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’s only one truth. We can’t choose what we want to believe or what we don’t want to believe and still call it truth.
If what we believe directly contradicts what is specifically stated in the scriptures then it is not sound doctrine.
How do you know it's God, Himself being quoted? I would like to hear your explanation for the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which, in a language like Hebrew which is without quotation marks, generally indicates a commentary on quoted speech.I don’t understand what you mean by this. It’s God Himself telling us how long it took to create the world, the heavens, and everything in them. How is it not proof?
Coz the book says it is?How do you know it's God, Himself being quoted? I would like to hear your explanation for the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which, in a language like Hebrew which is without quotation marks, generally indicates a commentary on quoted speech.
And naturally we must all look to you to find out what is specifically stated in scripture (and what might be stated in some other way.)There’s only one truth. We can’t choose what we want to believe or what we don’t want to believe and still call it truth. If what we believe directly contradicts what is specifically stated in the scriptures then it is not sound doctrine.
Tell me, professor:“Doctrine is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” -- Gen. James Mattis.
The issue is the motivation behind hijacking a thread.No rule says anyone has to be allowed to hijack
every thread
How do you know it's God, Himself being quoted? I would like to hear your explanation for the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which, in a language like Hebrew which is without quotation marks, generally indicates a commentary on quoted speech.
And naturally we must all look to you to find out what is specifically stated in scripture (and what might be stated in some other way.)
The issue is the motivation behind hijacking a thread.
If a thread is hijacked to promote sexism, racism etc. then it should be rightly condemned; unfortunately anti-intellectualism is one of those "isms" that seems to be acceptable, there are a few individuals on this site that appear to condone anti-intellectualism.
Anti intellectualism directed against science.
Welcome to Planet Earth.Guess I don't get why anyone wants to enable it.
If scientists studied Adam the day he was created do you think they would conclude that he was 1 day old? Probably not because fully grown men do come into existence in one day. The same situation occurs with the rocks they don’t form in one day so seeing rocks that are fully developed would lead them to believe that they were formed millions of years ago. It’s not that God made them appear to be old it’s that God fully developed them that’s why they appear to be old.
From psychology-wiki it's remarkable the description given of religion's role in anti-intellectualism could have been drawn on this thread!!Guess i dont get why anyone wants to enable it
Although a variety of religions promote intellectualism, there has also been a religious tendency in modern and classical times to harbor anti-intellectual sentiments. This occurs primarily in fundamentalist groups within religions who perceive one or more contradictions in specific religious tenets. As stated before, this rejection is not necessarily the case with all religious groups, as many religious groups pride themselves on their scholarly, as well as religious, traditions. In fact, many early and contemporary philosophers consider/considered themselves religious including Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and others.
When religious doctrines include statements about natural or human history, the provenance of sacred texts (and other matters), such claims may be investigated by external scholarship. For example a claim about the age of a religious artifact may be scientifically tested, or a theodicy may be logically examined. If such an investigation is instigated, the outcome may therefore create conflict in relation to how an adherent to the doctrine perceives it as confirming or denying their belief.
So He made the rocks and included in the manufacture of the rocks elements that He knows we use to determine age. He included in the rocks an internal clock. If they show that the rock is incredibly old then the rock actually is incredibly old. You can't speed up radioactive decay. Oh, except God is omnipotent. So He could set the clock at any time He wants. So instead of starting the clock from the moment the rocks were formed (which is what happens anway), He intentionally reset it to make the rocks appear to be millions of years old.
I heartily agree that some creationists go overboard when saying that disagreeing with them equates to "calling God a liar." But, I think the rabbit-hole goes deeper than all of this on both sides, and in this recognition, the only way to deal with someone like @AV1611VET is to cull out the deeper, more personal biographical and developmental formations he's had in his thinking over the years of his life.
The catch here is that if we can't do this--and usually we can't very easily since people don't just want to be open books--then we might as well just be arguing with a wall. We have to be able to do more than simply insist to some person that he (or she) is inconsistent in believing what he believes or in interpreting the biblical texts that he reads, and we have to be able to do more than just demonstrate some cursory level of inconsistency. And if these interlocutors don't 'allow' us to go deeper into their reasoning and psychology, then we're stuck arguing with them on the cursory level.
And we make no progress.
This is why threads like this perpetuate themselves ad naseam.
I asked earlier what you might think a reasonably intelligent disinterested person who had some biblical and scientific knowledge would think of those two options. Please let me know.
Tell me, professor:
Should we think inside, or outside, of the Box?
Ok let me just stop you right here where you created the straw man before you proceeded to knock it down. If God sped up the process of the rocks being formed so that they would be able to form then naturally the rate of radioactive decay would also be affected.
To fit infallible book - readin'?There you have it in a nutshell. He sped up creation that took millions of years into what appeared to us to be 6 days. That was one of the options.
And again, I have to ask...why? A billion years is no different to God than a second. It wasn't as if He had to wait patiently for things to happen. Why would he need to speed it up? It wasn't for our benefit. We weren't in existence until after everything else was in place? And it can't have been for His.
So why?
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?