You literally said that I was wrong in saying that creationists accept that the oldest layers are on the bottom. You're the one who started the challenge.
And Jesus never said if you don't believe in Scripture you're not of God. And you can believe in the inspiration of Scripture without believing it's inerrant
You literally said that I was wrong in saying that creationists accept that the oldest layers are on the bottom. You're the one who started the challenge.
And Jesus never said if you don't believe in Scripture you're not of God. And you can believe in the inspiration of Scripture without believing it's inerrant
You seem offended when I don't read your geologist's writings. How about you carefully read John chapter 8 and really think about what is being said instead of just glossing over it?
You literally said that I was wrong in saying that creationists accept that the oldest layers are on the bottom. Care to point it out? You're the one who started the challenge.
And Jesus never said if you don't believe in Scripture you're not of God. And you can believe in the inspiration of Scripture without believing it's inerrant
When I say "Bible believers", are you thinking I mean "young earth creationists?
You said I'm wrong about creationists and you added the Bible believer part. But even so, principles of relative dating do not contradict the Bible. They have nothing to do with the Bible.
If you believe the earth is millions of years old, or even 10's of thousands of years old then you deny the Scriptures in favor of oppositions of science.
If you believe the flood was local and did not cover the entirety of the Earth and that man and land animals were saved by God's provision of an ark, you deny the Scriptures in favor of oppositions of science.
1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”
No, I deny your interpretation. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
There is also no "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20. That is an incorrect translation. The correct translation is simply "knowledge."
There is hypocrisy IN YEC. YECs like to portray themselves as sticking to a literal interpretation and say the OECs change Scripture to accommodate science, when they don't see that they do the same thing. The clear teaching of Scripture is that the pre-Flood Euphrates River is the same as the post-Flood, but because that doesn't fit the fossil record they claim there must be two different rivers named Euphrates. That is not the clear teaching of Scripture. YECs say the Flood rose and fell and rose and fell at least 6 major times. That contradicts Scripture which says it only rose and fell one time
No, I deny your interpretation. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
There is also no "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20. That is an incorrect translation. Word games. The last fortress of theological scoundrels.The correct translation is simply "knowledge."
There is hypocrisy IN YEC. You seem very intent on calling me a YEC. I am a Bible believer and apparently by your definition they are different.
No, I deny your interpretation. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
There is also no "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20. That is an incorrect translation. Word games. The last fortress of theological scoundrels.The correct translation is simply "knowledge."
There is hypocrisy IN YEC. You seem very intent on calling me a YEC. I am a Bible believer and apparently by your definition they are different.
I didn't finish my thought about hypocrisy, see above. And bologna about the word games. "Science" is a Latin word from the Latin vulgate and not found in the original Greek New Testament.
See my response to you in the other forum
How childish
Wow. I'm convinced. Such eloquent persuasion.
No, I did not. I'm floored.
Wow, you're hilarious and wrong on all counts. First, I'm not an unbeliever (nor are you God! who sits in judgment of me).I'm not sitting in judgment of you. I'm telling you that Jesus (whom you claim to trust) said that if you don't believe the Scriptures it is because you are not of God, you are an unbeliever. Instead of defending yourself you should consider what I'm saying and read the passage in context and how it applies to you. Second, we weren't talking about the Bible but the fossil record and you are making false claims about what creationist geologists believe and say. I haven't said what Creationists believe. You are the one who keeps appealing to the beliefs of this group or that. That's on you. You.Third, I'm not "desperately" trying to get you to read anything. Do what you want. I already was.I couldn't care less. Then why do you bring it up? But it's foolish to not be open to correction when you are wrong---and not on a theological point---but just the minor fact that creationist geologists See, here you are doing it again. I'm not the one saying why Creationists believe, you are telling me what they believe. don't believe the whole of the fossil record is all attributable to Noah's flood. They believe a lot of it is, but not all of it. And it's just silly to argue the point. Just as it's silly to argue that YEC geologists reject relative principles of dating when they don't. And again here.And admitting that doesn't contradict any tenet of YEC. And the links are to young earth creationist geologists. And last, TruthMuse and I made up, so you don't have to worry about us I don't worry about him. He is a solid brother and can fight for himself.