Search results

Did I not just respond to your post of a Bryan Nickel's video where my question referenced something within the video? Yes, I've watched a couple. They are well done and compelling. I'm not being antagonistic with my question, but you can't just show how two comets had a near miss with each...

How many of those simulations have been done? It seems like just 2 comets could be considered a coincidence, but the coincidental nature would quickly subside as more are added.

Follow the science.

Agreed, assuming there were no unknown physical phenomena active at the time, or miracles, which might look like each other, when we don't understand either. Which is kind of like not agreeing with you, I suppose.

mercury is a metal, even when in a liquid form, which it is at standard temp and pressure. It remains a metal when it is vaporized. "Metal" is a chemical designation that applies to all phases of the element in question. There is some disagreement about whether hydrogen actually meets the...

I don't remember, but it was at least loosely based on Henry Morris's work. And the "beaten" nomenclature was, I think, from the verses talking about stretching out the heavens, the idea being that if you compress metal, which includes hydrogen, it both flattens and spreads out. Yes, I couldn't...

The original canopy theory I remember hearing about was a firm structure of hydrogen "beaten" or compressed into a very thin (one molecule thick, maybe?) shield of sorts around the earth. I'm going based on a 45 year old memory of a series of sermons our pastor gave back then. It wasn't a vapor.

yes, my point exactly. then He put stars and the sun and moon in it. In the crust of the earth. Saying it not only doesn't make it so, it makes the whole theory totter on the edge of the riduculous. But take that part away, and he has some great concepts to consider.

Well, calling the earth "heaven" is a pretty serious flaw.

At least not any more!

It only need be thick enough to provide for SOME of the flood. The fountains of the great deep are still to be considered. And once rain started falling it could be replenished by the interim (during the flood) hydrologic cycle, whatever that might look like.

Eh? Which gospel wasn't available through Jews? Certainly not Paul's, as he was a Jew of Jews. Certainly not Christ's, as He was faultless in His obedience of the Law. And who of the twelve wasn't a Jew? Jesus taught Jews (including Paul) so they would take His good news to the nations...

Salvation is already assured, but not executed (looking for the right word...not sure this one is correct) until the resurrection.

as long as by "endure faithfully" you mean "continue to believe". And [Rev 2:11 KJV] 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. I agree, though I'm not sure that's what your reference is referring to...

No! Absolutely not! Salvation is assured by Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Salvation is not complete, perhaps, until one hears their name read from the book of life. But even that isn't needed for those who take part in the first resurrection. Over them the second death has no power.

And in that translation both are explicitly future tense (KJV is less obvious).

meaning they didn't need to be saved from hell? Or it is a "salvation" of lesser consequence? If from hell, then are they saved from hell as a nation? I think you're saying no, in which case we need to go back to discussing how they and we are saved from hell. maybe. He has a physical body now...

In other words, not salvation from hell? Ok. Salvation from hell? I'm unconvinced. If we're in heaven and Jews are living on earth, and Jews are ruling, with Christ here on earth, over the gentile nations, and we are Christ's body, how can we not be with Christ here on earth? But my question...

Good point. The association of the same term for different persons in the Godhead in different sections might be intended to show the unity of substance and diversity of persons.

You may be correct, but what you follow with makes me think not. We are saved from something in rhe future, as you state. We are confident in that salvation, and thus we have hope that we will be saved from that future thing. There is a present aspect of our salvation and a future aspect of our...