|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: the earth - 1/10/2008 10:58:20 PM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1390
Status: offline
|
Greetingd EverLearning! I believe that beings and organisms that are added to this earth including children were recently created and, therefore, it is evident, to me, that Someone is proactively and directly involved in this present time as well.
John 5:17
Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."
To me, the acts of creation continue to unfold because we did not possess our spirits until we were conceived and indwelt in the body.
Colossians 2:5
For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit
James 2:26
As the body without the spirit is dead,
This means, to me, that we are still on the 6th day of creation or the 8th day as the prophecy and the universe unfolds over time.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
We see that light is called or defined as 'day' to God and the darkness is called 'night'. Therefore, the distance of light travel in the universe is relevant because it is called 'day' by God as well. If a 'day' is defined as light, that is the amount of 'time' that God is speaking about at Scripture.
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Richard, you're really missing this fundamental flaw in your attempt to understand YEC's position. Origins science is NOT subject to observational scientific methodology. Your first statement misrepresents the use of observational science by YECs for other kinds of scientific endeavors. I use peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc. every day in my medical practice and clinical research. These methods are worthless and irrelevant to proving the "seemingly firmest conclusions" of the origins of the universe and earth's biodiversity.
Biblical creationism is outside the domain of observational science because it was a supernatural, one-time event for which experimentation and replication of results are impossible. Our interpretation and understanding of many observational scientific facts is greatly enhanced by the application of the Genesis account to the evidence at hand. You are only kidding yourself if you think that human reasoning is sufficient to prove the mechanism of nature's origin.
The act of creation may be outside the domain of observational sciences but the creation itself is subject to natural laws which are infact observable and the basis of the natural sciences.
< Message edited by prophetica -- 1/10/2008 11:09:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 7:47:02 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1514
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:RCCquote:
I don’t think science has anything to say about the possibility of miracles such as the Resurrection; that’s outside science’s domain.
Creation week was not a miraculous event?
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 9:18:03 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If a 'day' is defined as light, that is the amount of 'time' that God is speaking about at Scripture. So how long a duration of daylight do you suppose God is speaking about in Genesis 1, prophetica? Do you think the length of "evening and morning" varied from day to day of the Creation week? Please clarify your statement. BTW, the separation or division of light from darkness was called "day", not light itself.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 9:42:15 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1690
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I've never said otherwise, EverLearning. In fact, many of the great observational scientists who founded their respective disciplinary fields were Christian creationists. Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur come immediately to mind.
You would do well to know much of those whose name you trot out, while Newton believed that God was the creator, a fact which he considered undeniable, as I do, based on his observation of the natrual world, he held some ideas that are very close to heretical such as not believing in the trinity. Many of the other scientists you named held that God did in fact create the universe, in fact believing it couldn't have happened randomly, but they did not necessarily believe in YEC. Kepler stated ‘The world of nature, the world of man, the world of God—all three fit together’ which means that they shouldn't contradict each other as it appears they currently do in the guise of YEC vs. OEC. Joule saw no contradiction between his work and his Christian beliefs but nowhere does he ascirbe to YEC. You chose to trot out men whom i give the utmost respect to and have learned a good bit about, especially newton, Faraday, Joule, and Maxwell. I strove to learn what i could about the men who are essentially the fathers of my field of study. I was drawn to learn of these men because they saw God in their work and in doing so I have never come across one of them making claim to a YEC view. As i have said all along accepting an OEC view does not mean accepting evolution, these men you bring to bear as proof did not address evolution. I guess the whole point of what i wrote is that while yes the men you named were scientists and creationists, they were not creationists of the kind we find at AIG, ICR, etc.
Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants", which is how we continue to progress in science today, by building on the foundations laid by these great men.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 9:48:04 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I guess the whole point of what i wrote is that while yes the men you named were scientists and creationists, they were not creationists of the kind we find at AIG, ICR, etc. You would do well not to presume to know the personal theology of people you've never even met, EverLearning!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 11:09:25 AM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 88
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Even the seemingly firmest conclusions of science are questionable, despite the methods science has developed to reduce error (peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc.). quote:
I don’t think science has anything to say about the possibility of miracles such as the Resurrection; that’s outside science’s domain. Richard, you're really missing this fundamental flaw in your attempt to understand YEC's position. Origins science is NOT subject to observational scientific methodology. Your first statement misrepresents the use of observational science by YECs for other kinds of scientific endeavors. I use peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc. every day in my medical practice and clinical research. These methods are worthless and irrelevant to proving the "seemingly firmest conclusions" of the origins of the universe and earth's biodiversity.
How so? Doctors frequently make inferences about events that no one has observed directly (e.g., etiology of a patient’s illness, events at the molecular level). Detectives solve crimes without the testimony of surviving eyewitnesses (and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway). Astrophysicists have made discoveries about events and processes in the interiors of stars. So it’s possible to make valid inferences, using the methods of science, about past events that were not directly witnessed by humans.
quote:
Biblical creationism is outside the domain of observational science because it was a supernatural, one-time event for which experimentation and replication of results are impossible.
True, assuming that such an event (a supernatural one-week creation) occurred. Science can’t prove that such an event never occurred: God, after all, presumably could have created the world to look as if it were billions of years old and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor.
All science can do is to study the observed evidence and make inferences based on it. According to the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields, the evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that all organisms are descended from one or a few common ancestors. Now if you disagree and you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need to explain why. There are two possible routes you could take:
1) Use scientific reasoning to dispute the conclusions drawn from the scientific evidence. This is what “scientific creationist” groups such as Answers in Genesis attempt to do, with essentially zero success so far in persuading mainstream scientists. (AiG is coming out with a “peer-reviewed” journal, “peer” apparently meaning “fellow YEC.”) To my knowledge, AiG has never explained what conceivable evidence, assuming it existed, would be sufficient to change their minds regarding evolution and the age of the earth. But if no imaginable evidence would change their minds, their discussion of the evidence is disingenuous and a sham – it means that, as for YEC geologist Kurt Wise, the evidence is ultimately irrelevant to their beliefs.
2) Argue that God, who is presumably always truthful, has said that He created the Earth and all “kinds” of organisms in a literal six-day period. That’s a tough one, and I would like to see some actual arguments, as opposed to mere assertions, for this. As evidence, we have some ancient manuscripts, copies of copies of copies…, that speak of God’s actions in the third person, and whose interpretation has been hotly disputed for centuries even among Christians, with no end to the debate in sight. Assertions about "what God has plainly told us" are vacuous: there's nothing plain about it. It's as if someone finds a stone tablet with the inscription "I CREATED THE WORLD IN 4004 B.C. -- CHEERS, GOD" and then talks about "what God has plainly told us."
_____________________________
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 11:57:52 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1690
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I guess the whole point of what i wrote is that while yes the men you named were scientists and creationists, they were not creationists of the kind we find at AIG, ICR, etc. You would do well not to presume to know the personal theology of people you've never even met, EverLearning!
but it is OK when you make the same claims? Interesting, expected, but never the less interesting.
I have however read biographies and personal writings of some of those names you posted, I have read about Newton having to hide his true beliefs from the church or risk being called a heretic. As far as Newton goes if you care to you can read about his theological beliefs in his own religious tracts. I have read the comments of the great scientists in regards to God and my comment still stands that they never made claim to YEC. That is simple truth and if not you should be able to prove me wrong in an instant.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 6:47:02 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 88
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I've never said otherwise, EverLearning. In fact, many of the great observational scientists who founded their respective disciplinary fields were Christian creationists. Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur come immediately to mind.
Prior to Pasteur, all great scientists believed that infectious diseases were caused by miasmas, bad air, humors, demons, etc. So you can't dismiss as an ignoramus anyone who holds such beliefs today and rejects the germ theory of disease, right? And as the name indicates, it's just a theory.
Pasteur, to my knowledge, accepted evolution but was skeptical of natural selection as its driving force.
Linnaeus, in later life, came to doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible in regard to the age of the earth, a six-day creation, and the Flood (see the biography by Wilfrid Blunt).
The great scientists mentioned above were committed to seeking naturalistic explanations in their respective fields of research. They are considered great scientists because they found such explanations.
The fact that the earth is much older than 10,000 years was established by creationist geologists long before Darwin published the Origin.
_____________________________
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 7:49:34 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1690
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
Since the list of "creationist" scientists was posted earlier i have delved into study i had neglected for a time. One thing that i had completely forgotten was Maxwell's assertion that scientific truth is not dependent on religious truth and vice versa. Then in the interest of learning( i am everlearning after all) such sites as creationwiki etc. and in not a single instance did i find a quote, comment, or writing attributed to any of the scientists previously listed that could even be loosely attributed to a YEC belief.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/11/2008 10:42:32 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Doctors frequently make inferences about events that no one has observed directly (e.g., etiology of a patient’s illness, events at the molecular level). This really doesn't make sense, RCC. Obviously every patient is a unique individual, but I assure you that careful observation using scientific methodology has proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a seemingly firmest conclusion) that when someone has a sore throat, fever of 102, pus on tonsils, and a positive Strep culture, that person will benefit from penicillin. There's no "inference" about it! On the contrary, there is no scientific experiment, controlled study, or observational method to prove anything firmly conclusive about the origin of the universe other than its cause must have been greater than the resulting effect.
quote:
God, after all, presumably could have created the world to look as if it were billions of years old and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor. No, He did not since His Eyewitness account ststes otherwise. You may wish to misinterpret the evidence of a young age and creation of kinds, but that doesn't change God's Truth.
quote:
Argue that God, who is presumably always truthful, has said that He created the Earth and all “kinds” of organisms in a literal six-day period. That’s a tough one, and I would like to see some actual arguments, as opposed to mere assertions, for this. This discussion centers on Biblical interpretation and should be posted in The Bible thread. I'd be delighted to meet you there. It won't be much of a contest with 1800+ years of traditional Christian hermeneutics supporting the YEC position. Of course, that's "according to the vast majority of [Bible scholars] in the relevant fields" which you hold to be the standard of truth for human knowledge.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 12:58:17 AM
|
|
|
Okami
Posts: 1024
Joined: 9/26/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RCCquote:
I don’t think science has anything to say about the possibility of miracles such as the Resurrection; that’s outside science’s domain.
But, using the resurrection as an example, you can eliminate all arguments against it.
Isn't it said somewhere that when you eliminate all probabilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth?
_____________________________
My ancestors were humans. Sorry to hear about yours.
Bible answer men the way it should be done.
No shows focused on their books, their guests books, nor religion bashing. Just calls and answers.
http://www.csnradio.com/tema
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 1:34:26 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1514
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Okamiquote:
Isn't it said somewhere that when you eliminate all probabilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth?
That’s elementary my dear Okami, but I don’t see the application here.
The point I am making is that, just like the resurrection, the origin of the universe was a miraculous event.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 8:16:51 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1690
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
God, after all, presumably could have created the world to look as if it were billions of years old and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor. No, He did not since His Eyewitness account ststes otherwise. You may wish to misinterpret the evidence of a young age and creation of kinds, but that doesn't change God's Truth.
Where does God's eyewitness account state that he didn't do exacly what RCC is suggesting. You claim that he is misinterpreting but nowhere in Genesis does it say that God created the Earth not looking billions of years old. Now I don't believe that he did create the Earth to look old because that would be dishonest. I believe the Earth appears old because it is.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 8:26:50 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1690
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
It won't be much of a contest with 1800+ years of traditional Christian hermeneutics supporting the YEC position.
Which like the list of scientists you posted earlier is an incomplete truth. A brief perusal of the writings of the early church fathers shows that many didn't believe that Genesis referred to a literal 6 day creation. And there is no evidence for an even larger percentage of them that they ever shared their opinion on the subject at all.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 9:15:18 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Where does God's eyewitness account state that he didn't do exacly what RCC is suggesting. You claim that he is misinterpreting but nowhere in Genesis does it say that God created the Earth not looking billions of years old. Again, that is your (faulty) interpretation of the evidence! Many scientists are of the opinion that earth appears "young" based on the very same evidence. Maybe we should stop interpreting and read the text!
You also conveniently left off the rest of RCC's "suggestions" - "and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor." Surely a creationist of your ardor does not agree with common descent?
quote:
I believe the Earth appears old because it is. I believe the Earth appears (6000 years) old because it is.
THE EARTH: HOW OLD DOES IT LOOK
quote:
Which like the list of scientists you posted earlier is an incomplete truth. A brief perusal of the writings of the early church fathers shows that many didn't believe that Genesis referred to a literal 6 day creation. You're quite good at alleging "incomplete truths", EverLearning. You seem to enjoy using them as well. The early church fathers who "didn't believe that Genesis referred to a literal 6 day creation" felt that God created instantaneously during each creation day, not that creation week lasted indefinite epochs of time. See the following for confirmation:
THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
quote:
And there is no evidence for an even larger percentage of them that they ever shared their opinion on the subject at all. Reference, please?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 9:45:07 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1690
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Again, that is your (faulty) interpretation of the evidence! Many scientists are of the opinion that earth appears "young" based on the very same evidence. Maybe we should stop interpreting and read the text!
I am not interpretting anything you made a claim and i asked you to back it up. Go back read my post and what i quoted from you.
quote:
You also conveniently left off the rest of RCC's "suggestions" - "and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor." Surely a creationist of your ardor does not agree with common descent?
I have made my position on evolution quite clear so please don't attempt to play games with me. I left off the rest of RCCs comment because I was addressing the age of the earth which is completely seperate from evolution.
quote:
THE EARTH: HOW OLD DOES IT LOOK
AIG does a pretty good job of wasting band width with their completely useless articles but that one takes the cake. BRAVO!!!
quote:
You're quite good at alleging "incomplete truths", EverLearning.
I am not alleging, i am calling the kettle black.
quote:
You seem to enjoy using them as well. The early church fathers who "didn't believe that Genesis referred to a literal 6 day creation" felt that God created instantaneously during each creation day, not that creation week lasted indefinite epochs of time. See the following for confirmation:
Let's start with the fact that I was not the one laying claim to some truth, i was rebutting your claim to proof of your position. Now I will tell you where my statement comes from
Origen "when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world"
St Clement of alexandria refers to an indefinate and dateless production in speaking of creation
St Augustine states that it is difficult or impossible to know what kind of days the creation days were
And i can go on if you want to go back and forth. I am simply pointing out that your assertion that your particular view is backed up by 1800+ years of hermeunetics is only partially true and the same statement could be made by those in the other camp.
quote:
THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
Interesting thing is that the majority of the ECF in this article are noted as either being in the figuarative or unclear camp and the minority are in the 24hrs camp. Which by the way was my point to begin with
quote:
Reference, please?
Reference to something not said?
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 10:31:17 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am not interpretting anything you made a claim and i asked you to back it up. Go back read my post and what i quoted from you. Oh, I get it, now we can use what is not specifically written in scripture to support our position. Clever, but expected when proper hermeneutics is ignored.
quote:
I left off the rest of RCCs comment because I was addressing the age of the earth which is completely seperate from evolution. Are you that naive or misinformed or both regarding the general theory of evolution?!
quote:
Let's start with the fact that I was not the one laying claim to some truth, i was rebutting your claim to proof of your position. Rather poorly, it seems, since the second article I linked showed references to Clement, Origen, and Augustine all believing in a young earth, despite their interpretation of "figurative days". Do you have any reference source for any ECF believing the Bible teaches billions of years of earth history, or do you plan another end-around as your rebuttal? If not, my claim stands.
quote:
Interesting thing is that the majority of the ECF in this article are noted as either being in the figuarative or unclear camp and the minority are in the 24hrs camp. Which by the way was my point to begin with Which by the way completely misses my point: there is 1800+ years of traditional Christian hermeneutics supporting the YEC position of creation 6-10K years ago. Unless you have a reference stating otherwise.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 10:56:19 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1690
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Oh, I get it, now we can use what is not specifically written in scripture to support our position. Clever, but expected when proper hermeneutics is ignored.
Actually YOU were the one who when RCC stated that the world appeared to be billions of years old said that God's eyewitness account said other wise i asked you for proof and now you are accusing me of using what is not specifically in scripture. You attempted to say that scripture says that the world does not look old and i asked for proof of that. It amazes me the depths of twisting others words that some will go to in order to prove their point.
quote:
Are you that naive or misinformed or both regarding the general theory of evolution?!
As i have made clear numerous times in the past and i know you have read while evolution may require an old earth, an old earth does not require evolution. You continue to attempt to discredit those you disagree with by various means including attempting to show us as naive or misinformed, that tactic is getting old.
quote:
Rather poorly, it seems, since the second article I linked showed references to Clement, Origen, and Augustine all believing in a young earth, despite their interpretation of "figurative days". Do you have any reference source for any ECF believing the Bible teaches billions of years of earth history, or do you plan another end-around as your rebuttal? If not, my claim stands.
I read the article and nowhere did they make any statement of a belief in a Young earth their belief in figurative days is enough proof of that. I never said that the ECF believed in billions of years old earth so you are arguing a point i didn't make. I simply pointed out that your assertion was not the concrete proof you stated it was.
quote:
Which by the way completely misses my point: there is 1800+ years of traditional Christian hermeneutics supporting the YEC position of creation 6-10K years ago. Unless you have a reference stating otherwise.
I did not miss the point you are trying to shoe horn all of the ECF into a proof that your theory is correct when in fact the majority of them did not believe in a literal 6 day creation which is what you have been calling "proper hermeneutics". Now how do you feel justified in using people who didn't agree with you as proof that your chosen brand of hermeneutics is correct? You specifically argue for a completely literal reading of Genesis then parade out ECF who do not agree with you and somehow still feel that this proves your views to be correct.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 12:18:25 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
I'm really tired of all our mudslinging, EverLearning. If you wish to discuss Biblical chronology and the history of exegesis in the Early Church, take it to The Bible forum.
quote:
You specifically argue for a completely literal reading of Genesis then parade out ECF who do not agree with you and somehow still feel that this proves your views to be correct This statement clearly shows how poorly you understand the exegetical basis for the YEC position. I doubt we can have any fruitful dialogue until you review some of the basic principles of hermeneutics used to support the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as an historical narrative account of the world. Let me know when you're ready for meaningful discussion.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/12/2008 7:59:58 PM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1390
Status: offline
|
Greetings EverLearning! Please notice the following links regarding The Hebrew word yowm and the Greek word makros and the Greek word markrochronios reference to usage in the Old Testament parallel in the Law of Moses and also the Greek word semeron for definite period of one day as we reckon days on earth which is considered an adverb in the Greek.
We could consider, also, the the term: Great and terrible Day of The Lord concerns the Great White Throne Judgment which is the same term used which is in Hebrew the word yowm and thereby denotes an extended period of time in which the word, itself, denotes 'hot' which we see light gives off heat as well, and God calls the light 'day'.
In Hebrew the words are 'yowm yehovah'. We could realize that it would take as long as needed for trillions upon millions to be Judged before The Judgment Seat of Christ and God The Father. For it is written: For as long as it is called 'today'. and: there is no moon or sun in the new earth and heavens that will be created and the city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it.
Some could notice that the genealogies that are recorded in Matthew and Genesis do not support the age of the earth model at 6000 years old. One could note that Methuselah, alone, lived for 969 years.
Where do these genealogies put the YEC concept of the age of the earth when one could estimate the rest of the lifespans as recorded to not be more than 120 years, or so, in accordance with the Word that God spoke concerning how long His Spirit would contend with mankind: Longest length of peoples lives set by God.
We know, though, that it is written: Not to devote ourselves to endless genealogies which promote controversy.
As to the reckoning of time, we also could notice that it is relative to where a person is located upon the earth that the period of time known as a 'day' would be experienced. Therefore, it is established that any period of time, even when one is standing on the earth, could be experienced as a 'day'. For instance, the length of a day experienced at the north pole during differing tilts of the earths axis toward or away from the sun. We understand that there exists a phenomenon known as 'the northern lights'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Oh, I get it, now we can use what is not specifically written in scripture to support our position. Clever, but expected when proper hermeneutics is ignored.
Actually YOU were the one who when RCC stated that the world appeared to be billions of years old said that God's eyewitness account said other wise i asked you for proof and now you are accusing me of using what is not specifically in scripture. You attempted to say that scripture says that the world does not look old and i asked for proof of that. It amazes me the depths of twisting others words that some will go to in order to prove their point.
quote:
Are you that naive or misinformed or both regarding the general theory of evolution?!
As i have made clear numerous times in the past and i know you have read while evolution may require an old earth, an old earth does not require evolution. You continue to attempt to discredit those you disagree with by various means including attempting to show us as naive or misinformed, that tactic is getting old.
quote:
Rather poorly, it seems, since the second article I linked showed references to Clement, Origen, and Augustine all believing in a young earth, despite their interpretation of "figurative days". Do you have any reference source for any ECF believing the Bible teaches billions of years of earth history, or do you plan another end-around as your rebuttal? If not, my claim stands.
I read the article and nowhere did they make any statement of a belief in a Young earth their belief in figurative days is enough proof of that. I never said that the ECF believed in billions of years old earth so you are arguing a point i didn't make. I simply pointed out that your assertion was not the concrete proof you stated it was.
quote:
Which by the way completely misses my point: there is 1800+ years of traditional Christian hermeneutics supporting the YEC position of creation 6-10K years ago. Unless you have a reference stating otherwise.
I did not miss the point you are trying to shoe horn all of the ECF into a proof that your theory is correct when in fact the majority of them did not believe in a literal 6 day creation which is what you have been calling "proper hermeneutics". Now how do you feel justified in using people who didn't agree with you as proof that your chosen brand of hermeneutics is correct? You specifically argue for a completely literal reading of Genesis then parade out ECF who do not agree with you and somehow still feel that this proves your views to be correct.
< Message edited by prophetica -- 1/12/2008 10:26:12 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: the earth - 1/13/2008 3:44:53 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 390
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
