Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth…’
by Peter Milford
...
The issue of the age of the earth parallels circumcision. In my experience, the first response from Christians who do not accept the age of the earth that the Scriptures indicate, is to say something like “The New Testament does not make a big deal out of the age of the earth” or “It is not the purpose of the Bible to give the age of the earth”. Their point is that (1) the issue of the age of the earth is a non-essential, and (2) therefore not something we should argue about. They believe we are free to hold whatever view our conscience permits. They are right in the first part. In and of itself, the age of the earth is not a central focus of Scripture. But the distortions a long-age view brings to the gospel message make them wrong on the second part...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I'm game. Give it your best shot.
>>That was an observation, not an insult... but if you REALLY want an insult, I can give you a couple.
>I’m game. Give it your best shot.
[insults]
Your failure to answer questions presented and look for non-existent insults only marks your intellectual honesty as comparable of that to Chris Dodd’s.
The manner in which you refuse to answer questions, while demanding answers to your own, and reading [beliefs/non-beliefs] into the reply is that which the most dogmatic ‘evolutionary scientists’ contort any findings to preclude a contradiction to any evolutionary theory.
And to paraphrase Jesus: “Let P-Marlow bury P-Marlow.”
[/insults]
See, if I REALLY wanted to insult you, I would.
And the last is not wishing you dead, but rather saying that if you will not listen to reason, then I will let you be unreasonable. (And I have been willing to admit my own errors.)
Nice one. Show me a question of yours that I refused to answer.
One.
See, if I REALLY wanted to insult you, I would.
Go for it.
Could you also answer the other questions I asked? And I really would like to see the reference.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2215816/posts?page=210#210
One.
How about many?
Post 37In the creation story, Adam is created first then, after naming all the animals and failing to find a helpmeet, God creates a woman for him. Later on in the bible, Jesus says “Do you not know that in the beginning God created man and woman, male and female, He created them.”
Is Jesus misinformed, or lying then? Or is the point not that there was some time elapsed between the creation of the male and female of the human species, BUT instead that GOD created them, together in the sense of meaning to complete each other?
Post 71(The creation-story appears again, right there in Genesis wherein God creates man and woman at the same time in that account.) Do you mean to say then that, because things SHOULD be read literally, always, that BOTH accounts are factually true down to minuta even though on the literal side they contradict each other?
Post 71 - Set 2Answer this: How can there be a meaningful conversation when you have already condemned me? How can I present a defense of my views when you refuse to listen?
Post 71 - Set 3
Was answered, Correction needed.
Zacheeus* Nicodemus asked Jesus "How can a man be born again? Can he enter his mother's womb a second time?" This was a perfectly valid question to a very literal taking of Jesus's own words. But is that what Jesus was talking about?
* - I confused Zacheus for Nicodemus in the original post.
Post 214
It could be argued that these are not technically questions. Now, I ask you to answer my questions. I also ask how that keeping the sabbath precludes an literary reading.
Mr shark, you are on dangerous ground when you attempt to create false contradictions in God’s word. - You are doing exactly what the serpent did in Genesis 3.
You cannot excape this, since you have called all of us here as witnesses to your attack, and pointless argument with P-Marlowe, who has tried to give it to you straight, as far as I can see.
Do you really want to continue in this mode?
Jesus was referring to Creation Week. Eve was created on Day 6 of Creation Week. Thus her creation qualifies as part of the beginning:
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God
he created him;
male and female
he created them.
I answered you in post 216.
The entire Old Testament describes, and commands our obedience to his ancient appointed times. They are the times on which all of his prophecies regarding our salvation are fulfilled. It would be impossible to just give a short quote that explains it all, because it requires complete and diligent study of all the prophets. Each appointed time has its specific purpose. They are appointments that our creator has made for us, and if we fail to keep them it is our loss.
Christ was born on the Feast of Tabernacles; he will come for his elect on the Feast of Trumpets, where we will meet him “in the air;” and he will return to the Earth in his second comming seven years later, on the Feast of Tabernacles again. The lord did not intend that we should be in the dark (1Thess 5, 1Cor 15).
>You cannot excape this, since you have called all of us here as witnesses to your attack, and pointless argument with P-Marlowe, who has tried to give it to you straight, as far as I can see.
>
>Do you really want to continue in this mode?
Actually I was pointing out the folly of decrying that all the bible must be read in an [ultra] literal mode. There are the literary metaphor/poetry and “quote” modes. I in no way advocate taking things out of context [just the opposite], further, the “short retelling” is a common practice in ancient story-telling; it can even be seen today in multi-part Star Trek episodes where the ‘eye-catch’ sequence is the “Previously on ST:DS9...” or some-such. The reason you are not getting the “whole story” is because the emphasis is not on THAT story, but THIS story, and the two relate to each other.
(as previously stated) The bible contains quotes, of Satan, who is a liar as you yourself have noted. It would not be an accurate history if it did not present these lies, would it? But, with some word-twisting, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the bible contains lies. (Doesn’t it record Abraham lying about Sarah?)
Further, in a literal-only mode things like “being born again” make no sense, and that “faith is like a mustard seed” are quite... odd.
My point, is not trying to make the bible a liar, but to point out that it is a rich, full book containing great story-telling, excellent history, amazing prophecy, and insight into an infinite God; a literal-only interpretation prevents one from enjoying the artistic side of God, IMO. Why would Song of Soloman be included if God did not have one?
*Nod* - That is my point. There is no ‘disconnect’ but an ultra-literal reading will produce such. {My point is that context must be taken into account, and literal readings are not the only readings.}
No
Or is the point not that there was some time elapsed between the creation of the male and female of the human species, BUT instead that GOD created them, together in the sense of meaning to complete each other?
I'm not sure what you mean. God created man and woman. Neither one evolved. I'm not sure what amount of time elapsed between the time he created man and he made woman out of one of Adam's ribs, but he made them male and female.
Post 71
Do you mean to say then that, because things SHOULD be read literally, always, that BOTH accounts are factually true down to minuta even though on the literal side they contradict each other?
No.
Answer this: How can there be a meaningful conversation when you have already condemned me? How can I present a defense of my views when you refuse to listen?
I must have missed where I "condemned" you. I must have missed where I "refused to listen".
But is that what Jesus was talking about?
No.
"Now, I ask you to answer my questions"
I've now answered all your questions except the following:
I also ask how that keeping the sabbath precludes an literary reading.
But I did respond to that question. I said I had no idea what you are talking about.
Now that I've answered all your questions, I suppose you can get on with the business of insulting me.
Bring it on.
>I answered you in post 216.
Forgive me; I did not [fully] understand.
Reminds me of the old joke:
A man walks up to God and asks, "What is a million years to you?". God responds, "It is but a second."
Then the man asks God, "What is a million dollars to you?" And God, replies, "It is but a penny."
Then the man asks God if he could lend him a penny. And God responds, "Yes, in a second."
>Does anyone know what Judaism has to say about the age of the earth?
They use a “year-from-creation” calendar which is somewhere around 6000 now. I think this is, ultimately, the reason young-earth creationists endorse that age.
While the Earth/Universe may indeed be only 6000 years old, there is an assumption that Adam’s age (9XX) began at creation... though that is not necessarily the case, if aging is simply the process of dying (after full maturity is reached) then before the fall he would have been immune to age as well as death. In that case, he and Eve could have been kicking around the Garden for billions of years before the fall.
I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
>Now that I’ve answered all your questions, I suppose you can get on with the business of insulting me.
Who ever said I WANTED to insult you?
You've spent most of this thread calling me an insult to christ, questioning my faith, calling me a fool and claiming I have no love of the truth.
Either you really wanted to insult me or you have Tourette's syndrome of the fingers.
>You’ve spent most of this thread calling me an insult to christ,
Actually I said that once, and then explained myself subsequently. Heck, I even apologized for my “quick tongue”.
>questioning my faith,
I never questioned your faith in the sense you seem to be taking it. I asked you to explain it.
Actually, I would wager that we actually hold many similar beliefs, however the best way to KNOW your position is to attack it, take it apart, “ask questions,” poke-and-prod it. So, that was what I did, and I tried to make it clear by presenting questions... that you simply “didn’t get it”/that I wanted to argue, in the philosophic sense WAS/IS frustrating.
Most of the questions rooted from the intent of: Explain why the creation story MUST be read as six literal 24-hour days.
A divergence of our belief-sets would apparently be the importance of the literallity of the Creation story’s 24-hour day. I think that, because God, the Creator, is outside of time the duration doesn’t matter, in the end. And you know something, Jesus doesn’t base his redemptive power on our “being right”... in fact, it is because we tend to be wrong that we NEED Him.
>calling me a fool and claiming I have no love of the truth.
Well, that’s what I said it seemed like to me. Apparently “it appears” and “it seems to me” are attacks in your mind and not an invitation to explain yourself. (I would gladly read why you believe my perceptions to be wrong.)
Well, I'm not sure of the "24 hours" but I do know that God said himself that he created the heavens and the earth and all that is within them in SIX DAYS. Period.
Now if you don't believe that, then take it up with God.
Actually, I would wager that we actually hold many similar beliefs, however the best way to KNOW your position is to attack it, take it apart, “ask questions,” poke-and-prod it.
Try doing it without resorting to personal insults. You'll get more responses that way.
BTW the use of personal insults or questioning the motives of posters is strictly prohibited in the Religion Forum.
<><
Marlowe
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.