Search results

@Sherman You have a better understanding of this than I do. Maybe you could answer?

And science affirms (or at the very least, supports it). The Bible says to always be ready to defend your beliefs. It's one thing to believe that the flood happened in the 600th year of Noah's life, it's quite another to be able to defend it, especially when someone who rejects God's word...

The only "criminal record" a murderer, rapist, homosexual, kidnapper, etc, should have should be engraved in stone, particularly one placed at the head of their gravestone.

"Smoother" might be a better word than "flatter."

Not quite. Just call a spade a spade. Murder is when someone intentionally takes the life of a person without just cause or due process. You were once a "microscopic entity," too, Skeeter. Yet you were still a human being. The difference between your mouth and a womb is that one of those...

But that's not what the question is about. Why would it be okay to murder someone because their father was a rapist? Or, to put it in the context of your analogy: Why would it be ok to stop removing one of the people from under the rubble to shoot dead the one you can't save, even if there is...

What's nice about the HPT is that you don't have to pick science over scripture, or scripture over science. You CAN pick both, because the HPT is consistent with the Bible: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ218.html Sorry, but we do not allow blogs to be linked to on our forum...

There is never a reason to stop and intentionally kill an innocent person in order to save someone else. If the innocent person dies as a result of saving someone, it's a tragedy, but the goal is not "kill one person to save another," it's "try to save both if possible, even if one dies."

Abraham's Bosom/Paradise was a "city of refuge" for the righteous dead, where they waited until the death of the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Consider listening to this Theology Thursday episode where Pastor Enyart talked about cities of refuge in the Bible: https://kgov.com/cities-of-refuge...

The crust of the earth was called heaven because God intended for what He would create ON that crust to be a paradise. Literally heaven on earth. It wasn't until Adam sinned that God changed the location of "heaven" to be "above" this plane of existence.

You might want to catch up on what has transpired since then... https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/elon-musk-rejects-twitter-board-seat/#:~:text=Just%20a%20week%20after%20he,tweeted%20the%20news%20Sunday%20evening.

See posts #270, 281, 283.

This is what happens when you cherry pick verses without understanding their context.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Tam. Supra.

Yes, one raqia, was created. However, there are two heavens mentioned. The first in Genesis 1:1, and later from the second part of day 3 onward. The second "heavens" was used as a name for the raqia that was created. Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heaven and the earth. And then...

Which is not the firmament of the heavens. Post #270 shows why this is flatly wrong. No, He tells us what He put in the "firmament of the heavens." Not the firmament. What He said was this: Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue...

By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace. - Hebrews 11:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews11:31&version=NKJV

Non-sequitur.

Saying it doesn't make it so. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

Wrong. They are in "the firmament of the heavens." Not "the firmament called heaven" Yes, we agree. BECAUSE: Space didn't need to be created, because there was nothing there to begin with! Then God put lights in the firmament of the heavens, firmly, figuratively, setting them in the sky. You...