the text. It neglects the most obvious explanation--that the author(s) simply didn't care about presenting an exact ratio of the circumference of a perfect circle to its diameter expressed in a unit of measure which was always only approximate anyway. You are reading into the text a precision--and a need for precision--which simply isn't there and is not material to the meaning of the narrative.
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?