SavedOnebyGrace

Source: Local Woman Pickier over Starbucks Order than Theology So how prevalent is this in the Church today? If this is occurring in "flyover country", what is happening in the rest of the Christian world?

Source: How many galaxies in the universe? In the observable universe, it is estimated that there are 2 trillion galaxies. And our galaxy, the Milky Way, is but one. And our universe is still expanding at an accelerated rate. For those that don't understand what acceleration is; Source: Acceleration One method science fiction writers to provide for artificial gravity in space vehicles is constant acceleration. So if we had an engine that could actually develop constant acceleration we could get to Mars in about 39 days. What is truly amazing is that God created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo) with just a Word. What a wonderful God He is! Let not your heart be troubled by things you don't understand. He's in control.

Scotland moves to pardon thousands executed as witches -- 400 years later For the campaigners working to clear women's names, it is an important reckoning with Scotland’s past as it considers its future within the U.K. Source: Scotland Pardons Witches Executed 400 Years Ago I wonder if any of them still have kin in the area.

Source: Prayers for Animals and Pets

I am going to use the conversation regarding this topic I literally tripped over today. Source: In the or a Beginning Possibly the most famous phrase in the Hebrew Bible is: "In the beginning." Anyone can recite it without ever having read the Hebrew Bible. But is that the accurate translation? With a background in Hebrew, I know that there is no "hey" (Hebrew letter = "the") nor vowel corresponding to the "hey" being assimilated into the "bet" (Hebrew letter = "In"). Thus, "beginning" is not a direct object, but actually an indirect object. So shouldn't it be translated as "In A beginning"? If so, what implications does this have? Does this mean that there are more than one beginning -- multiple beginnings? If so, what does that mean in regards to the creation, our existence, etc.? Or do you think it was an ancient scribal error to neglect the "hey" or a Masoretic misplacement of the vowels? Why do we always assume it's "In THE beginning"? Is it because we don't know how to explain it otherwise? 1st Comment For one way of handling it, see this question and linked references. This is closely tied up with the issue of subordinating the first verse. (I don't understand what you mean by the direct/indirect object distinction here. Definite or not, רשאית is the object of a preposition.) – Susan 2nd Comment Please remember the context... This is poetry. You cannot disregard the author's intent, and writing style - and superimpose what we think should have been proper grammar. Fundamentally, you can even argue that "Beginning" and "Created" are the same words, with different morphologies - meaning that "IN [beginning]" might not be proper, but "Creating, God Created ..." ... The point is - IT'S POETRY. The author expects the reader to exercise their own discretion. There are all kinds of plays-on-words like this in Scripture. Throwing a "grammar book" at this won't solve it. – elika kohen Another writer responds: 3rd Comment I agree with Elika Kohen. The way I see it, there could have been multiple beginnings (whether before, after, or both) but it is also not incorrect to say "In the beginning" because the phrase is referring to this particular beginning, but it is also not incorrect to say "In a beginning" either because I think it refers to the infinite complexity of God's creation. Then again I personally believe that an infinite God created an infinite amount of universes because everything God does is therefore by nature infinite. "Yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end."~Ecc. 3:11; "Whatever exists is far off and most profound-- who can discover it?" ~Ecc. 7:24; "I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it [You cannot take away or add to infinity]. God does it so that people will fear him."~Ecc. 3:14 The plurality of Elohim could also refer to the infinite amount of branches or subsections of Almighty God for each of these particular universes, if this theory is true. Of course, I am also trinitarian so therefore I believe that Elohim has multiple applications, including the inclusion of the family of God (i.e. "sons of God") - Seth Hall

Radiometric Dating and Creation Science The topic of radiometric dating (and other dating methods) has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method. For articles on the RATE project, see the Rate Index. General Articles Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger Wiens RATE Index - A separate index of articles addressing the claims of the RATE project Do radioisotope methods yield trustworthy relative ages for the earth’s rocks?, by Mike Hore Are Dating Techniques Accurate?, by Greg Neyman Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Time Scale, by Andrew MacRae Isochron Dating by Chris Stassen An Essay on Radiometric Dating by Jonathan Woolf Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism, by J.G. Meert Geochronology - Radiometric Dating Reappraised Andrew Snelling Proves the Accuracy of Radiometric Dating in One Graphic Age of Rocks Radiocarbon Myths from a Creationist Who Understands Radiocarbon Dating Age of Rocks Potassium and Argon Dating Ar39 - Ar40 Dating- How serious are errors in Ar Dating and how good are their monitoring standards Shotgun Attack - Woodmorappe's efforts to attack Ar-Ar dating Blind Leading the Blind - Austin, Snelling and Swenson Misinterpret Dalrymple's K-Ar Dating of Historical Volcanics Mount Saint Helens Dacite Dating - YEC Steve Austin's poor scientific methods exposed Argon-Argon Dating: What Is It Good For? Age of Rocks Radiocarbon Dating Carbon-14 Dating - Young earth creationists misunderstanding of carbon dating How Good Are those Young Earth Arguments: Carbon Dating Radiohalos "Polonium Haloes" Refuted - by Thomas Baillieul Radiohalos – Can young-earth scientists prove a young earth using radiometric methods? Don’t even try! Ice Cores A Holocene Cold Snap In The Year 2,200 B.C. (Before Creation) - Age of Rocks Young Earth Tricks of the Trade Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating - Woodmorappe tricks young earth followers with misinformation Distortions of the Lu-Hf Method - Woodmorappe pulls out of context to support his claims Chopping a Title Hides the Truth - One method used to deceive people Grand Canyon Dating Project - Slight-of-hand does not prove a young earth Important Statements on Radiometric Dating in Woodmorappe's References that He Doesn't Want You to See How Little Lies Go A Long Way: Henry Morris and the Missing Potassium Age of Rocks Bad Young Earth Science Woodmorappe's Shell Game: Refuted with Literature from his Creationist Allies - Even their own work contradicts itself Bill of Goods - Woodmorappe's arguments make no sense Source: Radiometric Dating: Its Use and Misuse

I came across the following paper in my Bible research. The PDF is free for download, about 15 pages. There's a fuller PDF Package that the website is offering for sale. The free online viewable PDF should be enough for most people. MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Chronological and Textual Conundrum in Genesis 5 https://0.academia-photos.com/54305046/14324900/19364401/s65_henry_b.smith_jr.jpg Henry B. Smith Jr. 2018, Bible and Spade Genesis 1-11,Primeval History, Biblical Chronology In several articles, I have argued that the internal, external and historical evidence supports the originality of the longer primeval chronology found (mostly) in the LXX. Thus far, the research has led to the conclusion that the MT’s primeval chronology was deliberately reduced in the post 70 AD period by 1250 years. One of ... Source: Link to Paper

What may be a sensitive subject for one Christian, may not be a sensitive subject to another. God doesn't want lukewarm Christians, but we should be able to have civilized conversations the majority of times. Some subjects are just to sensitive to have an agreement or even respect for another's position, but that should be in the minority. Here are some topics sure to raise diverse opinions: King James Version Only Textus Receptus Only and all manner of other variations on what Bible translation is to be trusted Abortion Evolution and the interpretation of the Genesis Creation account (YEC vs OEC included) Lucifer's Flood and Noah's Flood and the events leading up to and beyond The Book of Enoch Revelation Baptism, infant and adult, full immersion, formula, etc. The Trinity Gifts of the Holy Spirit (healing, tongues, et al.) The Rapture, timing and reality of the scripture supporting it Canon of Holy Scripture Denominations, The Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholic faiths, et al. The New Age Movement, pagan influence in the church, etc. Qualifications for one to be called a Christian Interpretation of Prophesies in Holy Scripture Other supplemental texts mentioned in the Old Testament (Book of Jasher, the Book of Gad the Seer, The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, et al.) The Deuterocanonical Books Calvinism, T-U-L-I-P, Reformed Theology, free will, et al. And all manner of other subjects. These are just the tip of the iceberg. These are positions I hold dear, on one side of the topic or the other as my posts have defined. I apologize if anyone has taken what I've wrote on these topics personally. I stand by my positions but make no accusations against other members on this forum who differ. I respect the moderators of this forum greatly, it's a hard and sometimes thankless job. I will personally try to make their jobs less stressful and watch more closely what I write so to be true to God's Word without being hurtful to others.

Let's begin with electric power plants. For years (at least 50), the US Government has put all kinds of restrictions on the building of new power plants. Coal has been vilified as being harmful to the environment, especially high to medium sulfur coal. Acid rain made sufficiently acidic by atmospheric pollution that it causes environmental harm, typically to forests and lakes. The main cause is the industrial burning of coal and other fossil fuels, the waste gases from which contain sulfur and nitrogen oxides, which combine with atmospheric water to form acids. And then we had the continuous attacks on alternative nuclear power plants. Three mile island, Chernobyl, and more recently the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Now that the present US administration has punted on being energy independent, it seems nuclear has once again become the choice of the liberal elite. Where's the energy going to come from for electric vehicles? A couple of problems exist that no one is talking about. Electric automobiles have energy storage requirements. Right now, batteries and capacitors are the only choices. The battery technology hasn't grown much to allow vehicles to travel more than 300 miles. This, in effect, tethers people to within a certain distance between the homes, work and supplies. Some electric vehicles require up to 8 hours to fully recharge. Is this a plot by the some unknown power broker to force people to live closer to their places of work? Let's discuss batteries. Used batteries are not good for the environment and an inescapable source of contamination to the environment in a landfill and underground water sources. Used batteries cannot be recycled using today's existing technologies. The making of batteries as well as all electronics requires the use of dangerous chemicals. I know this because of my personal experience as an engineer in the manufacture of silicon wafers (10 years). Electronic circuit boards and components, cannot be recycled in the USA. Junk circuit boards are sent to places like Vietnam where child labor removes whatever can be salvaged. So why the push for electric cars? It's a way to control the population. What I've heard, the UK has only about 5% more electricity than they require. When everyone is forced to go electric, what will happen? Electricity use will be regulated and only the rich will be able to afford it. Sounds like an end-times scenario.

Vice President Kamala Harris.