Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth …’
CMI ^ | March 26, 2009 | Peter Milford

Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last
To: P-Marlowe

The bible is allegorical. That’s 4 words—I’ll leave the remaining 499,996 for you to use as you see fit.

God gave us the capability to understand how he did it. He’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.


101 posted on 03/27/2009 10:15:24 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
"I realize now that with that statement I was apparently fully qualified to run the Treasury Department."

Only if you haven't paid your taxes! ;o)

102 posted on 03/27/2009 10:18:46 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; GodGunsGuts
"If this righteous man was basically given the “And who are you to question me?” treatment, then shouldn’t we be a bit more cautious on these questions?"

Apples and Oranges! - - Job had questioned God's motives, while we, on the other hand, are being obedient in studying his ages and appointed times as he commanded us to do. If you do not understand his times, how can you do the job that he has set forth for you to do? How can you watch for his coming on the day that he told us he would come, if you don't examine the evidence he gave us, and declare it to be irrelevent?

103 posted on 03/27/2009 10:31:05 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; xzins; Alamo-Girl; enat; OneWingedShark; GodGunsGuts
The bible is allegorical.

Does that mean that despite abandoning all reliance upon any literal interpretation of the biblical accounts of creation, and with that abandonment you have been freed to "to use the faculties that God gave man to ascertain the method of creation", that you still have not been enlightened about the "method of creation" that God used?

But you promised me an understanding of this method if only I would reject the words of God on the tablets of Stone.

Must I do something more than merely reject the words of God on the Tablets of Stone in order to achieve this scientific enlightenment?

104 posted on 03/27/2009 10:35:13 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

By continuing to use the word “reliance” you are confirming my original point about weakness of faith.


105 posted on 03/27/2009 10:37:59 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
"Ok, so at what point did God go 'on the clock'?"

When he created time. - Time could not have existed before the universe was created, and it only exists within the universe. - Time will cease when the universe is destroyed, at the end of the millenial reign. We will not have "time on our hands" when we are with him, face to face.

106 posted on 03/27/2009 10:38:47 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong

Thanks for an argumentative childish dodge!

The age to come cannot be a part of Earth’s past.

The Bible does not just call out a ‘previous’ age, but defines it to be the age before the judgement every time that it is mentioned.


107 posted on 03/27/2009 10:45:49 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

==By continuing to use the word “reliance” you are confirming my original point about weakness of faith.

Are you saying that Christians are not supposed to rely on the Bible in terms of salvation, morality, wisdom and history?


108 posted on 03/27/2009 10:46:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"Except all of the observational evidence to the contrary, of course!

which is obviously NOTHING!

109 posted on 03/27/2009 10:52:03 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for an argumentative childish dodge!

The age to come cannot be a part of Earth’s past.

The Bible does not just call out a ‘previous’ age, but defines it to be the age before the judgement every time that it is mentioned.

You are most welcome...and I thank you for your outstanding Christian attitude! Well done.

There is no dodge silly boy nor did I say the future is part of the past.

There was a past age...as the Bible declares in various Scripture, there is a present age...that most of us understand, there is a future age....that all Christians look forward to.

110 posted on 03/27/2009 11:32:08 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Above science but not science. Not given to us for scientific purposes.

giving fallible science priority over infallible scripture is a devaluation of scripture by definition.

Priority in what sense? In one's life - no. For finding the area of a cone, yes? Does it devalue scripture to use science for science and Scripture for Scripture?

No more than it devalues a rake to use a shovel for digging.

God says he created the Universe and everything in it in Six Days.

And from this we infer facts about anthropology, geology and paleontology? Not it's intended purpose. A category error and a misuse of Scripture.

Scientist often perform this error in reverse, we do not help ourselves by doing the same.

thanks for your reply..

111 posted on 03/27/2009 11:33:50 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Buck W.; xzins; Alamo-Girl; enat; OneWingedShark
Are you saying that Christians are not supposed to rely on the Bible in terms of salvation, morality, wisdom and history?

If I read him right (and he has accused me of reading him wrong) but IF I read him right he is saying that a literal belief in and a reliance upon scripture is a sign of weak faith.

It is funny how Buck came on this thread accusing those of us who take the Bible literally of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with us is not a Christian, and yet he comes on here and claims that those of us who believe in the literal interpretation of scripture or those of us who rely upon scripture of being weak in faith.

It would be interesting to see Buck's definition of "FAITH".

Personally I will admit to being weak in faith. But my weakness in faith will clearly not be strengthened by rejecting the words of God on the Tablets of Stone as documented by Moses.

Jesus chastised the Pharisees by saying [John 5:46-47] “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

I do not have enough "faith" to reject the words of Moses, for it would appear that a rejection of those words would go hand in hand with the ultimate rejection of the Words of Christ.

112 posted on 03/27/2009 11:38:32 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
If the scripture presents false information, then it has no spiritual value. Jesus walked on water...

Are we asking for scientific proof that He did in order to follow Him? Did some have to see miracles to follow Him?

if He did not have the power to override the laws of physics..

Yes, and you'll not find your "proof" therefore in physics.

We learn nothing about physics here, that's not the point. We cannot prove Jesus's divinity by physics; reading Newton or Feynman will not help us know Jesus. Reading Jesus will not help us know physics.

Thanks for your reply.

113 posted on 03/27/2009 11:41:51 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; GodGunsGuts; Buck W.; xzins; Alamo-Girl; enat; OneWingedShark
Are we asking for scientific proof that He did [walk on water] in order to follow Him?

No. Science would suggest that such a miracle was a physical impossibility. But merely because an event is a "physical impossibility" does not mean that it did not occur. The problem, my FRiend, is that many people use Science to prove the Bible false. There was a poster on this thread who said that while he believed in God, he did not believe that Jesus walked on water. His disbelief was apparently grounded in Science. He used his scientific knowledge to disprove (in his own mind) the miracles in the Bible.

Belief in Miracles, such as walking on water, turning water into wine, and creating the earth in 6 days, requires that we acknowledge that God is not bound by physical laws and that his miracles are not made false by empirical or circumstantial evidence which suggests either that they could not occur or that they did not occur.

Yes, and you'll not find your "proof" therefore in physics.

Neither will you.

Reading Jesus will not help us know physics.

Then why do Christian students pray before their Physics finals?

114 posted on 03/27/2009 11:55:19 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
. The problem, my FRiend, is that many people use Science to prove the Bible false.

That's as silly as using the Bible to prove science false.

why do Christian students pray before their Physics finals?

I used to pray that I would do my best before I went to bat in little league.

But I still took batting practice.

Hopefully Christian students study their school textbooks before the exam. :)

115 posted on 03/27/2009 12:06:41 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The "age" of the earth is a question pondered by Christians who do not understand that time is not constant, and in fact itself is a component of creation.

It is a foolish question which betrays the questioner's ignorance.

116 posted on 03/27/2009 12:07:40 PM PDT by Palmetto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I was not aware that Moses declaimed on the age of the earth.
117 posted on 03/27/2009 12:14:18 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
That's as silly as using the Bible to prove science false.

So are you admitting that it is silly for Science to try to show that the earth was not created in 6 days?

118 posted on 03/27/2009 12:14:28 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
I was not aware that Moses declaimed on the age of the earth.

Moses wrote Exodus. He wrote down the words of God which were on the tablets of stone. Those words specifically stated that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in SIX DAYS.

Do you believe that?

119 posted on 03/27/2009 12:16:07 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Can you provide a citation?
120 posted on 03/27/2009 12:19:27 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Yep, or that the earth is whatever age anyone infers from the Scripture. Science evaluates other science for validity, it's not qualified to take Scripture, deduce science from it, then test it scientifically. Whose deduction should they take, yours or mine? The error of deducing science from scripture can come from anyone. The use of science to then test the deduction merely compounds the error.
121 posted on 03/27/2009 12:20:54 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
Can you provide a citation?

Would it help?

If God himself said he created the heavens and the earth in SIX DAYS, would you believe it?

122 posted on 03/27/2009 12:39:35 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Hopefully clearer:

So are you admitting that it is silly for Science to try to show that the earth was not created in 6 days?

Yep, or that the earth is whatever age anyone deduces from the Scripture.

Science evaluates other science for validity, it's not qualified to take Scripture, deduce science from it, then test it scientifically.

Whose deduction should they take, yours, mine or their's?

The error of deducing science from scripture can come from anyone. The use of science to then test the deduction merely compounds the error.

123 posted on 03/27/2009 12:45:41 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Palmetto

==The “age” of the earth is a question pondered by Christians who do not understand that time is not constant, and in fact itself is a component of creation.

Boy are you WAY behind the times!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism#Starlight_and_the_Age_of_the_Universe


124 posted on 03/27/2009 12:51:10 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

==Does it devalue scripture to use science for science and Scripture for Scripture?

If it conflicts with the Bible, yes it does. For instance, science says that turning water into vintage wine in an instant is scientifically impossible. And yet, the Bible records that that is precisely what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did at the wedding feast. This is a historical, eyewitness account, and therefore takes priority over science. The same goes for the eye-witness creation account in Genesis. It was written by God Himself, and takes priority over man-made, fallible science.


125 posted on 03/27/2009 12:57:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

All excellent points, P-Marlowe. Where have you been on all these threads?!?!? Hope to see a lot more of you in the future.

All the best—GGG


126 posted on 03/27/2009 1:00:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For instance, science says that turning water into vintage wine in an instant is scientifically impossible. And yet, the Bible records that that is precisely what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did at the wedding feast. This is a historical, eyewitness account,
___________

So this story was written down at the exact time it happened by whom? Who specifically was the eyewitness who recorded this event?

Since when are eyewitnesses infallible?


127 posted on 03/27/2009 1:03:04 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If it conflicts with the Bible, yes it does. For instance, science says that turning water into vintage wine in an instant is scientifically impossible.

Given the methods available that I'm familiar with, it is. But then all that means is the method hasn't been found yet and it does not fit the current scientific model of material reality.

But then if it did fit the model, it would instantaneously no longer be a miracle. Some people ceased seeing the miracle of birth and stars and lightning when they fit into a scientific model.

Anyway, assume that if you ask science "Based on your current best models and experiments, is this possible?," the answer is "No."

Has your whole belief in God been destroyed?

Science is never finished, never claims perfection - it can change almost on a dime.

If you require science to prove your faith, then you allow science to disprove it. Our faith is perfected by God, not science.

This is a historical, eyewitness account, and therefore takes priority over science.

Historical analysis has it's tools and evidence and conclusions. And it's own limitations similar to sciences. But, the question is "what would it take for historic "proof?"

You list "eyewitness testimony" and that's good, but compare with the eyewitness testimony you have in LDS, with a shorter history and more documentation. And then there's proof battles over that.

So what would it take to historical "prove" the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ? to the majority of competent historians?

And if they find against you, has your faith left you?

Faith is informed by history, by science, by experience. But if it gives power over itself to any of these, it's no longer faith. And we're no longer lead by God.

Thanks for your reply.

128 posted on 03/27/2009 1:21:56 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"Who specifically was the eyewitness who recorded this event?"

Its really amusing to see someone who has never read the Bible trying to trash it. - And its not just the knowledge of what is written therein, but also the massive amount of numeric protection hidden in the text patterns; patterns that are so complex and improbable that only one with the power to have created all that exists could have arranged them.

God's word is unassailable to anyone with a working knowledge of the laws of probability. Savor it's beauty!

129 posted on 03/27/2009 1:31:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Are you saying that Christians are not supposed to rely on the Bible in terms of salvation, morality, wisdom and history?”

Are you saying that reliance on the literal truth of the bible is a prerequisite to being a Christian?


130 posted on 03/27/2009 1:53:37 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; GodGunsGuts
"Science is never finished, never claims perfection - it can change almost on a dime."

To those of us old enough to have witnessed 75% of what was considered scientific fact at the time of our birth being dashed on the rocks of reality, that statement is a clash of paradoxes.

Persons falsely claiming to be scientists have almost universally claimed perfection more often than not, while real scientists claim nothing, prefering modesty lest they destroy their credibility through the unavoidable error inherent in bold reasearch. Science has indeed had to spin on a dime too many times to count.

What is in contention in these threads has never been real science. Its when an impostor cloaks himself with the mantle of science to gain advantage in an ideological debate that the threads heat up.

My income has been dependent on "high technology" as it has been defined at the time, all of my adult life, so for me to reject the basis of that technology would be self-defeating. The laws of probability are a lovely thing to me, and things that are an affront to those laws, such as evolution, and socialism, I reject out of hand.

131 posted on 03/27/2009 1:55:02 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I merely asked for a citation to support your assertion. I would think a person as learned as you about things Biblical would be happy to provide the reference.

Yet you seem upset that I asked and are curiously unwilling or unable to provide it. I wonder why.

132 posted on 03/27/2009 1:55:23 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"Are you saying that reliance on the literal truth of the bible is a prerequisite to being a Christian?"

Except for those places where the Bible itself warns that allegory, or 'spirit' is being invoked, that has to be a truism. (else what could belief be!)

133 posted on 03/27/2009 1:59:10 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“...we acknowledge that God is not bound by physical laws and that his miracles are not made false by empirical or circumstantial evidence...”

Exactly. We have the reasoning ability to deduce from observation that God has brought us into being via an evolutionary process. I put no such bounds on God as to presume that his creation method would be in deniable opposition to all of the evidence that he has left behind.


134 posted on 03/27/2009 2:01:32 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: starlifter; P-Marlowe

Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, and many more places too.


135 posted on 03/27/2009 2:02:48 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"We have the reasoning ability to deduce from observation that God has brought us into being via an evolutionary process"

You say "exactly," then you post absurdity like the above?

Pathetic!

136 posted on 03/27/2009 2:04:59 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thank you.
137 posted on 03/27/2009 2:08:04 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Buck W.
“I put no such bounds on God as to presume that his creation method would be in deniable opposition to all of the evidence that he has left behind.”

Lest we quote out of context, is this similarly pathetic?

138 posted on 03/27/2009 2:10:28 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
“Agreed. For a real mind-bender, let's ask "how long did God exist before creating the universe, earth, etc?"”
I think the real question is, how much time passed before God created time?

139 posted on 03/27/2009 2:14:42 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
"is this similarly pathetic?"

Since it is demonstrably at odds with what God did say, its foolish.

140 posted on 03/27/2009 2:22:39 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Why?


141 posted on 03/27/2009 2:25:16 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
I think the real question is, how much time passed before God created time?

Yes, you said it much better.
142 posted on 03/27/2009 2:30:33 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

God’s word says in over 100 places specifically that the evolution process was prevented, and all things reproduced after their own kind. Why would his word say that if it were a lie?


143 posted on 03/27/2009 2:34:56 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Somehow I doubt the word “evolution” is to be found anywhere in the Bible.

So, I would be interested in (any of the “over 100”) citations saying, “specifically that the evolution process was prevented...”

144 posted on 03/27/2009 2:38:06 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

Search any Bible text site using the two words After, and kind, and you will get 138 matches. Read them.


145 posted on 03/27/2009 2:41:52 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Buck W.; P-Marlowe; enat
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

For those areas I rely on the thoughts of my sister, Alamo-girl, and her understanding of a few things things, to include: (1) That Eden was outside of time, and (2) that the point of the big bang, due to relativity and the speed of light, has a different place on the scale of time than does the earth. Time would pass far more on the earth, part of the rapidly expanding universe.

Sometimes I just finish the sentences - because although many if not most are aware of General Relativity, few actually think in those terms in casual conversation:

The universe is approximately 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates.

and...

The universe is 7 days old from the inception space/time coordinates.

Both statements are true when one considers General Relativity and the Inflationary Model. For more on that point, Lurkers may wish to read Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder's article on the Age of the Universe.

By my understanding, the first three chapters of Genesis are written from the Creator’s perspective: namely, God is the author and the only observer of Creation. Further, that those Scriptures speak of the creation of the spiritual realm as well as the physical realm, that Eden was preeminently in the spiritual realm. For me, the location of the tree of life [midst of both Eden and Paradise] is particularly illuminating:

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Genesis 2:9

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7

Likewise, there is no anomaly concerning Day 4 (plants before the solar system) if one understands that the Creation week is speaking of both spiritual and physical:

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5

That doesn’t however preclude a physical type or congruence between the spiritual and physical realms, e.g. the Temple, Ark and Holy Mountain.

In my understanding, the perspective of time passing (space/time coordinate) changes to man when Adam is banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.

The Jewish calendar also begins with Adam though I believe they begin counting when they believe Adam was created (as if he was created in the physical realm alone) and not when he fell. Since I perceive Genesis 1-3 speaking of both the spiritual and physical realms, and Adam being created in the spiritual realm and banished to the physical realm, I would not propose a birth date for him relative to our perspective “in” space/time.

Interestingly, we have several other discussions of time and Scripture going on:

The Dirty Little Secret Is Out: Religious Faith and Evolution Are Incompatible (post 553)

Bigotry against Mormons apparently acceptable in Utah LDS (OPEN) (post 269)

Nevertheless, I aver that a Christian must declare the Truth as he has received it.

146 posted on 03/27/2009 2:46:30 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

To be able to compare scientifically, we’d need to decide if “kind” meant species, genus, family, order, class, phylum? We’d need some method to map one term with the scientific equivalent.


147 posted on 03/27/2009 2:46:52 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; starlifter; P-Marlowe
“Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, and many more places too.”
Don't stop at verse 17!

¶ And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 31:18

God spelled it out, literally.
148 posted on 03/27/2009 2:48:30 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

You’re grasping!


149 posted on 03/27/2009 2:59:59 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

It’s a necessary for the requirements of scientific proof that your units and terms are identical.

Our grasp is in how we go from Scripture to physics.


150 posted on 03/27/2009 3:14:00 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson