Skip to comments.
Storming Young-Earth Creationism ( is Genesis 1 the only text at issue?)
Christianity Today ^
| 4/30/2009
| Marcus R. Ross
Posted on 05/10/2009 8:21:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-146 last
To: aMorePerfectUnion
Getting more amusing!
You ‘clipboard’ something to use in your reply, but don’t bother to read it? Or is it simply that you didn’t understand it? My point was that “darkness on the face of the deep” can only mean that it was prior to the existance of any “heavenly bodies.”
141
posted on
05/12/2009 7:54:18 AM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
To: editor-surveyor
I see you resort to ad hominem attacks, which is truly unfortunate.
You claim that the entire universe was represented by the deep and that the entire universe began as a sphere of water, which is not what the text says. It refers to the waters on the earth. The waters were separated and the firmament in between was the sky.
You have yet to explain why God did not deem the creation on the second day good, and you would rather resort to ad hominem attacks and gross distortion then have a rational conversation.
JM
142
posted on
05/12/2009 8:03:32 AM PDT
by
JohnnyM
To: editor-surveyor
Here is another verse that supports my claim that angels were created prior to creation:
Job 28:4-7
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
From this passage in Job, it would seem that the angels were present at the foundation of the Earth.
JM
143
posted on
05/12/2009 8:39:33 AM PDT
by
JohnnyM
To: JohnnyM
"
It refers to the waters on the earth. The waters were separated and the firmament in between was the sky." An unsupportable assumption when one turns to the original language.
144
posted on
05/12/2009 8:39:59 AM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
To: JohnnyM
But the foundation of the Earth was not the totality of creation. Bits and pieces of unrelated misunderstanding continue to flow.
145
posted on
05/12/2009 8:44:46 AM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
To: editor-surveyor
“You clipboard something to use in your reply, but dont bother to read it? Or is it simply that you didnt understand it? My point was that darkness on the face of the deep can only mean that it was prior to the existance of any heavenly bodies.”
I both copied it and read it. Given that it wasn’t the
Hebrew word you referred to, I was puzzled by your assertions.
I’m OK with darkness on the face of the deep existing before heavenly bodies.
Best,
ampu
146
posted on
05/12/2009 9:52:46 AM PDT
by
aMorePerfectUnion
("I, El Rushbo -- and I say this happily -- have hijacked Obama's honeymoon.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-146 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson