Results 541 - 560 of 629
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
541 | Must Christians agree? | Rom 15:5 | Lionstrong | 6692 | ||
Well!.....Claiming righteous indignation, are we? That's commendable!.............We disagree in this trivial matter, which one more thing we need to come to one mind about. | ||||||
542 | Must Christians agree? | Rom 15:5 | Lionstrong | 6683 | ||
Oou! Aren't we touchy! But I think you make my point. | ||||||
543 | The burden of proof is on you. | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6682 | ||
"Gravity did not become stronger or weaker"........................................ The point here seems to be missed. Yes, the force we call gravity did not change............................................................................................ The law of gravity is not a moral law, nor is it a law in the sense of something that can be violated. If God sends His angels to bear you up lest you strike your foot aginst the stone, no law is broken. A scientific law is merely a description of something in creation (if you're a Christian) or nature (if one is an atheist). A description can be true or false, accurate or inaccurate, way off, close or right on. The point is not that some element in creation has changed, in this case, that object of weight fall to earth, but that the scientific law describing that element of creation has changed. In other words, the "law" that was thought to be true must now be modified (changed) to account for new developments or discoveries. ...................................................................................................................Thus the law of gravity has changed. It is false, because truth is immutable and eternal. |
||||||
544 | Darkness: an Effect or Substance? | Gen 1:4 | Lionstrong | 6669 | ||
I see, and agree. | ||||||
545 | Creation of Sun, Moon, Stars by Fiat | Gen 1:16 | Lionstrong | 6651 | ||
An assumption I had is challenged by this passage (v. 14-16). I had assumed that the light God created on the first day, he put or formed into the sun, moon and stars on the forth day, like He formed the body of Adam from the dust from the ground. He took something to make something else. But that's not what the text says. Just as the light on the first day was an instantaneous creation from nothing by the word of His mouth, so, it seems, was the creation of sun, moon and stars. "Then God said... and it was so."(v. 14,15) |
||||||
546 | What did light look like, I wonder. | Gen 1:4 | Lionstrong | 6647 | ||
Before God put the light into light sources, I wonder how it looked. (I'm assuming He put light into light sources. The narrative of chapter one does not say.) What would you have seen if you were standing - correction, there was no land at this point, swimming - on the earth? If you looked right, would you have seen a formless brightness that faded into a totally black empty space as you looked left? Was the light something physical? Was it contained in some enomously massive white-hot cloud of nuclear fusic (sp?) reaction? That's what people believe the sun is. Whatever it was, it must have been fantastic to see! After all, "God saw that the light was good!" | ||||||
547 | Darkness: an Effect or Substance? | Gen 1:4 | Lionstrong | 6644 | ||
Satisfaction is a wonderful thing! I notice the insertion of "thereby." While apparently fitting for light and darkness, it does not fit for well-being and calamity. For creating calmity God took active steps, witness, the plagues of Egypt. "Gymnastics" Exercise is a wonderful thing too:-) |
||||||
548 | Where's the line? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Lionstrong | 6634 | ||
Actually my posting of 5/30 was put under Orthodoxy's posting, who stated that he was interested in pursuing the subject of free will. I was surprised when you responded instead. It was ok by me if you wanted to talk about it. But if not, I would not be offended if you chose not to pursue this. |
||||||
549 | Is this definition unbiblical? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6608 | ||
The source of the definition:...................................................................... As was said earlier, in our culture truth is relative. One hears the saying, "what's true for you may not be true for me." The bible doesn't look at truth that way. One of the verses shared, John 14:6, is a good verse on how Scripture uses the tern. If Jesus is the truth, then truth can not be relative, because Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever..................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................Actually the question asking whether my definition was unbiblical was not meant to be rhetorical. I was asking that if anyone thought the Scripture used the term truth contrary to this definition, let me know. |
||||||
550 | Where's the line? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Lionstrong | 6598 | ||
To repeat, If we are to discuss human free will, we must understand each other on what we mean by the term "free will," do you agree?.............If you do agree and wish to discuss free will, tell me how you are using the term, that is, give me your definition of free will so I can know what you mean when you use the term, JVHO212. | ||||||
551 | Extra! Extra! | Gen 2:1 | Lionstrong | 6597 | ||
No real point. It's just a meditation. | ||||||
552 | Defining Truth | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6595 | ||
Go to any encyclopadia published within the last ten years, and you'll find this information. No special reference is needed. Try looking under the heading of the history of physics. | ||||||
553 | Where's the line? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Lionstrong | 6591 | ||
If we are discuss human free will, we must understand each other on what free will means, do you agree? | ||||||
554 | Extra! Extra! | Gen 2:1 | Lionstrong | 6588 | ||
Editorial Questions: WHAT was created? A. The heavens and the earth? Follow-up question: In light of the earth's relative microscopic size in the vastness of the universe why is the earth even mentioned? A. Earth was the Creator's focus of attention. In terms of the importance He places on the earth, the rest of the universe was created for the earth. If this were a play, earth would be center stage. One more follow-up question: If the universe is just a, so to speak, backdrop for the earth, would that not imply that there's no life on other worlds? A. The centrality of the earth is a strong argument for no life on other worlds, but it does not necessarily imply such. Other considerations have to come into play to validly support that position. What, if any, is the significance of the order of creation? A. The order of creation is partly based on necessity, and partly on the value or importance of what was created. Man was the most important thing created and therefore was created last as the crown of God's creation, but space and earth were necessarily created first to give this corporeal being a place to live. What was here before the begining? A. Space and time began with the creation. So, strickly speaking there was no "before" in the sense of sequence of moments, but "before" the creation there was no space or time; there was only the Triune God. Follow-up question: If there was no space or time, where did God create the heavens and the earth? A. in Him we live and move and exist, |
||||||
555 | Quest for Truth | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6572 | ||
"John 14:6 teaches that Jesus is the truth. It does not teach that truth is Jesus." Jesus is the truth is not a mathematical equation, "Jesus equals the truth." It is a statement. Jesus is the subject; truth is the predicate nominative. Stylistically, one could put the predicate first, and it would not change the meaning of the statement. But if one changed the parts of speach of the terms, the statement would no longer have the same meaning. If the subject is "child" and the predicate is "noisy," the meaning would not be the same if we reversed the parts of speech. The same is true with John 14:6. Truth (subject) is Jesus (predicate). This is not what the verse is saying. |
||||||
556 | Defining Truth | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6544 | ||
The law of gravity changed in 1905 when Einstein developed his theory of special relativity. | ||||||
557 | Earth before it was finished | Gen 1:2 | Lionstrong | 6520 | ||
The treatment of Gen 1:2 is an example of how sometimes we religious people get stupid. In any other book we would see a passage like Gen. 1:1 for what it is, an introductory statement to the six day creation account. Gen. 1:2 and following is the development of that theme. But with this book we forget what we learned in high school literature, and every other word becomes a "symbol" for something else. The Bible is no longer the Holy Book, it's a Holy Quarry from which anyone may dig out all kinds of fanciful ideas, as long as they call them spiritual, like the fanciful practice of numerology. Gen. 1:2 describes the earth before God finished His work five days later. The earth did not become void after it was created; that was the way God created it on the first day of creation. When God finished the work of creation, it was suitable for habitation (Isa. 45:18), but not before, that is, on the first day. Peter, of course, is not separationg Gen. 1:1 from Gen. 1:2. A fanciful notion is read into and distorts his otherwise straightforward statements about the "old days" between creation and the Flood (2 Peter 3:4-5). The earth being formed out of water is simply the third day of creation (Gen 1:9). The "time" in v. 6 is that "long ago" period starting with, and not before, the six day creation and going on to the Flood. There WAS no before! "In the beginning" (Gen 1 and John 1) is the beginning of the only creation of heaven and earth recorded in Gen. 1. It is not the beginning of some other creation for which there is no record; that is, if one is reading the Word as a real book. We are still awaiting the creation of a new heaven and earth (2 Peter 3:13, Rev. 21:1). Of this bizarre treatment of the words of Scripture one will find no example among the NT writers. One may find Paul making analogous parallels with historical events in the OT, or giving fresh application to some sayings, but one doen not see Paul or other NT writers or Christ play symbol games with the words of Scripture. |
||||||
558 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Lionstrong | 6516 | ||
Joe does a much better job of explaining and defending limited atonement than I do, Ray. | ||||||
559 | Jesus is the truth | John 14:6 | Lionstrong | 6503 | ||
This verse is no more a definition of the word "truth" than is 1 John 4:8 a definition of love. John 14:6 teaches that Jesus is the truth. It does not teach that the truth is Jesus. |
||||||
560 | Which is truth, Science or God's Word? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6440 | ||
Once one defines what truth is, and depending on how one defines truth, science may be found to be false. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Next > Last [32] >> |