Recent content by JudgeRightly

Your incredulity, while understandable, doesn't falsify the part of the theory you're incredulous about. Or the theory as a whole, for that matter. One of the main premises of the HPT was to explain the effects of the flood WITHOUT appealing to ad hoc explanations or miracles not explicitly...

This is false on its face. You are using “foreknow” as though it automatically means “exhaustively and infallibly know every future free choice.” It does not. The Bible itself uses the word more broadly. Peter says: “You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand...” And Paul says...

I either missed this or wasn't paying much attention, but this appears to be the entire sermon.

Bump for you:

Devastating. I may never recover from the force of that syllable. It's SOOO compelling! But merely saying “no” does not answer the argument. Your own analogy distinguishes between knowing a man’s general tendency and knowing whether that tendency will hold under a decisive test. Fine. Loves...

Maybe He did. But that still does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice. Jesus knew His disciples. He had been teaching them. He knew their character, their faith, their doubts, and where they stood in that moment. So even granting that Jesus knew what Peter would...

Your analogy actually helps my point. The man may already know his friend likes to bluff. But does he know his friend will still bluff when the stakes are raised high enough? Or will he fold under pressure? That is the issue. Genesis 15 establishes Abraham’s faith. Genesis 22 tests whether...

Thanks for conceding the actual distinction! God knew David. God knew David’s character. God knew David’s guilt. God knew how to expose him through his own sense of justice. Fine. None of that requires exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of all future facts. That is the distinction Right...

Bingo!

Yeah, this wasn't a "crack" (detonation) kind of explosion, like C4 or TNT, where there's lots of initial energy being released all at once. It was a "pusher" (deflagration) kind, like ANFO or a bullet, where the energy release is much more gradual, and transfers energy mechanically to push objects.

It seems to think that the resulting rain would be "boiling."

Because you say so? Also, bump:

I'm not sure. The main point of quoting this passage was the "outer darkness" bit, that being darkness so complete (and everlasting) that you will never see anyone ever again. Specifically this part, but the verses immediately surrounding it as well. Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself And...

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that, as per the HPT estimates, it would have to travel vertically through a 60 mile deep crack in the crust. And as has been pointed out multiple times, directed energy DOES NOT easily change direction, and boundary conditions, rather than...

🫳 🎤