Replies

A lot of high-falutin' words from you, leading to this:

You are incredibly wrong in that observation, OP. It is obvious that you do not know Alamo-Girl and her expertise in the area of time, physics, and creation.

She is among the most knowledgeable on these threads in those areas, I have read her writings before, and I have gone to the many science threads she has linked to, and I can AFFIRMATIVELY state that THOSE WORDS OF HERS ABOVE are not just written by her to sound "high falutin."

This has been an area of great interest and concern for her for many years, and she has encapsulated in those paragraphs to you ideas that I have seen by her and others in extensive essays.

You would do well to think your way through what she is saying because each word is carefully chosen and is not thrown willy-nilly onto the page just to "sound high-falutin."

You are incredibly wrong in that observation, OP. It is obvious that you do not know Alamo-Girl and her expertise in the area of time, physics, and creation. She is among the most knowledgeable on these threads in those areas, I have read her writings before, and I have gone to the many science threads she has linked to, and I can AFFIRMATIVELY state that THOSE WORDS OF HERS ABOVE are not just written by her to sound "high falutin." This has been an area of great interest and concern for her for many years, and she has encapsulated in those paragraphs to you ideas that I have seen by her and others in extensive essays. You would do well to think your way through what she is saying because each word is carefully chosen and is not thrown willy-nilly onto the page just to "sound high-falutin."

I did not say that Alamo-Girl wrote what she did to sound "high-falutin".

That is not what I said, nor did I accuse her of same -- I said her words were high-falutin'; not that she wrote them to sound high-falutin'.

The difference is two-fold:

In the First Place, I would never accuse Alamo-Girl of trying to sound high-falutin', because I don't think she's trying to prove anything to anyone, nor feels any need to do so. On the contrary, she is entirely convinced that she is correct; problem is, she's not giving any thought whatsoever to the idea that she might be wrong. She's not allowing for the possibility that Galatians 3:28 and 6:16 might overturn her entire perspective -- and until one allows for the possibility that one is entirely Wrong, one is limiting one's possibility to Learn.
Secondly, her words were high-falutin': not that she's trying to sound that way, but simply that they are. A lot of stratospheric verbiage about "Causality" and "The Arrow of Time" which might, possibly, have some interesting application in a discussion between Calvinists and Thomists regarding the particular nature of God's Foreknowledge as it relates to Eternity and Human Free Will and what have you, but which have nothing whatsoever to do with a simple Biblical-Textual Analysis of "What is God's 'Israel' in Prophecy, as defined by New Testament teaching"?

That is what I said.

Best, OP