Leaderboard

Samie said, which I have quoted below: I find his quote quite confusing. I wonder which of the radiometric dating methods Samie would use to date a diamond and come to an age of millions and billions of years. As Samie said, diamonds are formed from carbon. The following are the radioactive dating methods: 1) Carbon-14: This method is believed to accurately date material that ranges in age from 50 years to 40,000 years. No competent scientist would ever ascribe millions and billions of years to this method. With one exception, Carbon-14 can never be used to date rocks. That exception is very young limestone. There are creationists who suggest that carbon-14 may be used to date diamonds. But, this is simply wrong. The problem comes due to the fact that during the processing of the diamond for C-14 dating, minute amounts of the air in the laboratory that is doing the processing are introduced into the sample that is processed. IOW, it is never possible to obtain a zero reading that begins the sample processing. Regardless of this, C-14 can not be considered a valid method of determining the age of a diamond. 2) Uranium series: This method is believed to date material from several hundred years to 400,000 years in age. Does Samie suggest that diamonds are radioactive? Again the millions and billions of years in age are not achieved by this method? 3) Argon-argon: This method is believed to date from 2,000 years to 3,000,000,000 years. O.K. The long age is reached by this method. Is Samie telling us that diamonds contain argon? 4) Patassium-argon: This method dates from 3,000,000 to 3,000,000,000 years. see also my comments on # 3. 5) Rubidium-strontium: This method dates from 60,000,000 to 4,500,000,000 years. Again, does Samie believe that diamonds are radioactive? See my comments on # 3. 6) Uranium-lead: This method is believed to date from 1,000,000 to 4,500,000,000 years. Are diamonds radioactive? See my comments on # 3.

The Wanderer said in my quote below: No informed person ever states that we have the originals (autographs) available. Without the autographs, no person can claim that the MSS have translation mistakes. It can be shown that there are mistakes in the MSS copies that are available to us. However, the vast majority of these mistakes are minor and of no doctrinal consequence. These mistakes are mistakes of transcription, not translation. Yes, the issue of the passage in I John is not a minor issue. But, it is a rare exception.

TrevorL said in my quote below: 1) Yes. there is divided opinion as to whether or not portions of I John 5: 7 & 8 are genuine. I consider it not to be genuine. Regardless of the position that one personally takes, due to the fact that there is substantial belief that it is not genuine, one should never use it in an attempt to prove the Trinity. To do so simply presents one a ignorant and results in ones ideas being dismissed. 2) Whatever one may believe about the method of inspiration, the original documents (autographs) should be considered to be inspired and not the translations.

Greetings The Wanderer, There is possibly a divided opinion of whether 1 John 5:7 (KJV) is genuine or not. I have decided to be on the side of those who consider this, and only this verse to be incorrect. Many Trinitarians agree that it is spurious. Barnes Notes is my most comprehensive reference that I have checked so far, but there would be much more comprehensive literature or discussion on this subject. I will allow you to find your own references and draw your own conclusion. I believe in the inspiration of the originals, not the inspiration of every translation. We need to use our discretion as to what we accept. I am a bit reticent to agree or comment on the rest of your post, but I appreciate your participation. Kind regards Trevor

If you consciously reject that Yahweh is the one true God, and consciously reject the grace and mercy of Jesus, and actively rebel (I'm not talking about the occasional slip) against God and heaven, then - barring a life-changing spiritual encounter - you are in danger of being lost. Most everything else in my opinion is optional for most people. I have some personal issues which God keeps working on with me that could be salvational for me; but not necessarily salvational for others. In general, the more we choose to know, the more we will be held responsible for.

from http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=66 "The current raging debate within Judaism is exactly who has the authority to begin the rebuilding process of the Temple itself? Is it God, the Messiah or someone else? Nobody really knows and there is no consensus on this absolutely vital issue within Judaism. Without resolution of who has the authority to rebuild there can be no Temple, and these are the reasons why. The question of who has the authority to begin the rebuilding process exists because nobody today really knows exactly where the Holy of Holies from the Second Temple was located on the Temple Mount. This is the reason why Jews are forbidden from entering the precise area where the second Temple was built, lest they inadvertently stand on the sacred and consecrated area which housed the Holy of Holies. To do so, even inadvertently, is punishable by death under Mosaic Law. The second major stumbling block is that all Jews are currently ritually impure, which also prevents any Jews from entering the precise area where the Temple used to stand. In order to become ritually pure Jews would need the ashes of a Red Heifer, administered by a priest who could trace his family and ancestral lineage back far enough to validate his claim to priesthood. No such priest exists who can trace his lineage to this exacting standard. The reason is that when Israel and Judah were dispersed to the four corners of the world, all lineage records were lost. This therefore means that under Mosaic Law there are no priests eligible to administer the ashes of a Red Heifer and therefore able to make Jews ritually pure enough to enter the Temple complex area. It is a terrible Catch-22 situation. The next major problem concerns the Altar of the Temple itself, specifically the location of the Altar. The Law of Moses is very precise about exactly where the Altar must be located. It cannot go just anywhere; it needs to be in exactly the right place. When they built the Second Temple the Jews used reliable witnesses who could testify to the correct spot. In fact, the prophets Haggai, Zephaniah and Malachi are believed within Judaism to have been the three witnesses used to verify the Altars correct location. No such witnesses exist today. Even if a Temple could be built, they could never offer sacrifice as they simply do not know where to locate the Altar. They have absolutely no idea where it should go; no idea whatsoever. Assuming that they were able to rebuild the Temple in exactly the right spot and then locate the Altar allowing for sacrifice, also in exactly the right spot, the Temple would still need Priests whose genealogy can be absolutely determined and verified. No such verification exists anymore. It would be a Temple with no priests. The next major issue is the High Priest. There can be no functioning Temple without a functioning High Priest. To appoint a High Priest there needs to be a Sanhedrin, 70 - 71 ordained Rabbis acting as the Supreme Council of all Israel. There can currently be no Sanhedrin that satisfies Mosaic Law because each Rabbi must satisfy Mosaic Ordination, which was transmitted from Rabbi to Rabbi since the time of Moses. Mosaic Ordination ceased in 358 AD because of persecution. Although a re-established Sanhedrin was set up in 2004 it still lacks the religious and governmental authority needed to take the process forward. There can be no legitimate Sanhedrin and therefore no legitimate High Priest. [Note: the priesthood was a familial thing, i.e. you were born into it; not ordained to it. All the priests were Levites; of the Tribe (family) of Levi. This problem of identifying legitimate priests is now being simplified through the use of DNA] These problems would seem insurmountable. There is no human solution to them. On the face of things then, there can be no Temple. Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=66#qlDVKokdA9Q0KFVZ.99

Sad to hear. While I was too young to remember his flight I did know about many of our early astronauts and I remember Grandma telling about there was a moment in his flight where there was some danger and that she prayed for him. On one of my trips to Washington DC I got a pass to sit in the balcony of the senate and as looked down he was one of those who I recognized.

Totally agree! I was thinking the other day of the early pioneers. There was no SDA denomination. Everyone studied along with Miller and the adventists and went back to their own churches to worship. The only box they had to start from was what they learned up until then. The little groups dug and mined for truth. Some positions came quickly while others slowly. But they were indeed a people of the book. Whenever people come up with a creed I feel it limits God. I see it more as a, "This is what we know so far." That leaves the topics more open-ended.